Evangelicals and Trump

[ding]

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?

.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.

The sperm is not.

you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.

.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.

.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.
you mustn't what - bear witness to their intercourse to preserve whatever may spill from their bedside.

You said I must. I said, NOT.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved -

the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs -

no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

.
my position has been made perfectly clear - your end run is nothing more than sociopathic zealotry.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

.
there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.
.

Your pretense that it is the Christians who are the would be tyrants in our society today, is not fooling anyone. Try again lefty.

.
there is no pretense to recorded history -

View attachment 393049

christianity is a religion of persecution and victimization of the innocent, uninterrupted since the 4th century to the present day - in this country particularly by their vestiture from the beginning in slavery and other brutalities to indigenous and other peoples of meekness made vulnerable to their evil. correll.

1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.

Breezewood is on a whole other level.

He is literally pretending that their is no difference between a sperm and a fertilized egg.


He is completely with out a soul.

I believe Breezewood is a political subversive.

No doubt. Probably other kinds of subversive too.

A people without a heritage are easily persuaded. ~ Karl Marx

i've certainly seem that Liberals, who celebrate everyone's culture and/or heritage our own, are terrified that any consideration or support could be given to celebrating or supporting our own heritage and traditions.


Because they want to "radically transform" America, and they NEED to shout down any suggest that maybe there is something of value to our already existing culture.

You should watch this when you get a chance. Evan was an insider.

 

[ding]

Another must watch is...

 

[Correll]

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?

.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.

The sperm is not.

you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.

.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.

.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.
you mustn't what - bear witness to their intercourse to preserve whatever may spill from their bedside.

You said I must. I said, NOT.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved -

the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs -

no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

.
my position has been made perfectly clear - your end run is nothing more than sociopathic zealotry.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

.
there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.
.

Your pretense that it is the Christians who are the would be tyrants in our society today, is not fooling anyone. Try again lefty.

.
there is no pretense to recorded history -

View attachment 393049

christianity is a religion of persecution and victimization of the innocent, uninterrupted since the 4th century to the present day - in this country particularly by their vestiture from the beginning in slavery and other brutalities to indigenous and other peoples of meekness made vulnerable to their evil. correll.

1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.

Breezewood is on a whole other level.

He is literally pretending that their is no difference between a sperm and a fertilized egg.


He is completely with out a soul.

I believe Breezewood is a political subversive.

No doubt. Probably other kinds of subversive too.

A people without a heritage are easily persuaded. ~ Karl Marx

i've certainly seem that Liberals, who celebrate everyone's culture and/or heritage our own, are terrified that any consideration or support could be given to celebrating or supporting our own heritage and traditions.


Because they want to "radically transform" America, and they NEED to shout down any suggest that maybe there is something of value to our already existing culture.

That's multiculturalism and it's aimed at destroying the dominant culture of a nation.

Yep. And they need to come up with ginned up bullshit excuses to marginalize and dismiss anyone with any speaking up in defense of any traditional heritage or culture of America, because like you said, they cannot defend their alternative that they want instead of it.


So they have to win by destroying the other, instead of explaining why their way is better.


Because at some level, imo, they know their way is far, far worse.

 

[BreezeWood]

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?

.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.

The sperm is not.

you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.

.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.

.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.
you mustn't what - bear witness to their intercourse to preserve whatever may spill from their bedside.

You said I must. I said, NOT.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved -

the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs -

no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

.
my position has been made perfectly clear - your end run is nothing more than sociopathic zealotry.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

.
there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.
.

Your pretense that it is the Christians who are the would be tyrants in our society today, is not fooling anyone. Try again lefty.

.
there is no pretense to recorded history -

View attachment 393049

christianity is a religion of persecution and victimization of the innocent, uninterrupted since the 4th century to the present day - in this country particularly by their vestiture from the beginning in slavery and other brutalities to indigenous and other peoples of meekness made vulnerable to their evil. correll.

1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.

,

1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.

.
not showing the claim is the only way to prevent the self evident fact from being realized - you can not deny its validity.

there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.

.
what do you mean 100 years ago - as though that makes you any less culpable - what century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
View attachment 393387
.
just recently the racist christians and their protest to protect civil war memorabilia ...

that's probably chick, no need for sunglasses hiding behind a hood. fits her photo profile almost to a T.

You made a claim about today, and for proof you posted a picture from one hundred years ago.


Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.


Are you running away from that idiocy, since I called you on it, or hoping that if you throw enough shit against the wall, like a retarded monkey, that no one will notice how I made a fool of you?


