# What religion were our founding fathers worshipping?



## solarefficiency

What religion were our founding fathers worshipping?  When I say founding fathers, I mean founding fathers of the United States of America - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc.?  I do not believe it was Christianity.  The original Constitution does not mention any specific reference to Christianity being the official religion of the USA.  Am I wrong?


----------



## Gungnir

Some (or most) were deist with a Christian background. Jefferson was quite clear about his contempt for the big church organizations of the day. They really tried to obscure the issue as to not provoke intra-Christianity tensions as in Europe. As it so happens that obscurity was later expanded to include non-Christian religions.


----------



## manifold

I'm not aware of any worship of religion by anyone, ever.  My understanding is that it is a deity that's being worshipped, not the institution of said worship.  Perhaps the difference is more subtle and less obvious than I would've thought.  Or maybe you're sharp as a marble.  Again, it's hard to tell.


----------



## morpheus

solarefficiency said:


> What religion were our founding fathers worshipping?  When I say founding fathers, I mean founding fathers of the United States of America - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc.?  I do not believe it was Christianity.  The original Constitution does not mention any specific reference to Christianity being the official religion of the USA.  Am I wrong?



The American Revolution was highly influenced by the European Enlightenment, which promoted separation of church and state, and religious moderation particularly in government, culture, and academia.  This movement led to the secularization of politics in various degrees, from stricter separation of chuch and state like in the United States, to retaining church-state relations _nominally_ while tolerating religious minorities, as became the case in Britain.  At the time of the Revolution, the vast majority of Americans where -then as now- nominal Christians, including the politicians who wrote the Constitution.  However, an additional factor that lead to such a separation of church and state was the desire to avoid the inter-Christian sectarian tensions seen in Europe before the Enlightenment.  Aside from the fact that -by the time of the Revolution- American society had evolved from the strict theocratic puratinism of the early 17th century, to a more liberal society by the late 18th.  Hence religion had a diminished role in contemporary life in the 1770s, relative to the 1600s.


----------



## Inferno

I know Jefferson was Unitarian. I am not certain he practiced it. I am not sure about the rest. They didn't want a religion to run the country so they didn't make a point of talking about it. They didn't put it in the documents what god they may have followed.


----------



## morpheus

Well, we know they were all nominal Christians (whatever the sect), and the term "God" appeared occasionally in official texts/slogans (ie "In God we Trust").  Of course, this could also refer to other monotheistic religions, but none of the politicians of the 1770s were Muslim, and the paradigm of the day was intra-Christian differences.


----------



## editec

The religion of revolution.

It's fallen out of favor, and been replaced with worshipping money and those what's got it, I think.


----------



## bobbymcgill

Interesting to note that the first country to recognize the U.S. was Morocco.

In the treaty signed with them their is a passage clearly stating that the U.S. was a secular nation and had no qualms with Islam.


----------



## Gungnir

I believe most of our early treaties with the Barbary States has America as an nonreligious government.


----------



## editec

The religion the FF really worshiped was rational materialism.

As a reaction to monarchism, it made great sense.

But centuries later we're beginning to realize that this philosophy has its own unique set of problematic outcomes, too.

Time for a new world philosophy for the 21st century, methinks.


----------



## Gungnir

I think we are too overpopulated for anything but an Oligarchy. Herd fascism.


----------



## editec

Gungnir said:


> I think we are too overpopulated for anything but an Oligarchy. Herd fascism.


 
Well...every nation is really basically an oligarchy pretending to be something other than that, now isn't it?

Doesn't matter what sort of government they have, or what sort of economic or social structure, the people in power become the oligarchy and inevitably that oilgarchy becomes entrenched.

American has never been anything BUT an oligarchy.


----------



## Gungnir

Well oligarchies with varying levels of liberty, there are the rare exceptions of Despots.

But the difference is like that between wealthy citizens Athens and the elites of Sparta. The Athenians would let you work and raise a family and maybe even vote (or at least your grandchildren) but would expect a service. The Spartans used you for target practice when you weren't toiling in serfdom.

Our population density is too dense for troop level sanity. People are going to have to switch over to Herd or Swarm mentality.

Just look how the Automobile screwed up the dating system.


----------



## glockmail

bobbymcgill said:


> Interesting to note that the first country to recognize the U.S. was Morocco.
> 
> In the treaty signed with them their is a passage clearly stating that the U.S. was a secular nation and had no qualms with Islam.



You are referring to Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli, that was in a draft that was omitted in the final version.


----------



## dilloduck

glockmail said:


> You are referring to Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli, that was in a draft that was omitted in the final version.



awww don't spoil their fun. The Treaty of Tripoli is one of their favorite. A well known and long respected document too. Ask any school kid.


----------



## glockmail

solarefficiency said:


> What religion were our founding fathers worshipping?  When I say founding fathers, I mean founding fathers of the United States of America - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc.?  I do not believe it was Christianity.  The original Constitution does not mention any specific reference to Christianity being the official religion of the USA.  Am I wrong?



It was Christianity, various denominations. Here's evidence of Washington:

&#8220;While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.&#8221; Head Quarters, V. Forge, Saturday, May 2, 1778. 

&#8220;All chaplains are to perform divine service tomorrow, and on every succeeding Sunday&#8230;. The commander in chief expects an exact compliance with this order, and that it be observed in future as an invariable rule of practice&#8212;and every neglect will be considered not only a breach of orders, but a disregard to decency, virtue and religion.&#8221; Head-Quarters, Middle Brook, June 28, 1777.

If anyone is attempting the &#8220;deist&#8221; argument, it falls flat in light of the public record which includes worship and prayers.


----------



## glockmail

dilloduck said:


> awww don't spoil their fun. The Treaty of Tripoli is one of their favorite. A well known and long respected document too. Ask any school kid.




Yeah, any school kid taught from the revisionist history books. Sadly, that includes most of them.


----------



## editec

I understand that many of them dipped snuff, too.

So?


----------



## sealybobo

solarefficiency said:


> What religion were our founding fathers worshipping?  When I say founding fathers, I mean founding fathers of the United States of America - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc.?  I do not believe it was Christianity.  The original Constitution does not mention any specific reference to Christianity being the official religion of the USA.  Am I wrong?



I have that somewhere.  I have an old history book from the 70's.  I think some where christians, some free mason's, some didn't believe in religion.  If someone didn't already answer you, I'll try to find the list.


----------



## sealybobo

solarefficiency said:


> What religion were our founding fathers worshipping?  When I say founding fathers, I mean founding fathers of the United States of America - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc.?  I do not believe it was Christianity.  The original Constitution does not mention any specific reference to Christianity being the official religion of the USA.  Am I wrong?



ThomHartmann.com - The Founders Confront Judge Moore

Many of the Founders and Framers believed that secular democracy is a more powerful unifying force for a decent and peaceful civil society than any religion ever was or could be. Although most were spiritual in their own ways, and many were also openly religious, as students of history the Founders and Framers knew the damage that organized religion could do when it gained access to the reigns of political power. 
While our Founders were well schooled in the history of the Crusades they also knew from first-hand experience how oppressive religious men could be with even small amounts of political power. Ben Franklin fled Boston when he was a teenager in part to escape the oppressive environment created by politically powerful preachers, and for the rest of his life was openly hostile to the idea of secular political power being wielded by those who also hold religious power. Although he was enthralled by the "mystery" of the spiritual experience, Franklin had little use for the organized religions of the day. In his autobiographical "Toward The Mystery," he wrote, "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." 
Franklin - like most of the more well-known Founders - was a Deist, a philosophy made popular by early Unitarians who held that the Creator made the universe long ago and has since chosen not to interfere in any way, that neither Jesus nor anybody else was divine (or, alternatively, that we are all divine and shall all do as Jesus did and said we would), and that there is only one God and not three. 
Another founding Deist who resisted giving political power to those with religious power was George Washington. 
On the topic of Washington's religious sentiments, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his personal diary entry for February 1, 1799, "when the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the Government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so.


----------



## Shogun

final draft?  what?  cite your source, glockmail.


ARTICLE 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 Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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. 

The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796


----------



## Reality

In a single statement, most were Deists with Euro Christian upbringings. Jefferson talked rather openly about Deism. Largely Creationists without believing in a living God that effects present. Since they were by and large children of the Enlightenment, they were struggling with God vs. reason much like France did.


----------



## glockmail

Reality said:


> In a single statement, most were Deists with Euro Christian upbringings. Jefferson talked rather openly about Deism. Largely Creationists without believing in a living God that effects present. Since they were by and large children of the Enlightenment, they were struggling with God vs. reason much like France did.


Proved to be bullshit per facts in evidence, post 16.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> final draft?  what?  cite your source, glockmail.
> 
> 
> ARTICLE 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 Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.
> 
> The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796





> ARTICLE 11th
> The Commerce between the United States of America and the Regency of Tripoli; The Protections to be given to Merchants, Masters of Vessels and Seamen; The reciprocal right of establishing Consuls in each Country; and the priviledges, immunities and jurisdictions to be enjoyed by such Consuls, are declared to be on the same footing, with those of the most favoured Nations respectively.


The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty of Peace and Amity, Signed at Tripoli June 4, 1805


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Proved to be bullshit per facts in evidence, post 16.



did you want to go ahead and cite your source regarding your statement about the Treaty of Tripoli?  


ps.. washington wasn't the father of our constitution..  It's a goddamn joke to assume that notes from his single example indicates more than the first fucking amendment.


----------



## AllieBaba

sealybobo said:


> I have that somewhere.  I have an old history book from the 70's.  I think some where christians, some free mason's, some didn't believe in religion.  If someone didn't already answer you, I'll try to find the list.



Er...freemason isn't a religion.

Christian is anything that's not a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc. (They believe in a resurrected Christ, the son of God).

It can't be that hard. I'm guessing Protestant as in CHurch of England, Episcopalian, Lutheran.....crap, now I've got to look.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty of Peace and Amity, Signed at Tripoli June 4, 1805



The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816



glockmail said:


> You are referring to Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli, that was in a draft that was omitted in the final version.



I think that you might wanna go ahead and read about the treaties before you leap to bullshit assumptions about some "first draft" theory", yo...


----------



## AllieBaba

Gosh, that was hard.

Here's a chart. I haven't looked hard at it...Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Quaker, Dutch Reformed/German Reformed, Lutheran, Catholic, Huguenot, Unitarian, Methodist, Calvinist.
Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

"_The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s_."


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you might wanna go ahead and read about the treaties before you leap to bullshit assumptions about some "first draft" theory", yo...




Likewise. Except I've actually read up on it. You were apparently unaware of the 1805 revision and that the draft, which included your cited Article 11, ended up in the trash can.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> ....
> 
> ps.. washington wasn't the father of our constitution..  It's a goddamn joke to assume that notes from his single example indicates more than the first fucking amendment.


You're getting testy already. Perhaps you can cite original text of a Founder that states he was a Deist.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Likewise. Except I've actually read up on it. You were apparently unaware of the 1805 revision and that the draft, which included your cited Article 11, ended up in the trash can.



dude.. it's a conglomerate of individual treaties.  One of which, in fact, included an article 11 while RATIFIED by the US congress.

Your link doesn't say shit about anything being in the trash can.  It doesn't even REMOTELY suggest that.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> You're getting testy already. Perhaps you can cite original text of a Founder that states he was a Deist.





In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian[4], but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, "*I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know*."
Jefferson's Religious Beliefs - Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia



enjoy.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> dude.. it's a conglomerate of individual treaties.  One of which, in fact, included an article 11 while RATIFIED by the US congress.
> 
> Your link doesn't say shit about anything being in the trash can.  It doesn't even REMOTELY suggest that.




My link has the text of the updated treaty, with a revised article 11. It was also the same website as your link, by the way; I just did some open-minded research to see what the latest agreement was.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian[4], but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles Ely, "*I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know*."
> Jefferson's Religious Beliefs - Thomas Jefferson Encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> enjoy.



It is well know that Jefferson began to question his faith during his later years. However during most of his life his writings are of a true believer:

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

&#8220;God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.&#8221; [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

&#8220;It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." 
[Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> My link has the text of the updated treaty, with a revised article 11. It was also the same website as your link, by the way; I just did some open-minded research to see what the latest agreement was.



*In the half century from 1786 to 1836 the United States made nine treaties with the Barbary States, as they were then called: Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. Seven of those treaties appear in the present volume (Documents 14, 17, 20, 21, 31, 34, and 37).
*

same link. first paragraph.  "0pen minded" my ass.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> It is well know that Jefferson began to question his faith during his later years. However during most of his life his writings are of a true believer:
> 
> "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]
> 
> God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever. [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]
> 
> It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
> [Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]



You clearly have a problem with the FACT of Jefferson's aversion to a conformity of faith under your opinion of christianity.  After all, it takes a real believer to rewrite the bible by removing all statements denoting the theology of your faith.



and, please... quoting snippets is just not impressive...


a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, *that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw.* They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. *If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side. And I wish could subjoin a translation of Gosindi's Syntagma of the doctrines of Epicurus, which, notwithstanding the calumnies of the Stoics and caricatures of Cicero, is the most rational system remaining of the philosophy of the ancients, as frugal of vicious indulgence, and fruitful of virtue as the hyperbolical extravagances of his rival sects.*

Letters


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> *In the half century from 1786 to 1836 the United States made nine treaties with the Barbary States, as they were then called: Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. Seven of those treaties appear in the present volume (Documents 14, 17, 20, 21, 31, 34, and 37).
> *
> 
> same link. first paragraph.  "0pen minded" my ass.



None of the other 7 treaties has the non-Christian language either.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> You clearly have a problem with the FACT of Jefferson's aversion to a conformity of faith under your opinion of christianity. ...


 Anyone with an intelligent, open mind would have an "aversion to a conformity of faith". This does not make one a deist.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> None of the other 7 treaties has the non-Christian language either.



yet the treaty of tripoli IS specifically mentioned and WAS ratified by congress and IS applicable.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Anyone with an intelligent, open mind would have an "aversion to a conformity of faith". This does not make one a deist.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

oh yes, dude... NOTHING says CHRISTIAN quite like specifically saying *"very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw."*


your opinions mean two things, dude.  Jack and shit.


feel free to peruse the Monticello website.  There is an entire page dedicated to the ambiguity of Jefferson's faith.

but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury. Thus in the spirit of the Descent from the Cross by Frans Floris; photographed by Edward Owen.Enlightenment, he made the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
*
Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error." Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.*

Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, *but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity.* *He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ,* but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian, *but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs.* On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

http://www.monticello.org/reports/interests/religion.html


----------



## Ravi

solarefficiency said:


> What religion were our founding fathers worshipping?  When I say founding fathers, I mean founding fathers of the United States of America - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc.?  I do not believe it was Christianity.  The original Constitution does not mention any specific reference to Christianity being the official religion of the USA.  Am I wrong?


Why does it matter? Even if they practiced voodoo it wouldn't change anything.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> yet the treaty of tripoli IS specifically mentioned and WAS ratified by congress and IS applicable.


Only the latest one is applicable. That doesn't include the anti-Christian language. Fell free to keep your head firmly in sand though.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> oh yes, dude... NOTHING says CHRISTIAN quite like specifically saying *"very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw."*
> 
> 
> your opinions mean two things, dude.  Jack and shit.
> 
> 
> feel free to peruse the Monticello website.  There is an entire page dedicated to the ambiguity of Jefferson's faith.
> 
> but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury. Thus in the spirit of the Descent from the Cross by Frans Floris; photographed by Edward Owen.Enlightenment, he made the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
> *
> Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error." Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.*
> 
> Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, *but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity.* *He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ,* but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian, *but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs.* On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles, "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
> 
> Monticello Report: Jefferson's Religious Beliefs


  So what? In order to qualify as a deist one must not simply doubt intermittently, but refuse to believe, that God listens to prayers of men and responds accordingly. The Jefferson quotes I cited demonstrated his belief in The Christ.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Only the latest one is applicable. That doesn't include the anti-Christian language. Fell free to keep your head firmly in sand though.



there IS no "latest", dude...  That link doesn't disregard the whole list of each individual treaty.

and yes, the TRIPOLI treaty does, in fact, include the verification that the US is in no way, shape or form a "christian" nation.  Indeed, try wrapping the facts around your opinion some more, dude.  It's pretty typical, really.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> So what? In order to qualify as a deist one must not simply doubt intermittently, but refuse to believe, that God listens to prayers of men and responds accordingly. The Jefferson quotes I cited demonstrated his belief in The Christ.




you are laughably wrong.  Do you even know what the hell a deist is?  a deist is NOT an athiest.  JEFFERSON DID NOT BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS THE SON OF ANY GOD.  for fucks sake, read the goddamn montecello website.

ONE MORE TIME
*

Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.*

Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, *but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ*


so what indeed.. again, TYPICAL dogma junky response.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> there IS no "latest", dude...  That link doesn't disregard the whole list of each individual treaty.
> 
> and yes, the TRIPOLI treaty does, in fact, include the verification that the US is in no way, shape or form a "christian" nation.  Indeed, try wrapping the facts around your opinion some more, dude.  It's pretty typical, really.


The treaty of 1805 supersedes the earlier.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> ....Do you even know what the hell a deist is?  ......





> deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe


 m-w.com



> In order to qualify as a deist one must not simply doubt intermittently, but refuse to believe, that God listens to prayers of men and responds accordingly.


 Post 43

Looks like Ive got it nailed down.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> The treaty of 1805 supersedes the earlier.



no, it really doesn't.  Again, the SAME LINK specifically mentions the treaty of tripoli and doesn't, in any way shape or form outside of your dogma junky opinion, replace any individual treaty.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> m-w.com
> 
> Post 43
> 
> Looks like Ive got it nailed down.



HA!

you wish, dude.. say, what does "*but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ
*" mean in english?


I assure you, no one cares what YOU think qualifies one as a deist.. especially when his re-writing of the bible SANS MIRACLES is about as  "emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe" as it gets..


check mate thumper!


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> no, it really doesn't.  .....


  Actually it does. That's why the treaty was written.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> ....
> 
> 
> I assure you, no one cares what YOU think qualifies one as a deist....



It's not my definition, but Merriam-Websters.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Actually it does. That's why the treaty was written.



dude.  you can't just assume something without backing it up.  THAT SAME LINK you posted specifically mentions that EACH individual treaty with EACH INDIVIDUAL BARBARY NATION remains applicable.  Even if your dogma junky mentality refuses to accept that.  YOUR OWN LINK specifically includes Tripoli in the first fucking paragraph.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> It's not my definition, but Merriam-Websters.



go tell it to the Jefferson estate at Montecello, dude.. clearly, you and miriam webster are better qualified to decide ole Tom's personal faith!



like I said.. CHECK MATE, THUMPER.


----------



## Shogun

The Barbary Treaties :
Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816 - Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211). Original in Arabic. Submitted to the Senate May 29, 1797. (Message of May 26, 1797.) Resolution of advice and consent June 7, 1797. Ratified by the United States June 10, 1797. As to the ratification generally, see the notes. Proclaimed Jane 10, 1797.
*
In the half century from 1786 to 1836 the United States made nine treaties with the Barbary States, as they were then called: Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.*
The Avalon Project : The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816


this is why no one takes you dogma junkies seriously in ANY kind of educational setting, dude.  You are too wrapped up on your dogma to comprehend why it's called the Barbary TREATIES.  PLURAL.  There is no FINAL TREATY.  No FINAL DRAFT.  It's a collection of 9 fucking documents with 9 different nations.  One of which was Tripoli.  The same that was ratified by CONGRESS with the exact wording that you don't want to face as a fact.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> dude.  you can't just assume something without backing it up.  THAT SAME LINK you posted specifically mentions that EACH individual treaty with EACH INDIVIDUAL BARBARY NATION remains applicable.  Even if your dogma junky mentality refuses to accept that.  YOUR OWN LINK specifically includes Tripoli in the first fucking paragraph.



The 1806 Ttreaty is between the &#8220;President and Citizens of the United States of America, on the one part, and the Bashaw, Bey and Subjects of the Regency of Tripoli in Barbary on the other&#8230;&#8221;

This supersedes the 1796 Treaty &#8220;between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli of Barbary&#8230;&#8221;

It&#8217;s really not that difficult to understand.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> go tell it to the Jefferson estate at Montecello, dude.. clearly, you and miriam webster are better qualified to decide ole Tom's personal faith!
> 
> 
> 
> like I said.. CHECK MATE, THUMPER.



I see you keep using the Al Gore defense. How special. 

However Jefferson's original words, as well as the definition of deism from Merriam-Webster, speak for themselves. 

So since youve given up on Washington and Jefferson, perhaps you could try another Founder for deism.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> The 1806 Ttreaty is between the President and Citizens of the United States of America, on the one part, and the Bashaw, Bey and Subjects of the Regency of Tripoli in Barbary on the other
> 
> This supersedes the 1796 Treaty between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli of Barbary
> 
> Its really not that difficult to understand.



no, it doesn't supersede shit, dude.  What is not difficult to understand is your total lack of evidence to suggest anything of the sort while trying to pass off your bullshit opinion as fact.  

again, typical thumper routine.. 


i know i know.. WHO CARES what the actual barbary treaties, ratified by congress, stated just like the evidence at Montecello and Jefferson's own statements just don't usurp your opinon and miriam webster!






again, this is why no one in academia gives a rats ass about your bible junkie input.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> I see you keep using the Al Gore defense. How special.
> 
> However Jefferson's original words, as well as the definition of deism from Merriam-Webster, speak for themselves.
> 
> So since youve given up on Washington and Jefferson, perhaps you could try another Founder for deism.



I quoted Jefferson's original words..  Remember, IM THE ONE who isn't relying on surgical snippets in order to wrap an opinion around the facts.  Indeed, jeffersons words DO speak for themselves.. and they say that you are full of shit.


and, I haven't given up on Jefferson at all.  I've stomped a mudhole in your ass by his example.. and, since he was the man that wrote the documents, I'll go ahead and rest on the laurels of his evidence.


SERVED.


----------



## glockmail

The evidence is right in the original text as cited, a dictionary of the English language in use for centuries, and a smattering of common sense.

Now about those other Founders?


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> The evidence is right in the original text as cited, a dictionary of the English language in use for centuries, and a smattering of common sense.
> 
> Now about those other Founders?




evidence my ass.  See, you can't even offer ANYTHING outside of your own conveluded opinion.  No, proving your assertion is NOT a matter of common sense.  This is why there is a giant five fingered handprint on your face given the specific quotes I was able to post FROM YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK.




I believe the correct net terminology would be PWNED



and, other founding fathers did you say?


Ben Franklin from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography

Before I enter upon my public appearance in business it may be well to let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those influenced the future events of my life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. *But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns several points as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of the Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of the sermons which had been preached at Boyles Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them. For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.* My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but each of these having wronged me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keiths conduct towards me (who was another freethinker), and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, though it might be true, was not very useful.








KA-BLAM, thumper!


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> no, it doesn't supersede shit, dude.  What is not difficult to understand is your total lack of evidence to suggest anything of the sort while trying to pass off your bullshit opinion as fact.
> 
> again, typical thumper routine..
> 
> 
> i know i know.. WHO CARES what the actual barbary treaties, ratified by congress, stated just like the evidence at Montecello and Jefferson's own statements just don't usurp your opinon and miriam webster!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, this is why no one in academia gives a rats ass about your bible junkie input.



I'm really curious..how many do you know in "academia"?

You are aware that quite a few academics are "bible junkies" as you so elegantly put it?


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> I'm really curious..how many do you know in "academia"?
> 
> You are aware that quite a few academics are "bible junkies" as you so elegantly put it?



tell it to the biology class, baba.  oh wait.. YOU HAVE NO REASON TO THINK anyone cares about your origin theory!

oooops.


----------



## AllieBaba

So you don't know anyone in academia, right? Talking out your butt again?


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> evidence my ass.  See, you can't even offer ANYTHING outside of your own conveluded opinion.  No, proving your assertion is NOT a matter of common sense.  This is why there is a giant five fingered handprint on your face given the specific quotes I was able to post FROM YOUR OWN FUCKING LINK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the correct net terminology would be PWNED
> 
> 
> 
> and, other founding fathers did you say?
> 
> 
> Ben Franklin from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography
> 
> Before I enter upon my public appearance in business it may be well to let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those influenced the future events of my life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. *But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns several points as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of the Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of the sermons which had been preached at Boyles Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them. For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.* My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but each of these having wronged me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keiths conduct towards me (who was another freethinker), and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, though it might be true, was not very useful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KA-BLAM, thumper!



Lookie here, some quotes from the older, wiser Ben, who grew up past his bout with deism:

"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?"Benjamin Franklin 

"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of a primitive Christianity, will change the face of the world"Benjamin Franklin 

"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this."Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention 

There may be hope for you yet, but I doubt it.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> So you don't know anyone in academia, right? Talking out your butt again?



take it to Kansas, baba.  I live in a college town.  I drink with profs quite a bit.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Lookie here, some quotes from the older, wiser Ben, who grew up past his bout with deism:
> 
> "I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?"Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of a primitive Christianity, will change the face of the world"Benjamin Franklin
> 
> "Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this."Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention
> 
> There may be hope for you yet, but I doubt it.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


yea... go ahead and IGNORE the mans AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  I mean, it's ONLY the man's OWN words about his OWN life!  Of COURSE you know better than he did about his faith!



Deists believe in a god, thumper.. otherwise, they'd be atheists.  However, this doesn't mean that they were anything CLOSE to christians.  Your feeble attempts to claim Franklin and Jefferson would be laughable were they not so pathetic.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
> 
> 
> yea... go ahead and IGNORE the mans AUTOBIOGRAPHY.  I mean, it's ONLY the man's OWN words about his OWN life!  Of COURSE you know better than he did about his faith!
> 
> 
> 
> Deists believe in a god, thumper.. otherwise, they'd be atheists.  However, this doesn't mean that they were anything CLOSE to christians.  Your feeble attempts to claim Franklin and Jefferson would be laughable were they not so pathetic.