You people are the bigots today and this is all about you wanting to deny Christians the right to participate in the political process by bullying them from the public square, like the marxist thugs you are.

.

Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.

what do you mean 100 years ago - as though that makes you any less culpable - what century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -

.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.

.
be a while for you to find an example ... christian.

christians have no remorse for their past as they have no remorse - correll

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dude, if it bothers that much to acknowledge that Jesus Christ was the Lord the constitution referenced in "the year of the Lord," then just ignore it

you lie again about what In saying:

I never said the two words ‘our Lord’ in the five word phrase is not Jesus Christ. I never said the one word ‘Lord’ in the four word phrase is not Jesus Christ. What I did say was that the four word phrase as written “Year of our Lord” is not a reference to ‘Jesus Christ’. It is a reference to the The Gregorian calendar named after Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in October 1582.

Only an idiot would make an argument that the phrase “year of our Lord” can be replaced by the words ‘Jesus Christ,

Here is how it would look:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Jesus Christ one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Well, this discussion of “Evangelicals & Trump” has become a shit show of political and religious partisanship. I won’t go into all that here, but I disagree with almost all the political generalizations ding and Correll and PoliticalChic have made above....

I have already given my bemused thoughts about the claim that a DATE attesting to the accuracy of the text of the Constitution has any real meaning. Then there is the argument that “America” (by which PoliticalChic means our nation from 1776-1789?) ...

“was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible ... which was the single most quoted document by the Founders, and points to Jesus Christ in the text of the Constitution.“

It is absurd to even try to define the meaning of “orthodox Christians” in 1776, or explain exactly what was “based on the Judeo-Christian Bible.” I believe what is key is that NOTHING in the TEXT of the Constitution mentions Christians, nor does it speak of the “Judeo-Christian Bible.” This was a central part of the POLITICAL fight that led to the founding of our Republic and that shaped our nation. Of course there were other equally or more important fights, like that against monarchy and aristocracy, and of course the compromise with slavery.

Those who argue that our nation was “founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible” are making a more grievous error even than those who argue that our Constitution constituted a specific defense of “slavery” — likewise left unmentioned. Those who wanted to base our new nation and its foundational institutions on Christianity were politically defeated at the founding of our nation ... fortunately and in large part thanks to the foresight of “enlightened” elites, including slaveowners like Madison and Jefferson.

Most of the revolution’s leaders and the common people too, were deeply influenced in those heady revolutionary years by “enlightened” intellectual discourse on government, or radical thinking as popularized by men like Thomas Paine in “Common Sense.” Enlightenment ideas, Deist concepts and Deist language actually DID find their way into our founding documents. But let us be clear that those revolutionary ideas and most of those revolutionary men soon became old and stultified. Most of the revolution’s leaders became comfortable and rich, power seekers, party men, absorbed by a rush to conquer a continent.

By the time Alex de Tocqueville toured the U.S.A. in the mid-1830s Church membership had soared after the 2nd Great Awakening. Adventist’s, Methodists and every variety and branch of evangelical Christianity flourished. Thomas Paine was ignorantly dubbed a dirty atheist and scoundrel (shades of Picaro : Evangelicals and Trump).

Even the young and ambitious Abraham Lincoln had to hide his copy of Paine’s “Age of Reason,” and a good friend burned a favorable article Lincoln wrote on Paine. An amazingly fast growing country became more and more religious, more amoral, more morally troubled, became civically unstuck by slavery, and was under the heavy thumb of religious hypocrites. Even abolitionism was led by religious men.

The old revolutionary ideas about “Natural Religion,” “Nature’s God” and ideas about natural morality and the rights of all men, in short Deist and Enlightenment concepts, were all but lost. They had never in the 1770s and 1780s in the U.S. counterposed themselves to belief in God per se. In truth, it seems to me today’s Evangelicals, “Christian Nationalists” and even many Catholic intellectuals regularly denigrate the broad and positive influence of Enlightenment thought.

All joking aside, in some ways the Enlightenment actually can be thought to represent a partial return to certain pagan modes of thought. The Federalists discussed the pre-Christian Roman Republic (and what little they knew then about Greek polities) in the Federalist Papers. They did not even consider copying the examples of government provided by the Vatican, or Calvinism, or the ancient Hebrews or early Christian Emperors. The American Revolution occurred in a “new world,” a frontier society of a mere 2 and a half million souls in thirteen rebellious British colonies, at a time when working-class Americans were less than ever inclined to follow preachers and more than ever inclined to free thinking and “Common Sense.”