You cited something that he wrote as a boy. I quoted his words when he was a Founder.


----------



## editec

Shogun said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
> 
> 
> yea... go ahead and IGNORE the mans AUTOBIOGRAPHY. I mean, it's ONLY the man's OWN words about his OWN life! Of COURSE you know better than he did about his faith!


 
Ben's famous autobiography was .._er.. _how shall I say this without sounding like I'm being harsh?

Well, let's just say he was far from being his own worst critic, and he _knew _his audience. Ben Franklin knew how to play a crowd, folks.

He's without a doubt my favorite 18th century American.

But the man wasn't above pulling the wool over our eyes if it suited his public image -- an image he knew was an important part of his success. 





> Deists believe in a god, thumper.. otherwise, they'd be atheists. However, this doesn't mean that they were anything CLOSE to christians. Your feeble attempts to claim Franklin and Jefferson would be laughable were they not so pathetic.


 
The thing about Franklin and Jefferson was they were so inconstant, that everyone of any political stripe can own part of them.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> You are referring to Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli, that was in a draft that was omitted in the final version.


Nope. The *FINAL* draft of the 1st Treaty Of Tripoli, was voted upon and passed unanimously--including Article 11.

It wasn't in the second Treaty of Tripoli--a different treaty.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> Nope. The *FINAL* draft of the 1st Treaty Of Tripoli, was voted upon and passed unanimously--including Article 11.
> 
> It wasn't in the second Treaty of Tripoli--a different treaty.


 The second treaty superseded the first and corrected the obvious known error.


----------



## glockmail

By the way LOki, I'm curious as to the symbolism of your avatar. What is your interpretation of it?


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> You cited something that he wrote as a boy. I quoted his words when he was a Founder.



you've obviously never read the fucking book.  I have.  It was written over many periods in his life that BEGAN as an adult.


----------



## Shogun

editec said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
> yea... go ahead and IGNORE the mans AUTOBIOGRAPHY. I mean, it's ONLY the man's OWN words about his OWN life! Of COURSE you know better than he did about his faith!
> 
> 
> 
> Ben's famous autobiography was .._er.. _how shall I say this without sounding like I'm being harsh?
> Well, let's just say he was far from being his own worst critic, and he _knew _his audience. Ben Franklin knew how to play a crowd, folks.
> He's without a doubt my favorite 18th century American.
> But the man wasn't above pulling the wool over our eyes if it suited his public image -- an image he knew was an important part of his success.
> 
> The thing about Franklin and Jefferson was they were so inconstant, that everyone of any political stripe can own part of them.
Click to expand...





Oh im a big fan too.. Hell, his Silence Dogood would have been the original media troll.  But, to assume either he or jefferson were "christian" is a knee slapping joke since both of these men were the product of the age of enlightenment.  Hell, from Franklin's scientific resolve to Jefferson's complete cut and paste job of the new testament it's an abysmal excercise in historic masterbation to even REMOTELY suggest that these men were "christian".


Notice which of the debating sides in this little tangent relies on evidence and which relies on thick skulled repeated bullshit as if his opinion means more than facts..


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> you've obviously never read the fucking book.  I have.  It was written over many periods in his life that BEGAN as an adult.


Actually I recently read this one: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/First-American-Times-Benjamin-Franklin/dp/0385493282]Amazon.com: The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin: H.W. Brands: Books[/ame]


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> The second treaty superseded the first and corrected the obvious known error.



You are simply mind numbingly wrong.  There WAS NOT SECOND TREATY.  The BARBARY TREATIES ARE A COLLECTION OF TREATIES WITH INDIVIDUAL STATES including TRIPOLI.

you've been served, sucker.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Actually I recently read this one: Amazon.com: The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin: H.W. Brands: Books



I suggest you put the autobiography on your list and forget about how some authors interpretation says more than his own words.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> You are simply mind numbingly wrong.  There WAS NOT SECOND TREATY.  The BARBARY TREATIES ARE A COLLECTION OF TREATIES WITH INDIVIDUAL STATES including TRIPOLI.
> 
> you've been served, sucker.


 Post 55.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> I suggest you put the autobiography on your list and forget about how some authors interpretation says more than his own words.



I quoted Franklin's own words that proved he was a Christian during the critical time in history. 

Which Founder will you attempt to wrongly portray next?


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Post 55.



post 55 is your conjecture about what YOU think applies with nary the slighest scrap of evidence beyond your goofy opinion.  here it is:
*
The 1806 Ttreaty is between the President and Citizens of the United States of America, on the one part, and the Bashaw, Bey and Subjects of the Regency of Tripoli in Barbary on the other

This supersedes the 1796 Treaty between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli of Barbary

Its really not that difficult to understand.*


post your evidence, dude.  or go sit in the corner and think about why you've been given Das Boot.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> I quoted Franklin's own words that proved he was a Christian during the critical time in history.
> 
> Which Founder will you attempt to wrongly portray next?



no, you really didn't.  You posted some surgical cut and paste that you think indicates more than his own autobiographical words do.  I mean, hell.. believe what you want.  If some jewish zombie in the sky promises you heaven then feel free to believe it.  BUT, the fact remains that a man who was a product of the age of ENLIGHTENMENT who says, in his own goddamn autobio, that he was a deist trumps your typical dogma junkie attempt at assimilating everything despite reality.


and, since i've spanked you with both Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin it's not necessary at all to use anyone else.  Deny what you will... but Montecello and Ole Ben prove you wrong all day long.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> post 55 is your conjecture about what YOU think applies with nary the slighest scrap of evidence beyond your goofy opinion.  here it is:
> *
> The 1806 Ttreaty is between the President and Citizens of the United States of America, on the one part, and the Bashaw, Bey and Subjects of the Regency of Tripoli in Barbary on the other
> 
> This supersedes the 1796 Treaty between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli of Barbary
> 
> Its really not that difficult to understand.*
> 
> 
> post your evidence, dude.  or go sit in the corner and think about why you've been given Das Boot.


  The "evidence" is that the second treaty is between the same parties, and contains nearly identical language, with Article 11 removed in its entirety from the first.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> no, you really didn't.  You posted some surgical cut and paste that you think indicates more than his own autobiographical words do.  I mean, hell.. believe what you want.  If some jewish zombie in the sky promises you heaven then feel free to believe it.  BUT, the fact remains that a man who was a product of the age of ENLIGHTENMENT who says, in his own goddamn autobio, that he was a deist trumps your typical dogma junkie attempt at assimilating everything despite reality.
> 
> 
> and, since i've spanked you with both Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin it's not necessary at all to use anyone else.  Deny what you will... but Montecello and Ole Ben prove you wrong all day long.



Again, what Ben wrote while he was a Founder supersedes what he wrote as a boy, questioning his beliefs like most open-minded people do.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> The "evidence" is that the second treaty is between the same parties, and contains nearly identical language, with Article 11 removed in its entirety from the first.



again, you are simply wrong.  there was no "second treaty" to sum up the range of treaties that are referred to as the TREAT*IES*.

it;s cool, dude.. it's pretty obvious that you have nothing more to add.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Again, what Ben wrote while he was a Founder supersedes what he wrote as a boy, questioning his beliefs like most open-minded people do.



thats your BELIEF.  It's not based on anything beyond your opinion.  Again, read the autobiography.  He didn't start is "as a boy" and he sure as hell wasn't trying to give you secret hints by leaving his mention of deism in his draft.  


again, open minded my ass.  You are doing nothing more than what christians typically do when faced with facts: trying to polish the turd of your own lack of credible evidence.


PWNED.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> again, you are simply wrong.  there was no "second treaty" to sum up the range of treaties that are referred to as the TREAT*IES*.
> 
> it;s cool, dude.. it's pretty obvious that you have nothing more to add.





Shogun said:


> thats your BELIEF.  It's not based on anything beyond your opinion.  Again, read the autobiography.  He didn't start is "as a boy" and he sure as hell wasn't trying to give you secret hints by leaving his mention of deism in his draft.
> 
> 
> again, open minded my ass.  You are doing nothing more than what christians typically do when faced with facts: trying to polish the turd of your own lack of credible evidence.
> 
> 
> PWNED.



1. Again, the 1806 treaty superseded the earlier version, as previously stated.
2. Again, Franklins own words and actions during the period in question identify him as a Christian.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> 1. Again, the 1806 treaty superseded the earlier version, as previously stated.
> 2. Again, Franklins own words and actions during the period in question identify him as a Christian.



1. you have no evidence of this outside of your bullshit assumptions

2. No, franklin's own words made him a deist.  I'll post the exact quote, non-surgical, if you need to see it.


----------



## glockmail

When you have something new to say then I'll address it.


----------



## Shogun

HA!

thats rich coming from the dudes whose sole "proof" is making reference to an empty post 55!




you haven't "addressed" anything since having your ass handed to you back when we were still on Jefferson.  But, again, by all means.. believe what you want.  Considering your domga it sure doesn't take much.  Just sprinkle some jesus on it and BAM! it's "christian".


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> The second treaty superseded the first and corrected the obvious known error.


There was no error in the first--it was not a draft for a later treaty--as unarguably demonstrated by being passed by the unanimous vote of the Senate, and signed into law by the President.

There were different conditions and issues surrounding the writiing, and (entirely separate) ratification of the second treaty--the second treaty was a different treaty, which is why it's called "The Second Treaty of Tripoli" rather than "The Amended Treaty of Tripoli".



glockmail said:


> By the way LOki, I'm curious as to the symbolism of your avatar. What is your interpretation of it?


I am unaware any symbolism attached to my avatar; you clearly perceive some--feel free to share.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> There was no error in the first--it was not a draft for a later treaty--as unarguably demonstrated by being passed by the unanimous vote of the Senate, and signed into law by the President.
> 
> There were different conditions and issues surrounding the writiing, and (entirely separate) ratification of the second treaty--the second treaty was a different treaty, which is why it's called "The Second Treaty of Tripoli" rather than "The Amended Treaty of Tripoli".
> 
> I am unaware any symbolism attached to my avatar; you clearly perceive some--feel free to share.


 1. The first treaty was hastily assembled in order to end an expensive war that the fledgling US could not afford. When the aggressor didnt abide by the terms, and in fact declared war, the US engaged the enemy on August 1, decimating her flagship and humiliating her captain. The conflict lasted four years until US Marines ventured a land attack, threatening Tripolis throne. The new treaty, negotiated under much more favorable conditions, completely eliminated the notorious Article 11.
2. Im curious as to why you would claim that, having used the same image for several years now. Was it chosen at random?


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> *1. The first treaty was hastily assembled in order to end an expensive war that the fledgling US could not afford. When the aggressor didnt abide by the terms, and in fact declared war, the US engaged the enemy on August 1, decimating her flagship and humiliating her captain. The conflict lasted four years until US Marines ventured a land attack, threatening Tripolis throne. The new treaty, negotiated under much more favorable conditions, completely eliminated the notorious Article 11.*
> 2. Im curious as to why you would claim that, having used the same image for several years now. Was it chosen at random?



cite your source.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> 1. The first treaty was hastily assembled in order to end an expensive war that the fledgling US could not afford.


I don't think this is entirely true--I don't think you do either.



glockmail said:


> When the aggressor didn&#8217;t abide by the terms, and in fact declared war, the US engaged the enemy on August 1, decimating her flagship and humiliating her captain. The conflict lasted four years until US Marines ventured a land attack, threatening Tripoli&#8217;s throne.


See what I mean? It seems you pretty clearly understand that "the fledgling US" could indeed afford the expensive war--that we actually did.



glockmail said:


> The new treaty,...


What? A new treaty, you say? A different treaty? Negotiating some different issues, under different conditions and circumstances, perhaps? *Not* the original treaty?



glockmail said:


> ...negotiated under much more favorable conditions, completely eliminated the notorious Article 11.


New conditions you say...because it's a different treaty, rather than the same old treaty, addressing the same old issues, just "revised"?

Would you please be careful to note that there is still an Article 11 in The Second Treaty of Tripoli. It discusses a different issue, however.  You might then focus your attention upon Article 14 of the Second Treaty of Tripoli, which more closely follows the vein of Article 11 of the First Treaty of Tripoli.  You'll note, that rather than being actually "eliminated" (with some statement like, "Oh, by the way, you remember how we formerly said our nation was in no way founded on the Christian religion?  Now we're saying the founding of our nation is completely steeped in the Christian religion. FYI."), the conditions of the founding of our nation were not mentioned, having already been properly explained in the First Treaty of Tripoli, and not at all changed by the new conditions the new treaty was negotiated under.

In any case, nothing in the Second Treaty of Tripoli in any way reverses the the claims made, in the First Treaty of Tripoli, by our government regarding the founding of our nation. NOTHING.



glockmail said:


> 2. I&#8217;m curious as to why you would claim that,..


I might suggest that the reason I said that I am unaware of any symbolism attached to my avatar, is that I am in fact unaware of any symbolism attached to my avatar.



glockmail said:


> ...having used the same image for several years now.


I suppose, for me, it still looks cool after all these years. 



glockmail said:


> Was it chosen at random?


No.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> cite your source.


Post 87


----------



## Inferno

George Washington  Religion: Anglican/Episcopal
Country Information, a world portal on countries, politics and governments

Benjamin Franklin was raised as an Episcopalian but was a Deist as an adult.
The religion of Benjamin Franklin, founding father

John Adams  Religion: Unitarian
john adams religion - Google Search

Thomas Jefferson  Religion: Deist
Thomas Jefferson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Post 87



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


typical.  You've had your ass handed to you and you think 




glockmail said:


> When you have something new to say then I'll address it.




impresses anyone?

Like I said.. TYPICAL dogma junkie in action.


NEXT!


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> I don't think this is entirely true--I don't think you do either.
> 
> See what I mean? It seems you pretty clearly understand that "the fledgling US" could indeed afford the expensive war--that we actually did.
> 
> What? A new treaty, you say? A different treaty? Negotiating some different issues, under different conditions and circumstances, perhaps? *Not* the original treaty?
> 
> New conditions you say...because it's a different treaty, rather than the same old treaty, addressing the same old issues, just "revised"?
> 
> Would you please be careful to note that there is still an Article 11 in The Second Treaty of Tripoli. It discusses a different issue, however.  You might then focus your attention upon Article 14 of the Second Treaty of Tripoli, which more closely follows the vein of Article 11 of the First Treaty of Tripoli.  You'll note, that rather than being actually "eliminated" (with some statement like, "Oh, by the way, you remember how we formerly said our nation was in no way founded on the Christian religion?  Now we're saying the founding of our nation is completely steeped in the Christian religion. FYI."), the conditions of the founding of our nation were not mentioned, having already been properly explained in the First Treaty of Tripoli, and not at all changed by the new conditions the new treaty was negotiated under.
> 
> In any case, nothing in the Second Treaty of Tripoli in any way reverses the the claims made, in the First Treaty of Tripoli, by our government regarding the founding of our nation. NOTHING.
> 
> I might suggest that the reason I said that I am unaware of any symbolism attached to my avatar, is that I am in fact unaware of any symbolism attached to my avatar.
> 
> I suppose, for me, it still looks cool after all these years.
> 
> No.



1.	It is entirely true. Perhaps you misunderstood because I did not tell you the first treaty also included $56,000 tribute payments to the sultans, which was then considered reasonable, but the pasha of Tripoli demanded more along with a new treaty. This demand arrived on the new President Jeffersons desk in March 1801, and Tripoli declared war shortly thereafter, and the US engaged them a few months later on August 1, 1801. The four or five years between the first military engagement and the second allowed the US to build up its Navy and become a potent fighting force. 
2.	Semantics aside, the Article 14 of which you refer simply recognizes religious differences between the two parties, then goes on to forbid prohibitions of free exercise thereof. The former Article 11 has been completely eliminated.
3.	I would suggest that your avatar looks like a horses teeth with Day Glo ink smears above it. What does it look like to you?


----------



## glockmail

Inferno said:


> .......
> Thomas Jefferson  Religion: Deist
> ....



Do these sound like quotes from a deist?



> "I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man..."
> 
> "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
> 
> "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.
> 
> "Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus."


 
Each one is from Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## Shogun

is it any wonder why dogma junkies often believe in snake oil?


Glock has ZERO evidence to offer and he knows he's been schooled in this thread.


like I said.. NEXT!


----------



## Uknow_me72

solarefficiency said:


> What religion were our founding fathers worshipping?  When I say founding fathers, I mean founding fathers of the United States of America - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc.?  I do not believe it was Christianity.  The original Constitution does not mention any specific reference to Christianity being the official religion of the USA.  Am I wrong?



The were worshipping humanism, most people say they Protestent Christians, and the Catholics went up to Canada and down to Mexico, thus the vatican which is Catholic but is a rewritten Christian surrounded the area. The area was surround by the religions so that they all may be under the same control group. Which is where the secret societies are from which is the Roman Catholic Church and all they do is send the missionaries out to control the people and their beliefs so that they may take over the world.

Religions are only control groups that are disguesed to be the word of God. The word of God has no label. It has no group.
All religions now are Humanistic and not Aetherial.

Beware...
You must climb out of the box, if you try to use rationalize in the box they have created for you, you will never get out off the box, no matter how many times that you think you have. You must climb up and out and ask those questions that really needs answers. 

Jehovah or YHWH call him and ask him. You will get your awnser some way, just do not ignore it.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Do these sound like quotes from a deist?
> 
> 
> 
> *1.* "I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2.* "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3.* "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4.* "Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yes. Consistent with a Deist perspective, Jefferson did not assert the divinty of Christ with this quote. You should look into the Jeffersonian Bible, Mr. Jefferson-was-no-Deist.
Yes. Consistent with a Deist perspective, Jefferson did not assert the divinty of Christ with this quote--although he does present his belief in God; also consistent with Deism.
Yes. Consistent with a Deist perspective, Jefferson did not assert the divinty of Christ with this quote. He certainly made a point regarding the frendliness of Chistianity to Government, but he did not declare any Christianity for himself.
Yes. Consistent with a Deist perspective, Jefferson did not assert the divinty of Christ with this quote. He validated Christ's system of morality, but not so much his divinity.



glockmail said:


> Each one is from Thomas Jefferson.


For the moment, I'll take your word for it--mostly because they are all consistent with a Deist's perspective.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> Yes. Consistent with a Deist perspective, Jefferson did not assert the divinty of Christ with this quote. You should look into the Jeffersonian Bible, Mr. Jefferson-was-no-Deist.
> Yes. Consistent with a Deist perspective, Jefferson did not assert the divinty of Christ with this quote--although he does present his belief in God; also consistent with Deism.
> Yes. Consistent with a Deist perspective, Jefferson did not assert the divinty of Christ with this quote. He certainly made a point regarding the frendliness of Chistianity to Government, but he did not declare any Christianity for himself.
> Yes. Consistent with a Deist perspective, Jefferson did not assert the divinty of Christ with this quote. He validated Christ's system of morality, but not so much his divinity.
> 
> For the moment, I'll take your word for it--mostly because they are all consistent with a Deist's perspective.



1. Jefferson states that he holds Christs precepts (principles or commands) to be pure and benevolent. Certainly this would include, say, The Lords Prayer, a command to pray to God.

Again I cite the definition of deism:



> deism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe



Therefore it would be foolish to suggest that a deist held prayer as benevolent; he would hold prayer as a waste of time.

2. Again, a deist would not state that liberties are the gift of God, since the deist god does not interfere with the comings and goings of man.

Then there are these little tidbits, confirming Jeffersons Christianity and beliefs:


"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever. [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." 
[Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]


----------



## editec

Why should we care what religion the founder fathers believed in?


----------



## Shogun

Like i've been saying.. go take it to MONTECELLO, dogma junkie.  They know more about Jefferson than you and your playdoh attempt at quoting the man.  your entire participation since the first time you were bitchslapped with Jefferson facts has been nothing but a validation of your dogma junkie marginalization in the area of academics.


----------



## glockmail

editec said:


> Why should we care what religion the founder fathers believed in?


It helps understand their thinking, and thus allows us to interpret their works more accurately. Like the Constitution.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> Like i've been saying.. go take it to MONTECELLO, dogma junkie.  ..



Perhaps you mean MONTICELLO?


----------



## glockmail

Wait, there's more:

read the goddamn *montecello *website. [Post 45]
go tell it to the Jefferson estate at *Montecello*, dude.. [post 53]
stated just like the evidence at *Montecello *and Jefferson's own statements just don't usurp your opinon and miriam Webster [post 57]
Deny what you will... but *Montecello *and Ole Ben prove you wrong all day long.[post 80]

Just too funny.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Perhaps you mean MONTICELLO?



HAHAHAHA!

YA, as a matter of FACT!

*
Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.*


Jefferson eventually arrived at some positive assertions of his private religion. His ideas are nowhere better expressed than in his compilations of extracts from the New Testament "The Philosophy of Jesus" (1804) and "The Life and Morals of Jesus" (1819-20?). The former stems from his concern with the problem of maintaining Herodias Bearing the Head of Saint John, copy after c. 1631 original by Guido Reni; photographed by Edward Owensocial harmony in a republican nation. *The latter is a multilingual collection of verses that was a product of his private search for religious truth.* Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being,* but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. **He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ,* but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime *morality* which has ever fallen from the lips of man." In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian,* but he recognized the novelty* of *his own* religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles, "*I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know*."



YOUR link!


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Wait, there's more:
> 
> read the goddamn *montecello *website. [Post 45]
> go tell it to the Jefferson estate at *Montecello*, dude.. [post 53]
> stated just like the evidence at *Montecello *and Jefferson's own statements just don't usurp your opinon and miriam Webster [post 57]
> Deny what you will... but *Montecello *and Ole Ben prove you wrong all day long.[post 80]
> 
> Just too funny.





ahh yes.. the SPELLING police have arrived now that it's clear to you that I've been kicking you in the balls regarding this thread TOPIC for pages now!


hey, enjoy your spelling gaffe, detective petty...  It won't make up for the mud hole i've stomped in your ass regarding the faiths of Franklin and Jefferson!


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> HAHAHAHA!
> 
> YA, as a matter of FACT!
> 
> *
> Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.*
> 
> 
> Jefferson eventually arrived at some positive assertions of his private religion. His ideas are nowhere better expressed than in his compilations of extracts from the New Testament "The Philosophy of Jesus" (1804) and "The Life and Morals of Jesus" (1819-20?). The former stems from his concern with the problem of maintaining Herodias Bearing the Head of Saint John, copy after c. 1631 original by Guido Reni; photographed by Edward Owensocial harmony in a republican nation. *The latter is a multilingual collection of verses that was a product of his private search for religious truth.* Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being,* but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. **He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ,* but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the "outlines of a system of the most sublime *morality* which has ever fallen from the lips of man." In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian,* but he recognized the novelty* of *his own* religious beliefs. On June 25, 1819, he wrote to Ezra Stiles, "*I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know*."
> 
> 
> 
> YOUR link!



This is simply a repeat of your post 32, which I addressed in post 34.  Again, when you have some new accusation against the Founders then I will respond.


----------



## glockmail

Lookie here, more evidence that the Founders were not deists:









> The Eye of Providence or the all-seeing eye is a symbol showing an eye surrounded by rays of light or a glory, and usually enclosed by a triangle. It is sometimes interpreted as representing the eye of God keeping watch on humankind


 Eye of Providence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Uknow_me72

glockmail said:


> Lookie here, more evidence that the Founders were not deists:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eye of Providence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It is Venus the Morning Star which is the all seeing eyeing. This is the same Star that the 3 wise men used to watch over Baby Jesus. Venus = Lucifer and he is watching over as a 'star' which = from a UFO and the 3 wise men were minions and part of the secret societies that were reporting back to the UFO so they can keep track of Yeshua the son of Yahweh.

The secret societies strech back along ways and the 'aliens' were here along time ago, the aliens and secret societies are using tactical propaganda and saying that one day we might have contact with E.T. when it was here long ago. 

If you can take a moment to realize that this is a possibiliy and just kind of go over the history, which by the way why do you think they teach the history of earth, civilizations and empires. . . is it so that the majority of the population has the same stories of the past, and if they do the secrets of the past will die out of the mainsteam.

I have included this information because if you can take what I said as a possibility, then you do know that the founders were part of these societies, which if they are not who they say they are and the control and formation of the world government has been going on for so long that we never had a chance to be free or a choice. 
Why were governments formed on this planet? It was to control the population and the flow of the planet.

Who formed the governments? The secret societies have, the history is there, the history that is left out and will change everything if the general populace knew that those secret societies are minions of Lucifer.

If you want the Bible, the Manual of this planet, to give you an understand, it tells you exactly what is going on.

It told of Lucifer, it told that he wants to own Yahwehs creatons, it tells that he wants to be a God, what a better way then to form governments all over the world, change the Bible so that you are the God, so that when you reveal yourself people will think that you are God?


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> This is simply a repeat of your post 32, which I addressed in post 34.  Again, when you have some new accusation against the Founders then I will respond.



and your post 34 means two things: jack and shit.


also, you wanna remember WHEN that quote was put on the currency?  I hate to break it to you.. but it wasn't from colonial American.  And, just so you know, the pledge of allegiance wasn't their puppy either.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Lookie here, more evidence that the Founders were not deists:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eye of Providence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

yea.. ONLY the symbology of the FUCKING DEISTIC FREEMASONS





WOW you are stupid.


----------



## Shogun

Among the three members of the original design committee for the Great Seal, only Benjamin Franklin was a confirmed Mason. Thomas Jefferson was an open supporter of the aims of Freemasonry who attended lodge meetings and corresponded with many masons, but no direct evidence exists to support that he was a member himself - although it is highly unlikely he would be allowed to attend lodge meetings without being a Mason himself.[3][4]


FROM YOUR LINK, stupid!


----------



## Care4all

Shogun said:


> and your post 34 means two things: jack and shit.
> 
> 
> also, you wanna remember WHEN that quote was put on the currency?  I hate to break it to you.. but it wasn't from colonial American.  And, just so you know, the pledge of allegiance wasn't their puppy either.



FDR....free mason himself...someone in his administration found or fdr was shown the back side of the Seal that was never used early in our history....he over saw the project personally for adding the back seal to the dollar bill....1932, if memory serves.


----------



## Care4all

Shogun said:


> Among the three members of the original design committee for the Great Seal, only Benjamin Franklin was a confirmed Mason. Thomas Jefferson was an open supporter of the aims of Freemasonry who attended lodge meetings and corresponded with many masons, but no direct evidence exists to support that he was a member himself - although it is highly unlikely he would be allowed to attend lodge meetings without being a Mason himself.[3][4]
> 
> 
> FROM YOUR LINK, stupid!



yeah, but in the fine print not shown is that the three in charge of the seal HIRED LOCAL ARTISANS or Architechs to help them do the Creative design of the Seal and guess who they might of been?  Free Masons.....


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> and your post 34 means two things: jack and shit.
> 
> 
> *also, you wanna remember WHEN that quote was put on the currency?  I hate to break it to you.. but it wasn't from colonial American.*  And, just so you know, the pledge of allegiance wasn't their puppy either.



It's not a quote it is a seal, the reverse seal of the US actually, and it was designed under the George Washington Presidency.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> yea.. ONLY the symbology of the FUCKING DEISTIC FREEMASONS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you are stupid.





> Freemasonry is the oldest and largest world wide fraternity dedicated to the Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of a Supreme Being. Although of a religious nature, Freemasonry is not a religion. It urges its members, however, to be faithful and devoted to their own religious beliefs.


 Freemasonry - Home


----------



## glockmail

Care4all said:


> FDR....free mason himself...someone in his administration found or fdr was shown the back side of the Seal that was never used early in our history....he over saw the project personally for adding the back seal to the dollar bill....1932, if memory serves.


 Correct-a-mundo my dear.  It was never used because the paper punch seal was developed at roughly the same time, making the back of a wax seal obsolete.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Freemasonry - Home



FREEMASONS are not required to be CHRISTIANS, stupid.  Merely to believe in a god.  You know.. LIKE DEISM. 





for real.. you are exactly why dogma junkies have been on the losing end of everything since the development of the fucking scientific method.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> FREEMASONS are not required to be CHRISTIANS, stupid.  Merely to believe in a god.  You know.. LIKE DEISM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for real.. you are exactly why dogma junkies have been on the losing end of everything since the development of the fucking scientific method.



Actually you claimed that they are deists here:



Shogun said:


> ..... the symbology of the FUCKING DEISTIC FREEMASONS
> .....



which is obviously not true, otherwise they wouldnt state that they are under the Fatherhood of a Supreme Being, since a deist would never call their dispassionate god father. 

In spite of your childish claims of superior intellect and knowledge, you have been proven wrong more than I care to count in this single thread.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Actually you claimed that they are deists here:
> 
> 
> 
> which is obviously not true, otherwise they wouldn&#8217;t state that they are &#8220;under the Fatherhood of a Supreme Being&#8221;, since a deist would never call their dispassionate god &#8220;father&#8221;.
> 
> In spite of your childish claims of superior intellect and knowledge, you have been proven wrong more than I care to count in this single thread.



dude.. DEISTS BELIEVE IN A SUPREME BEING.  THIS doesn't at all mean that they believe if jesus fucking christ.  AS EVIDENT in the writing of both JEFFERSON AND FRANKLIN.


holy SHIT you are a goddamn ignorant hayseed.

OBVIOUSLY?  the only thing that is OBVIOUS is that you are short bus retarded.

how the fuck do YOU know what a DEIST would NEVER do?  Are you the spokeman for the fucking NATIONAL DEIST COUNCIL?  For real, dude... stick to your lead paint lunch and mercury soda, dude.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> dude.. DEISTS BELIEVE IN A SUPREME BEING.  THIS doesn't at all mean that they believe if jesus fucking christ.  AS EVIDENT in the writing of both JEFFERSON AND FRANKLIN.
> 
> 
> holy SHIT you are a goddamn ignorant hayseed.
> 
> OBVIOUSLY?  the only thing that is OBVIOUS is that you are short bus retarded.
> 
> how the fuck do YOU know what a DEIST would NEVER do?  Are you the spokeman for the fucking NATIONAL DEIST COUNCIL?  For real, dude... stick to your lead paint lunch and mercury soda, dude.


Again, a deist believes that god does not react to earthly events, and that is completely incompatible with the concept of Fatherhood. This interpretation is entirely within the actual definition of deism cited in post 47.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> 1. Jefferson states that he holds Christ&#8217;s precepts (principles or commands) to be &#8220;pure&#8221; and &#8220;benevolent&#8221;. Certainly this would include, say, The Lord&#8217;s Prayer, a command to pray to God.
> 
> Again I cite the definition of deism:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore it would be foolish to suggest that a deist held prayer as benevolent; he would hold prayer as a waste of time.


Praying for an intervention, like winning the lottery, is (to the Deist) most certainly a waste of time.  Yet prayer to God can most certainly be construed as beneficial (to the person that prays) without that prayer being "answered" according to the nature of the prayer; such as a prayer of thanks...for the gift of liberty as an example.  Also, this prayer need not assert the deity of Christ, which Christian prayer most certainly does.

It's still Deism.



glockmail said:


> 2. Again, a deist would not state that &#8220;liberties are the gift of God&#8221;, since the deist god does not interfere with the comings and goings of man.


Deists still hold that God created everything, and appurtenant to that creation might be this gift of liberty.  That God provided this gift at the onset, and now no longer interferes in comings and goings of man is still consistent with Deism.



glockmail said:


> Then there are these little tidbits, confirming Jefferson&#8217;s Christianity and beliefs:
> 
> 
> "I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]


Which still does not assert his belief in Christ as a deity, but ather as a moral example--consistent with Deism.



glockmail said:


> &#8220;God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.&#8221; [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]


Again, no reference to Christ as the Deity, and no assertion that God *must* do anything.

Even if you demand that he is suggesting otherwise, Jefferson's imperfect adherence to the dictionary definition of Deism in no way invalidates his identity as as Deist, any more than a Christian's imperfect adherence to the Dictionary definition of Christianity invalidates their Christian identity--such imperfection only asserts their humanity.



glockmail said:


> &#8220;It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
> [Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]


This is just an assertion that "real" Chrisians do nnot deify Christ, yet still follow his moral principles--you should really read the Jeffersonian Bible. Seriously.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Lookie here, more evidence that the Founders were not deists:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eye of Providence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Looks like you're really asserting they worshipped the all seeing eye of Mordor!


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> [1]Praying for an intervention, like winning the lottery, is (to the Deist) most certainly a waste of time.  Yet prayer to God can most certainly be construed as beneficial (to the person that prays) without that prayer being "answered" according to the nature of the prayer; such as a prayer of thanks...for the gift of liberty as an example.  Also, this prayer need not assert the deity of Christ, which Christian prayer most certainly does.
> 
> It's still Deism.
> 
> [2]Deists still hold that God created everything, and appurtenant to that creation might be this gift of liberty.  That God provided this gift at the onset, and now no longer interferes in comings and goings of man is still consistent with Deism.
> 
> Which still does not assert his belief in Christ as a deity, but ather as a moral example--consistent with Deism.
> 
> [3]Again, no reference to Christ as the Deity, and no assertion that God *must* do anything.
> 
> [4]Even if you demand that he is suggesting otherwise, Jefferson's imperfect adherence to the dictionary definition of Deism in no way invalidates his identity as as Deist, any more than a Christian's imperfect adherence to the Dictionary definition of Christianity invalidates their Christian identity--such imperfection only asserts their humanity.
> 
> This is just an assertion that "real" Chrisians do nnot deify Christ, yet still follow his moral principles--you should really read the Jeffersonian Bible. Seriously.



1.	Wow thats a stretch. Praying to a god that isnt listening is good for the soul that he doesnt care about. As the track coach says to the last runner: good effort.
2.	You appear now to be equating deism with fatalism. Curious, but nonsensical. 
3.	Taken by itself, no, but in context with other statements, undoubtedly Christian. 
4.	Actually no, since a deist denies that his god can impact his life. Christians, on the other hand, routinely and openly question if God exists, is listening or cares. The best example of this is John 20:24-29 (doubting Thomas). 
5.	Jefferson wrote that in the second decade of the 19th century, past the time of the Revolution and his presidency. The issue here is what were his beliefs during the founding period. 



LOki said:


> Looks like you're really asserting they worshipped the all seeing eye of Mordor!



Is this a contemporary reference?


----------



## glockmail

What, no bloviating by Shogun this morning? And I was looking forward to that, like my second cup of coffee!


----------



## Shogun

I was busy linking this thread to friends of mine who were interested in seeing the reason dogma junkies fail when it comes to evidence trumping their sad little faith.





did you need to feel like a martyr this morning or something?  I'd have figured you'd be out giving a speach at the National Deist Council or something given how you are, apparently, the spokesman for Deists past and present!


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> I was busy linking this thread to friends of mine who were interested in seeing the reason dogma junkies fail when it comes to evidence trumping their sad little faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> did you need to feel like a martyr this morning or something?  I'd have figured you'd be out giving a speach at the National Deist Council or something given how you are, apparently, the spokesman for Deists past and present!



Clever comeback. I look forward to responding with facts and logic to all your friends.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Clever comeback. I look forward to responding with facts and logic to all your friends.



HA!

oh, you mean like the total ASSumptions you've insisted upon, despite autobiographical quotes, in this thread.


indeed.  I really care that you still think the world is flat, dude.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> 1.	Wow that&#8217;s a stretch.


What is? The asstertion that Deists feel praying for a divine intervention is a waste of time? If so, you should get yourself aquainted with Deism. That Deists might construe a prayer of thanks to be beneficial and/or appropriate? Again, you should get yourself aquainted with Deism.  That a Deist's prayer of thanks to Nature's God need not be a prayer that asserts the deity of Christ? Well, Glockmail, perhaps you really should get yourself aquainted with Deism.



glockmail said:


> Praying to a god that isn&#8217;t listening is good for the soul that he doesn&#8217;t care about.


I didn't say that God isn't listening and/or doesn't care; and neither do Deists.



glockmail said:


> 2.	You appear now to be equating deism with fatalism. Curious, but nonsensical.


Though I'm not saying fatalism is incompatible with Deism, neither am I suggesting any equivalency. You seem to be making shit up.  Expected, and as usual, nonsensical.



glockmail said:


> 3.	Taken by itself, no, but in context with other statements, undoubtedly Christian.


What context are you referring to? Some more Dave Barton fabrications? Or maybe this:





			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. -Notes on Virginia, 1782


OR





			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. --Letter to Richard Price, 1789


OR





			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other." --Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1803


OR





			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. --Letter to John Adams, 1814


OR





			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." --The Jefferson Bible


OR





			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> No historical fact is better established than that the doctrine of one god, pure and uncompounded was that of the early ages of Christianity; and was among the efficacious doctrines which gave it triumph over the polytheism of the antients, sickened with the absurdities of their own theology. Nor was the unity of the supreme being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus with one body and three heads had it's birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs. And a strong proof of the solidity of the primitive faith is it's restoration as soon as a nation arises which vindicates to itself the freedom of religious opinion, and it's eternal divorce from the civil authority. The pure and simply unity of the creator of the universe is now all but ascendant in the Eastern states; it is dawning in the West, and advancing towards the South; and I confidently expect that the present generation will see Unitarianism become the general religion of the United states. The Eastern presses are giving us many excellent pieces on the subject, and Priestly's learned writings on it are, or should be in every hand. In fact the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one is so incomprehensible to the human mind that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea. He who thinks he does only decieves himself. He proves also that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder is the sport of every wind. With such persons gullability which they call faith takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck. --Letter to James Smith, 1822





glockmail said:


> 4.	Actually no, since a deist denies that his god can impact his life.


This is false. Plainly. Why would a Deist assert that being who created the universe, including the human beings in it, is unable to impact the lives of those beings? The answer is, they don't. Some Deists beleive that God intervenes upon rare occasion, but as a rule, they assert the God just doesn't intervene--not that He is unable.

And since I was speaking to the orthodoxy (whatever that might be) of Jefferson's Deism; actually, yes: Jefferson's imperfect adherence to the dictionary definition of Deism in no way invalidates his identity as as Deist, any more than a Christian's imperfect adherence to the Dictionary definition of Christianity invalidates their Christian identity--such imperfection only asserts their humanity.



glockmail said:


> Christians, on the other hand, routinely and openly question if God exists, is listening or cares. The best example of this is John 20:24-29 (doubting Thomas).


Which serves to affirm the point I made; including the observation that Thomas was not in disbelief of God, but rather the story told by the other disciples.

By the way, the Christian penalty for not believing in Jesus is to be stoned to death outside the gates of the city--look it up. Since stonings for such disbelief are not so "routine", I seriously doubt that Christians "routinely and openly question if God exists." Maybe these stonings are just not so "openly" done that anyone notices.



glockmail said:


> 5.	Jefferson wrote that in the second decade of the 19th century, past the time of the Revolution and his presidency. The issue here is what were his beliefs during the founding period.


Demonstrate that he did not hold these beliefs during the Revolution, and his Presidency.

Also, not that it's conclusive, but just before the revolution, while writing the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson used the Deist's term for the deity: "Nature's God", rather than one of the Christian terms for their deity, such as: "Jesus" or "Christ". That might be a clue.



glockmail said:


> Is this a contemporary reference?


----------



## Shogun

dude.. for real.. this guy still thinks the Earth is the center of the Universe.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> What is? The asstertion that Deists feel praying for a divine intervention is a waste of time? If so, you should get yourself aquainted with Deism. That Deists might construe a prayer of thanks to be beneficial and/or appropriate? Again, you should get yourself aquainted with Deism.  That a Deist's prayer of thanks to Nature's God need not be a prayer that asserts the deity of Christ? Well, Glockmail, perhaps you really should get yourself aquainted with Deism.....



Again, I point back to the actual definition of deism, not what you want it to be.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Again, I point back to the actual definition of deism, not what you want it to be.


Let me suggest that I'm not asserting any definition of Deism inconsistent with what Deists think--that the "actual definition" that you appear to be referencing is the one "you want it to be."





> Deism Defined
> 
> Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God.Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason." The above definition is from a non-Deist source. Please see our expanded definition of Deism in our Deist Glossary below.
> 
> Deism:    Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason *coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation*.
Click to expand...

 Bingo.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Bingo.


And nothing I've said is inconsitent with the definition of Deism: so what's your point?


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> And nothing I've said is inconsitent with the definition of Deism: so what's your point?


The definition that you cited goes exactly with what I have been saying.


----------



## Shogun

Galileo had to deal with this kind of dogma junkie shit too... 


who, im sure, was an avowed  believer of heliocentrism!


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Perhaps you mean &#8220;MONTICELLO&#8221;?



No. Knowing Shogun...he probably meant Mound of Jello.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> The definition that you cited goes exactly with what I have been saying.


Not really.


----------



## Shogun

Anguille said:


> No. Knowing Shogun...he probably meant Mound of Jello.



I guess you could always follow the link and find out for yourself instead of hinting at your jello wrestling past


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> Not really.


Really.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Really.


Dude, you read your definintion of Deism to mean Deist's believe God can't intervene in His creation, and does not care about the human beings He created.

You're wrong.

Again.


----------



## Shogun

heliocentrism..

evolution...


just add it to the list


----------



## Gungnir

screw you, post more jello wrestling!


----------



## Avatar4321

solarefficiency said:


> What religion were our founding fathers worshipping?  When I say founding fathers, I mean founding fathers of the United States of America - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, etc.?  I do not believe it was Christianity.  The original Constitution does not mention any specific reference to Christianity being the official religion of the USA.  Am I wrong?



Not really sure they were worshiping a religion. (I never knew people did that). They were more than  likely worshiping God. And they of course had a Christian background.


----------



## Avatar4321

editec said:


> The religion the FF really worshiped was rational materialism.
> 
> As a reaction to monarchism, it made great sense.
> 
> But centuries later we're beginning to realize that this philosophy has its own unique set of problematic outcomes, too.
> 
> Time for a new world philosophy for the 21st century, methinks.



And what do you propose?


----------



## editec

Avatar4321 said:


> And what do you propose?


 
Starting out with the recogition that mankind is going to sink or swin together seems sensible.

Not an easy thing to do, of course, given that the world's governments and corporate leaders are still squabbling over who gets the first-class cabins on the Titanic.

What we really need, I think, is an outside enemy -- one which would make humanity realize that we share this world, and need to work together if we're going to survive as a species.

Sadly, those occupants in those UFO's (no I've never seen one, and no, I don't believe that we're being watched, either) don't seem interested in attacking us to give us that unifying motive to start acting like adults.

I think the neo-cons are philosophically attempting to end rule by representational goverment entirely, much like the early Masons seemed bent on ending rule by Monarchs.

Their plan seems to be to bankrupt the USA such that the services people need will come from private international corporations (but only to those they deem worthy) thus ending the monopoly that governments have over the earth.

I think they basically want to keep the forms of government in place (at least during the transition phase of change) such that they can manipulate the people using the force of government, so they are setting up laws and systems that give them control of those governments.

But ultimately they want some sort of benevolent dictatorial rule by corporations (read rule by the elite of those corporations).

Now the real question is, will their vision of a more peaceful and productive plant, one ruled by the corporatists, actually produce that utopian world they imagine?

It might.

But the transition from rule by governments to rule by *big* money is going to be a mighty rocky transition for most of us, since a big part of making the change depends on breaking down the social services networks that government have in place in practically every nation on earth.

I think these guys are actually smart enough and powerful enough to pull this off, by the way. I can easily see that by the end of this century the world of nations and governments that I knew would be completely different.

Given the mess that our current systems are making of things, there is some brutally calculating logic to their plan.

I'll push this rambling of mine into the realm of social science fiction now.

Let me propose that among other things, the Neo-cons recognize that the earth's load of human being is too high.

The earth does not have the resources for ALL of us to have the sort of affluent life each of us expects.

So possibly, the brutal transtion phase, the one where governments break down and something approaching anarchy will kils off billions of people, is part of the plan.

I can easily see people of this ilk regretting that mankind has to cut back on population, but making the decision to do it, anyway.

Truly pragmatic sociopathic personalities, ones who think in terms of using their brains and influence to "save humankind from suicide by representational governments" might very well be trying to make things worse (much like the communists often did) so that things will get bad enough that people will be prepared for the corporate model that they have in mind.

All speculation, of course...but specualtion based on the "Starve the beast" philosophy which is NOT something I dreamed up, *but something that militant neo-cons are more than willing to admit they are trying to make happen.*


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> Dude, you read your definintion of Deism to mean Deist's believe God can't intervene in His creation, and does not care about the human beings He created.
> 
> You're wrong.
> 
> Again.


Not.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Not.


Demonstrate.


----------



## Shogun

yea right.. that dudes had his ass handed to him since the second page.. and he knows it.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> Demonstrate.


 Post 135.


----------



## Shogun

HAHAHAHAHA!

*FAIL*


----------



## glockmail

Lookie, lookie- Shogun's resigned himself to be a cheerleader now.


----------



## Shogun

Why not?  I've handed you your ass originally and now everyone else is having fun tag teaming my sloppy seconds.  Might as well stick around and join the laughing throng having fun at your expense!


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Post 135.


This:





> "Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation."


Does not mean that Deists believe God cannot intervene in His creation, as you claim it does; nor does it mean that Deists believe that God does not care about the souls of the people He created.

Shogun is right: You are *FAIL.*


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> Thisoes not mean that Deists believe God cannot intervene in His creation, as you claim it does; nor does it mean that Deists believe that God does not care about the souls of the people He created.
> 
> Shogun is right: You are *FAIL.*



Again, "coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation" means exactly what it says, that deists don't believe that their god interacts with man or is a force in his history. Therefore a deist thinks that prayer for "special divine revelation" is a waste of time. 

Perhaps you have an alternate explanation to share with us?


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Again, "coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation" means exactly what it says, that deists don't believe that their god interacts with man or is a force in his history.


An ENTIRELY different assertion than He CAN"T intervene in His creation. So you clearly understand your failure there.



glockmail said:


> Therefore a deist thinks that prayer for "special divine revelation" is a waste of time.


Which in NO WAY means that the Deist believes that God doesn't care about the human beings He created. Now you know how you failed on both you assertions in your reading of the definition of Deism.



glockmail said:


> Perhaps you have an alternate explanation to share with us?


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> An ENTIRELY different assertion than He CAN"T intervene in His creation. So you clearly understand your failure there.
> 
> Which in NO WAY means that the Deist believes that God doesn't care about the human beings He created. Now you know how you failed on both you assertions in your reading of the definition of Deism.



You're attempt to misunderstand simple English is quite amusing!


----------



## Anguille

This thread is getting as hilarious as the other one.


----------



## glockmail

I agree, its quite amusing. What other one?


----------



## Anguille

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...oman-catholicism-is-an-unscriptural-cult.html

Enjoy!


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...oman-catholicism-is-an-unscriptural-cult.html
> 
> Enjoy!



Oh my. Look what I miss when I'm out living a life.


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Oh my. Look what I miss when I'm out living a life.


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Oh my. Look what I miss when I'm out living a life.



Life outside message boards.... I've heard of that.


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> Life outside message boards.... I've heard of that.


 It gets interesting sometimes.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> You're attempt to misunderstand simple English is quite amusing!


Misunderstand what? The definition of Deism which does not say that God cannot intervene in His creation, or that He doesn't care about his creation?

Or did I misunderstand your assertion that Deists believe that God cannot intervene in His creation, or that He doesn't care about his creation?

In both cases I'm absolutely clear on the English.

You just fucking wrong.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> Misunderstand what? The definition of Deism which does not say that God cannot intervene in His creation, or that He doesn't care about his creation?
> 
> Or did I misunderstand your assertion that Deists believe that God cannot intervene in His creation, or that He doesn't care about his creation?
> 
> In both cases *I'm absolutely clear on the English.
> 
> You [sic] just fucking wrong.*


 Interesting tactic: deny the dictionary definition, put forth your own that reinforces the dictionary definition, claim victory, get called on it, repeat. Amusing, but I did expect better from the *Great LOki*.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Interesting tactic: deny the dictionary definition, put forth your own that reinforces the dictionary definition, claim victory, get called on it, repeat. Amusing, but I did expect better from the *Great LOki*.


Interesting tactic: make shit up!

I expected nothing else from you, Glockmail.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> Interesting tactic: make shit up!
> 
> I expected nothing else from you, Glockmail.


 Wow you've run out of material now, too.


----------



## Anguille

You say tomayto and I say tomahto.


----------



## Shogun

Like I said 10 pages ago... Glock FAILS like a fucking hindenberg landing.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> Like I said 10 pages ago... Glock FAILS like a fucking hindenberg landing.


What religious affiliation would you describe yourself?


----------



## Shogun

i dont.

I guess it takes a specific denominational affiliation to "read between the lines" now?


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> i dont.
> 
> I guess it takes a specific denominational affiliation to "read between the lines" now?


Would you describe yourself as "atheist"?


----------



## Anguille

glockmail said:


> Would you describe yourself as "atheist"?



Shogun worships, me, glock.


----------



## Shogun

i would describe myself as an agnostic.

your point?


----------



## Shogun

Anguille said:


> Shogun worships, me, glock.



not all of you, ang.. just your naughty bits.


----------



## Anguille

Shogun said:


> not all of you, ang.. just your naughty bits.



I know. My pretty pink lungs.


----------



## Uknow_me72

Yea them lungs ain"t pink or pretty. They are black and dying from all the smog we breathe in. 

2nd hand smoke does nothing compared to the constant breathing of Smog.


----------



## Shogun

Anguille said:


> I know. My pretty pink lungs.



well.. pink something..


----------



## glockmail

Anguille said:


> Shogun worships, me, glock.


----------



## Shogun

so, did you want to make a point about how I self identify with the metaphysical or not?  In case you haven't noticed, im not one to avoid anything you've got to offer.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> so, did you want to make a point about how I self identify with the metaphysical or not?  In case you haven't noticed, im not one to avoid anything you've got to offer.


 You've just been used to prove a point here.


----------



## Uknow_me72

Who you talkin too?


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> You've just been used to prove a point here.



*I believe it, as I've witnessed acts of intolerance by religious persons, fellow Catholics actually, first hand. But I agree with you that atheists/ agnostics are also intolerant, many more so and more vehement, as evidenced by many examples in this forum. Here's a recent example: http://www.usmessageboard.com/763697-post172.html*


Unfortunately for you, FACTS are not "tolorant" of ideals that are unfounded bullshit with nary the slightest iota of evidence to offer.

You know.. like Franklins AUTOBIOGRAPHY!





poor guy.. go ahead and lash out though.  It's cute in a "toddler stomping his foot" sorta way.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> *I believe it, as I've witnessed acts of intolerance by religious persons, fellow Catholics actually, first hand. But I agree with you that atheists/ agnostics are also intolerant, many more so and more vehement, as evidenced by many examples in this forum. Here's a recent example: http://www.usmessageboard.com/763697-post172.html*
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, FACTS are not *"tolorant" [sic]* of ideals that are unfounded bullshit with nary the slightest iota of evidence to offer.
> 
> You know.. like *Franklins [sic]* AUTOBIOGRAPHY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor guy.. go ahead and lash out though.  It's cute in a "toddler stomping his foot" sorta way.


Actually I find your literary gaffes and rantings humorous.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Actually I find your literary gaffes and rantings humorous.



ahh yes.. back to the ole spelling patrol since it's pretty clear you have no leg to stand on with the topic of this thread?


It's cool.  Like i said.. cute like a toddler stomping a foot.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Wow you've run out of material now, too.


Oh? Ok then, let's put your bullshit under the microscope:





glockmail said:


> Interesting tactic: deny the dictionary definition,...


This never happened. You made this shit up. I denied *YOUR* reading of three different definitions, these being:
This offered by Glockmail:





> de&#8226;ism: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe


AND these offered by me





> Deism Defined
> 
> Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God.Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason." The above definition is from a non-Deist source. Please see our expanded definition of Deism in our Deist Glossary below.
> 
> Deism: Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason *coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation.* _[emphasis later added by Glockmail]_



From these definitions, Glockmail, you conclude that Deists belive that God does not care about the people He created--





glockmail said:


> Wow that&#8217;s a stretch. Praying to a god that isn&#8217;t listening is good for the soul that he doesn&#8217;t care about.


This, based upon some shit you made up.  

Then you further conclude that Deists believe God cannot intervene in his creation. 





glockmail said:


> Actually no, since a deist denies that his god can impact his life.


This is patently false on it's face, and your conclusion is based upon some foundation that is just some more shit you made up.


glockmail said:


> ...put forth your own that reinforces the dictionary definition,...


No definition I submitted is my own (another piece of completely made up shit on your part), and the definitions I offered in no way assert or support that Deists believe God does not care about human beings, or that Deists believe God cannot intervene in his creation. Those are conclusions, Glockmail, derived from shit you made up.



glockmail said:


> ...claim victory,...


This, of course, never happened either. I claimed you were wrong; and you are--patently so.



glockmail said:


> ...get called on it,...


If your bullshit accusations are what constitutes "getting called on it", then I suppose you're right, but I fail to see your point, since you just make up all this shit anyway.



glockmail said:


> ...repeat.


By "repeat", you must mean repeatedly pointing out your glaring errors in logic and fact, proving you to be utterly wrong, completely out of your mind, and an unrepentant liar.



glockmail said:


> Amusing, but I did expect better from the *Great LOki*.


You no doubt find it amusing, otherwise you would not insist upon being such a monument to disingenuous falsehood, and prima-facie denial of reality.


----------



## Shogun




----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> Oh? Ok then, let's put your bullshit under the microscope:This never happened. You made this shit up. I denied *YOUR* reading of three different definitions, these being:
> This offered by Glockmail:AND these offered by me
> 
> From these definitions, Glockmail, you conclude that Deists belive that God does not care about the people He created--This, based upon some shit you made up.
> 
> Then you further conclude that Deists believe God cannot intervene in his creation. This is patently false on it's face, and your conclusion is based upon some foundation that is just some more shit you made up.
> No definition I submitted is my own (another piece of completely made up shit on your part), and the definitions I offered in no way assert or support that Deists believe God does not care about human beings, or that Deists believe God cannot intervene in his creation. Those are conclusions, Glockmail, derived from shit you made up.
> 
> This, of course, never happened either. I claimed you were wrong; and you are--patently so.
> 
> If your bullshit accusations are what constitutes "getting called on it", then I suppose you're right, but I fail to see your point, since you just make up all this shit anyway.
> 
> By "repeat", you must mean repeatedly pointing out your glaring errors in logic and fact, proving you to be utterly wrong, completely out of your mind, and an unrepentant liar.
> 
> You no doubt find it amusing, otherwise you would not insist upon being such a monument to disingenuous falsehood, and prima-facie denial of reality.


 Wow so much bluster. Too bad there's nothing new here.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Wow so much bluster.


More made up shit.


glockmail said:


> Too bad there's nothing new here.


For something new to happen, you'd have present a valid argument--you'd have to be right.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> More made up shit.
> 
> For something new to happen, you'd have present a valid argument--you'd have to be right.


 Which you have been unable to do.



LOki said:


> More made up shit.
> 
> For something new to happen, you'd have present a valid argument--you'd have to be right.


 Which you have been unable to do.

Oh, lookie here, more deists support the actual definition, : Deism has become identified with *the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world,* though this is not a necessary component of deism.
..
Many deists who do not believe in divine intervention still find value in prayer. They think of it as a form of meditation and self-cleansing, which can improve one's life and lead to one's efforts being more effective. However, *many deists consider all prayer an attempt to establish a personal relationship with God, something deists do not believe is possible.* Temple of Reason


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Oh, lookie here, more deists support the actual definition, : Deism has become identified with *the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world,* though this is not a necessary component of deism.


But they do not support your conclusion, since this still does not say God cannot intervene in the world.

As the track official said to the last runner, "Give it up, the race is over, LOSER!"



glockmail said:


> *Many deists who do not believe in divine intervention still find value in prayer.* They think of it as a form of meditation and self-cleansing, which can improve one's life and lead to one's efforts being more effective. However, *many deists consider all prayer an attempt to establish a personal relationship with God, something deists do not believe is possible.* Temple of Reason


So many Deists in fact DO believe prayer is good (which you have flatly denied), AND still nothing here that asserts Deists believe that God doesn't care, nor anything asserting that they believe God cannot intervene in His creation.

As the track team's bus driver said to the last runner, "Have fun walking home, LOSER!"  

_BTW: Your source also provides their definition for Deism:






			"Historical and modern Deism is defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God. Deists reject both organized and revealed religion and maintain that reason is the essential element in all knowledge. For a "rational basis for religion" they refer to the cosmological argument (first cause argument), the teleological argument (argument from design), and other aspects of what was called natural religion. *Deism has become identified with the classical belief that God created but does not intervene in the world, though this is not a necessary component of deism.*"
		
Click to expand...

You should note, Glockmail, that this definition does not assert that God doesn't care about human beings, or assert that God cannot intervene in His creation.​_


----------



## Shogun

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

now THAT is fucking RICH!


hey, L. Ron called!  He wants some QT in the science class too!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


So, lemme get this strait.. some deist organization organized 25 years AFTER the revoution reflects everyone who self described themselves in their own fucking AUTOBIOGRAPHY?  So, I guess that means that Joe Smith and Brigham Young speak for YOUR christian faith too, right?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!

oh.. what.. NO???  THEY DONT??


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!


holy SHIT thats good stuff right there.


----------



## Uknow_me72

How do we get to make a defenition that decides what God can or can not do?


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> ....As the track official said to the last runner, "Give it up, the race is over, LOSER!"......
> 
> As the track team's bus driver said to the last runner, "Have fun walking home, LOSER!"  .....


 Obviously you've never been to a track meet or participated in one, have you? 

The Founders speak for themselves, with my comments in brackets:

"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this." Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention
[A deist would not refer to god as The Lord, an obvious reference to Jesus.]

"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." Noah Webster [A deist would never mention Christ.]

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." President Thomas Jefferson [A deist would not believe that a connection with God is possible.]

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." First Chief Justice of Supreme Court John Jay [A deist would not believe that Providence intervenes to a Christian people.]

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." President James Madison [A deist would not subscribe to the Ten Commandments, which requires worship to God.]

"If we make religion our business, God will make it our blessedness." John Adams [Religion requires a personal relationship with God, something a deist believes is impossible.]

"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools." Benjamin Rush [A deist would not consider Christianity essential to education.]

"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God." President John Quincy Adams [A deist would never have reverence for Jesus.]

All chaplains are to perform divine service tomorrow, and on every succeeding Sunday. The commander in chief expects an exact compliance with this order, and that it be observed in future as an invariable rule of practiceand every neglect will be considered not only a breach of orders, but a disregard to decency, virtue and religion. Head-Quarters, Middle Brook, June 28, 1777. [A deist would never require worship and prayers.]


----------



## Shogun

nice chopshop treatment of actual quotes, dude... Hey, I bet I can copy and past particular words from YOUR posts and make your own statements INSIST THAT YOU LOVE THE COCK!


how impressive that would be, eh?



face it, dude.   you lose.


Now, L. Ron and Joe Smith want to talk to you about how they reflect your personal faith!


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> nice chopshop treatment of actual quotes, dude...


 Prove it.


----------



## Shogun

HA!


naw.. i'll go ahead and let you sit there and fester in your own ignorance, dude.  It's pretty obvious why you used multiple quotations in each sentence... and i've bitchslapped you with actual, non-edited quotes already in this thread and it doesn't seem to phase your willingness to butcher quotes so...




you FAIL.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> .....It's pretty obvious why you used multiple quotations in each sentence... .....



Prove it.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Obviously you've never been to a track meet or participated in one, have you?


Not one where I lost. 



glockmail said:


> The Founders speak for themselves, with my comments in brackets:
> 
> "Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this." Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention
> [A deist would not refer to god as &#8220;The Lord&#8221;, an obvious reference to Jesus.]


The obvious reference is to God (but not necessarily YOUR God, Glockmail). You say "Jesus" because Jesus is YOUR "Lord" and God; this does not have to be true for everyone, including Benjamin Franklin.



glockmail said:


> The Founders speak for themselves, with my comments in brackets:
> 
> "The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government." Noah Webster [A deist would never mention Christ.]


First, you have previously established that in your opinion, Noah Webster is not one of our Founding Fathers; I have no idea why you bring him up. Secondly, I have no idea where it's been asserted that Webster was a Deist; and finally, the kind of "Chistianity" that Deists find to be "genuine" and acceptable is that which follows the moral and philisophical precepts of Jesus Christ the human being,  not Jesus Christ the deity.



glockmail said:


> The Founders speak for themselves, with my comments in brackets:
> 
> "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." President Thomas Jefferson [A deist would not believe that a &#8220;connection&#8221; with God is possible.]


First, you deny the patently clear "connection" established by God creating the universe, and the gift of liberty appurtenant to that creation.  Secondly, you are just wrong that Deists believe that connection to God is impossible--your assertion is absolutely baseless.



glockmail said:


> The Founders speak for themselves, with my comments in brackets:
> 
> "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." First Chief Justice of Supreme Court John Jay [A deist would not believe that Providence intervenes to a Christian people.]


First, you have previously established that in your opinion, John Jay is not one of our Founding Fathers; I have no idea why you bring him up. Secondly, I have no idea where it's been asserteded that Jay was a Deist; thirdly, "Providence" does not have to intervene to have an effect on human interests, it merely has to exist; and finally, despite this fabricated notion of yours that Deists believe God cannot influence His Creation, many Deists believe that God actually has, and does, intervene in His Creation--they just don't believe in the hearsay stories told by other about it.



glockmail said:


> The Founders speak for themselves, with my comments in brackets:
> 
> "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." President James Madison [A deist would not subscribe to the Ten Commandments, which requires worship to God.]


You would think that the James Madison Center would have a record of this important quote.  There is no evidnece, of course, that James Madison said this. Dave Barton is a fraud.




glockmail said:


> The Founders speak for themselves, with my comments in brackets:
> 
> "If we make religion our business, God will make it our blessedness." John Adams [Religion requires a personal relationship with God, something a deist believes is impossible.]


For Christians, religion requires a personal relationship with God; Deists don't beleive this. Your error is in attempting to impose your Christion religious paradigm on another religion. And the expected result of your egregious errors in logic and fact? *FAIL!*



glockmail said:


> The Founders speak for themselves, with my comments in brackets:
> 
> "Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools." Benjamin Rush [A deist would not consider Christianity essential to education.]


As previously explained, Deists have an entirely different view regarding religion (that is not the fucking same as yours, Glockmail), and the important role (to them, not you) of Christ in history.  With their (not your) point of view in mind, it is patently obvious that for the Deist, the teachings of Christ are essential to education.



glockmail said:


> The Founders speak for themselves, with my comments in brackets:
> 
> "It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God." President John Quincy Adams [A deist would never have reverence for Jesus.]


You're just wrong that Deists would not have reverence for Jesus, they do; but to the extent that their reverence would not be based on Christs divinity--based upon what they would consider to be hearsay--you could be right. But, I'm just about sure you're just as wrong now as you usually are.



glockmail said:


> The Founders speak for themselves, with my comments in brackets:
> 
> &#8220;All chaplains are to perform divine service tomorrow, and on every succeeding Sunday&#8230;. The commander in chief expects an exact compliance with this order, and that it be observed in future as an invariable rule of practice&#8212;and every neglect will be considered not only a breach of orders, but a disregard to decency, virtue and religion.&#8221; Head-Quarters, Middle Brook, June 28, 1777. [A deist would never require worship and prayers.]


Again, Glockmail, you attempt to enforce your intolerant Christian paradigm on Deists.  This quote only asserts Washington's respect for freedom of religion, and his recognition that Christians might very likely be under his command.  Note that , consistent with the beleifs of Deism, Washington didn't make attendance to these services compulsory; he didn't order his troops to worship or pray--he just ordered the Chaplains to not be neglectful of their jobs.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> Not one where I lost. .....


 Just all of them.


----------



## glockmail

Wow Alleys unbiased, huh?



> According to Robert S. Alley, the following quote has been falsely attributed to Madison:
> 
> We have staked the entire future of the American civilization not upon the power of government, but upon the capacity of the individual to govern himself, to control himself and sustain himself according to the Ten Commandments of God.





> Americans United and the cause of church-state separation lost a good friend this week.
> On Aug. 14, Robert S. Alley died in Richmond, Va. Alley, a humanities professor emeritus at the University of Richmond, was a lifelong advocate of religious liberty and a staunch supporter of Americans United.


Robert S. Alley: Friend Of Freedom | The Wall of Separation


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Prove it.



trust me, dude. THIS ENTIRE THREAD proves it!


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Just all of them.



HA!

you wish, dogma junkie.  You've been pwned this entire thread.  Trust me, it's pretty clear which side is on the backpeddle.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Wow Alleys unbiased, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Robert S. Alley: Friend Of Freedom | The Wall of Separation



*Robert S. Alley: Friend Of Freedom | The Wall of Separation*

A BLOG!






oh THAT is so fucking FUNNY!


----------



## Care4all

let me get this straight, is shoggie and loki claiming that NOT ONE of our founding fathers were Christian and ALL of THEM were deists?  and somehow... only Deists miraculously ended up founding our country with no Christians in sight?????


----------



## Care4all

is a Deist = to an Agnostic?  if not, what is the difference?


----------



## Shogun

Care4all said:


> let me get this straight, is shoggie and loki claiming that NOT ONE of our founding fathers were Christian and ALL of THEM were deists?  and somehow... only Deists miraculously ended up founding our country with no Christians in sight?????



Never have I claimed any such thing.  Reread the thread.  Dickface, er glock, challenged me to find direct quotes from ANY founding father and I've done so time and again.  jefferson is still the man who wrote the fucking document.  HIS are the standards of a JEFFERSONIAN democracy.  HIS quotes are where we see the seperation of church and state come from.  Franklin's autobio is just icing on the founding fathers cake.  Dogma junkies like to pretend that the founding fathers were all men who DIDNT stem from the age of enlightmentment where DEISM, not christianity, wasn't a factor.  Well, those dogma junkies, like cockface, are wrong.

and it's hilarious to watch them try to assimilate one ore secular thing into their cultish realm by slapping a jebus sticker on it and pretending that it's their invention.


----------



## LOki

Care4all said:


> let me get this straight, is shoggie and loki claiming that NOT ONE of our founding fathers were Christian and ALL of THEM were deists?  and somehow... only Deists miraculously ended up founding our country with no Christians in sight?????


Thanks for the bullshit strawman. I know I've made no such assertion, and I'm fairly certain Shogun didn't either.



Care4all said:


> is a Deist = to an Agnostic?  if not, what is the difference?


Deist=/=Agnostic.  Deists are certain in their belief in the existence of God; Agnostics remain unsure.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> trust me, dude. THIS ENTIRE THREAD proves it!


As usual from you, nothing.


----------



## glockmail

Care4all said:


> let me get this straight, is shoggie and loki claiming that NOT ONE of our founding fathers were Christian and ALL of THEM were deists?  and somehow... only Deists miraculously ended up founding our country with no Christians in sight?????


No, just all the ones that I've mentioned. And any time that they wrote something that doesn't have the words "Jesus Christ is God" in every sentence, that automatically makes them deist.


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> No, just all the ones that I've mentioned. And any time that they wrote something that doesn't have the words "Jesus Christ is God" in every sentence, that automatically makes them deist.


This is, of course, not true. No surprise, considering the source.

What is true, however, is that the quotes from founding fathers you provide (excepting the fictitious one) do not explicitly assert a belief in the Christian God, but simply belief in God.

And what is also true is that you flatly have no idea what Deists believe, and you insist that your obstinantly obtuse ignorant position on their beliefs somehow demonstrates the Christianity of our founding fathers, rather than your profound stupidity.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> This is, of course, not true. No surprise, considering the source.
> 
> What is true, however, is that the quotes from founding fathers you provide (excepting the fictitious one) do not explicitly assert a belief in the Christian God, but simply belief in God.
> 
> And what is also true is that you flatly have no idea what Deists believe, and you insist that your obstinantly obtuse ignorant position on their beliefs somehow demonstrates the Christianity of our founding fathers, rather than your profound stupidity.


Your ignorance of reality is eclipsed by your denial of it.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> As usual from you, nothing.



says the guy whose sole offering is "derrr, uh, derrr seee post number 36, derrr"






trust me, dude.. from the Jefferson estate to Franklin's autobiography YOU have had your ass handed to you.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> No, just all the ones that I've mentioned. And any time that they wrote something that doesn't have the words "Jesus Christ is God" in every sentence, that automatically makes them deist.



or, you know, like an actual QUOTE FROM FRANKLINS *AUTOBIOGRAPHY*!






PWNED!


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Your ignorance of reality is eclipsed by your denial of it.



says the quote chop shop master surgeon!





dude.. you really are a fucking failure in this thread.  It's people like you that make me happy to bitchslap dogma junkies with facts.


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> .... "derrr, uh, derrr seee post number 36, derrr"
> ....


 Careful now to wipe that droll off your chin before you electrocute yourself!


----------



## glockmail

Shogun said:


> says the quote chop shop master surgeon!....


 Post 201- still waiting ...


----------



## LOki

glockmail said:


> Your ignorance of reality is eclipsed by your denial of it.


The reality of your intensely brainless fatuity is far too painfully apparent to ever deny.


----------



## glockmail

LOki said:


> The reality of your intensely brainless fatuity is far too painfully apparent to ever deny.


 Did you pull that out of the Department of Redundancy Department?


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Careful now to wipe that droll off your chin before you electrocute yourself!



clearly, you cannot detect sarcasm...


much like you cannot detect FACT!






poor guy.. again, you are why christians get stuck with the reputation they do when it comes to science.. well, that and your collective history of bonfires and mass ignorance.


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Post 201- still waiting ...



waiting for what? the ability to post evidence beyond some assertion you made pages ago?  Trust me, dude.  if you HAD the evidence without haivng to butcher a quote you'd have posted it by now instead of trying to dance like a fucking marionette.


MEEEEEEEEEEEP!   


you lose!


----------



## Shogun

glockmail said:


> Did you pull that out of the Department of Redundancy Department?



SAYS THE GUY WHOSE SOLE INPUT IS "derrr. duhhh. us post 201 er duhhhh..."






talk about irony at it's finest.


----------



## Care4all

Shogun said:


> clearly, you cannot detect sarcasm...
> 
> 
> much like you cannot detect FACT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor guy.. again, you are why christians get stuck with the reputation they do when it comes to science.. well, that and your collective history of bonfires and mass ignorance.



Actually, the Catholic Church in Vatican 2 told us not to contradict or fight science...basically that we do not know everything about God or how he made us and it all to work, and that the Catholic Church was arrogant to presume that they did know precisely all that was needed to know about our creation....like when the Catholic church insisted that the world was flat....


----------



## dilloduck

Care4all said:


> Actually, the Catholic Church in Vatican 2 told us not to contradict or fight science...basically that we do not know everything about God or how he made us and it all to work, and that the Catholic Church was arrogant to presume that they did know precisely all that was needed to know about our creation....like when the Catholic church insisted that the world was flat....



Well science told us thalidomide was safe too. Who is it that you plan on trusting ?

NTP-CERHR: Common Concerns - Thalidomide


----------



## Shogun

dilloduck said:


> Well science told us thalidomide was safe too. Who is it that you plan on trusting ?
> 
> NTP-CERHR: Common Concerns - Thalidomide




and the EVIDENCE showed us otherwise.. hence the ban on thalidomide..

say, wanna offer anything as tangible as flippers on your newborn?


----------



## Paulie

I'm fashionably late on this thread, but who cares what religion they were as long as our government never legislates in the name of religion?


----------



## Shogun

Paulitics said:


> I'm fashionably late on this thread, but who cares what religion they were as long as our government never legislates in the name of religion?



clearly, those who want to validate the inclusion of their dogma into government care.


----------



## Uknow_me72

One thing that I am sure you all know. Religion was the first form of government as a control system. Religion has never left since then and now at the center of the government. All governments lead back to the Roman Catholic Church through the secret societies. The Governments and the Higher end Catholic Church members don't care what religion anyone supports because they have no religion. The are all Humanist, agnostic and aethiest which Satanism as their background.

Satanism teach power over yourself and not to rely on a higher power but yourself.


----------



## LOki

Uknow_me72 said:


> One thing that I am sure you all know. Religion was the first form of government as a control system. Religion has never left since then and now at the center of the government. All governments lead back to the Roman Catholic Church through the secret societies. The Governments and the Higher end Catholic Church members don't care what religion anyone supports because they have no religion. The are all Humanist, agnostic and aethiest which Satanism as their background.
> 
> Satanism teach power over yourself and not to rely on a higher power but yourself.


Sober up.


----------



## Uknow_me72

It would be hard for me to do that seeing how I don't take any drugs or drink.

If you consider Vitamins and Minerals along with other suppliments something that might make me under the influence then you got me.

I already know about you LOki and who you really are. You just don"t know who you are past yourself now.


----------



## LOki

Uknow_me72 said:


> It would be hard for me to do that seeing how I don't take any drugs or drink.


But sniffing glue counts.



Uknow_me72 said:


> I already know about you LOki and who you really are. You just don"t know who you are past yourself now.


Seriously.


----------



## glockmail

Paulitics said:


> I'm fashionably late on this thread, but who cares what religion they were as long as our government never legislates in the name of religion?


 As I said previously, it helps to understand the Founders so that you can better interpret their writings. A true Christian doesn't legislate in the name of his religion, but uses his religion to help determine between right and wrong.


----------



## Uknow_me72

This where I question, why do we need someone to tell us what right and wrong is? We all know what is right and wrong. 

Right now we are forced to live gray and neither black or white. That is what making to many rules does.


----------



## glockmail

Uknow_me72 said:


> This where I question, why do we need someone to tell us what right and wrong is? We all know what is right and wrong.
> 
> Right now we are forced to live gray and neither black or white. That is what making to many rules does.


 The fact is, we don't. Morality is mostly, if not wholly, learned.


----------



## Shogun

and christianity is not the standard by which this nation decides what is right or wrong.


first amendment, bitch.  (not to mention all those Jefferson quotes and Franklin autobiographical passages!)


----------



## LOki

Shogun said:


> and christianity is not the standard by which this nation decides what is right or wrong.
> 
> 
> first amendment, bitch.  (not to mention all those Jefferson quotes and Franklin autobiographical passages!)





			
				John Adams said:
			
		

> *The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history.* Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture;* it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.*


----------



## glockmail

John Adams said:
			
		

> FEBRUARY 22, 1756: Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged, in conscience, to temperance and frugality and industry; to justice and kindness and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love and reverence towards Almighty God. In this commonwealth, no man would impair his health by gluttony, drunkenness, or lust; no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards or any other trifling and mean amusement; no man would steal, or lie, or in any way defraud his neighbor, but would live in peace and good will with all men; no man would blaspheme his Maker or profane his worship; but a rational and manly, a sincere and unaffected piety and devotion would reign in all hearts. What a Utopia; what a Paradise would this region be
> 
> MARCH 2, 1756: Began this afternoon my third quarter. *The great and Almighty author of nature,* who at first established those rules which regulate the world, can as easily suspend those laws whenever his providence sees sufficient reason for such suspension. This can be no objection, then, to the miracles of Jesus Christ. Although some very thoughtful and contemplative men among the heathen attained a strong persuasion of the great principles of religion, yet the far greater number, having little time for speculation, gradually sunk into the grossest opinions and the grossest practices. These, therefore, could not be made to embrace the true religion till their attention was roused by some astonishing and miraculous appearances. The reasoning of philosophers, having nothing surprising in them, could not overcome the force of prejudice, custom, passion, and bigotry. But when wise and virtuous men commissioned from heaven, by miracles awakened men s attention to their reasonings, the force of truth made its way with ease to their minds.
> 
> AUGUST 24, 1796: One great advantage of the *Christian religion is that it brings the great principle of the law of nature* and nations Love your neighbor as yourself, and do to others as you would that others should do to you, to the knowledge, belief, and veneration of the whole people. Children, servants, women, and men, are all professors in the science of public and private morality. No other institution for education, no kind of political discipline, could diffuse this kind of necessary information, so universally among all ranks and descriptions of citizens. The duties and rights of the man and the citizen are thus taught from early infancy to every creature. The sanctions of a future life are thus added to the observance of civil and political, as well as domestic and private duties. Prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, are thus taught to be the means and conditions of future as well as present happiness.


 emphasis added


----------



## Vintij

Many of the founders were undeclared, many others were diests or followed some form of diesm, meaning they did not rule out the existence of god, BUT they did rule out any type of communications or direct relation with god and humans. Meaning, they did not believe in the paranormal and felt it was a waste of time to prove the existence or non existence of god. Which is why this country was founded on secularism in the first place. Its not an evil thing, its the reason why we are still a free democracy.  Also, it has been documented that many presidents in the early years actually changed their religion to get elected . The most well known would be Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## glockmail

Vintij said:


> Many of the founders were undeclared, many others were diests or followed some form of diesm, meaning they did not rule out the existence of god, *BUT they did rule out any type of communications or direct relation with god and humans*. Meaning, they did not believe in the paranormal and felt it was a waste of time to prove the existence or non existence of god. Which is why this country was founded on secularism in the first place. Its not an evil thing, its the reason why we are still a free democracy.  Also, it has been documented that many presidents in the early years actually changed their religion to get elected . The most well known would be Abraham Lincoln.



Not according to some here.


----------