 

[Picaro]

Original Intent, the 1st Amendment, and the 'Founding Fathers'

Three Acts signed into law by Thomas Jefferson:

Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventh Congress,
“ An Act in addition to An Act, Entitled, 'An Act in addition to an Act Regulating the Grants of Land for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen' “ This was followed by two supplementary Acts in the Seventh Congress, Second Session[ and the Eighth Congress, with additions. I didn't post page numbers because they will vary according to which edition is used, but there is enough above to go on for the average semi-literate.

See also the Jefferson treaty with the Kaskakia Indians, citing by SCJ Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion on Wallace v. Jafrees 472 U.S. 38, 103 (1985), providing a Federal subsidy for a Roman Catholic priest's support.

For a different spin on the significance of this for those who pee their pants over 'Da Xian Menace!', I'll even post a link to a discussion of that treaty, just for entertainment purposes. I don't buy their pretty weak spin on it, but I think it is an interesting treaty in light of all the horror and doom Bush's 'Faith based Initiatives' in Africa generated in neurotics claiming it was a violation of the Establishment clause, a common falsehood wildly popular with the ACLU, a group mainly concerned with generating zillions of billable hours and big paydays for lawyers despite its obviously ludicrous high minded claims of 'supporting the Constitution', but that's another topic.

Jefferson wrote The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth for the benefit of Indians and their education, as well.

Thomas Jefferson never claimed to be a 'Deist', and in fact always personally identified himself as a Christian, even if he only considered Jesus a great philosopher. Jefferson was a big fan of Jesus, and there is more than enough evidence to prove it.

Re the famous 'Tripoli Treaty' of 1797, wildly popular with the ignorant as 'proof' of the 'Founding Fathers' hatred of religion, always taken out of context, naturally, if selectively citing a phrase in a treaty as 'evidence' of hatred of religion, and more specifically Christianity is valid, then the treaty with Great Britain ending the Revolutionary War can be cited as well. It begins with “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity,”, and was signed by John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. So much for finding stuff in treaties and selectively editing passages. See also the Kakaskia Treaty and a couple of others for Jefferson's views on using Federal funds to promote christianity.

But, historically literate people know the 1st Amendment was referring to preventing the Fed establishing a denomination as the Federal religion, not banning religion altogether, and certainly not christianity, and in fact the 1st Amendment also prevents the Fed from hindering it, quite the opposite of what is falsely claimed these days, i.e. barring religious icons or even religious services from Federal property.

It also doesn't prevent the Federal government from using Federal funds to advance christian education, including schools. It just couldn't favor one denomination over the other.

I'll post some more later, on George Mason, the 'Father of the Bill of Rights', Jefferson, Madison, the Adamses, Witherspoon, Benjamin Rush, Franklin, Patrick Henry, and others on intent and christianity. They considered the Bible the cornerstone of republicanism and freedom. Anybody who thinks they can claim the 'Founders' support in an argument over the 1st Amendement and christianity in general will lose miserably. They in fact supported government funding of education using the Bible and christianity as a basic requirement.

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.

But enough of this: it is more than I have before committed to paper on the subject of all the lies that has been preached and printed against me. I have not seen the work of Sonnoni which you mention, but I have seen another work on Africa, (Parke's,) which I fear will throw cold water on the hopes of the friends of freedom. You will hear an account of an attempt at insurrection in this state. I am looking with anxiety to see what will be it's effect on our state. We are truly to be pitied. I fear we have little chance to see you at the Federal city or in Virginia, and as little at Philadelphia. It would be a great treat to receive you here. But nothing but sickness could effect that; so I do not wish it. For I wish you health and happiness, and think of you with affection. Adieu.

To Dr. Benjamin Rush
Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800

Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, -- the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, -- endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame. But it was the Lilliputians upon Gulliver.

SOMETHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Mar. 21, 1801

But am in hopes their good sense will dictate to them, that since the mountain will not come to them, they had better go to the mountain: that they will find their interest in acquiescing in the liberty and science of their country, and that the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.

WISDOM AND PATRIOTISM
To Moses Robinson
Washington, March 23, 1

Those who have acted well have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me in opinion: those who have done ill, however, have nothing to hope; nor shall I fail to do justice lest it should be ascribed to that difference of opinion. A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers. They, like the clergy, live by the zeal they can kindle, and the schisms they can create. It is contest of opinion in politics as well as religion which makes us take great interest in them, and bestow our money liberally on those who furnish aliment to our appetite. The mild and simple principles of the Christian philosophy would produce too much calm, too much regularity of good, to extract from it's disciples a support for a numerous priesthood, were they not to sophisticate it, ramify it, split it into hairs, and twist it's texts till they cover the divine morality of it's author with mysteries, and require a priesthood to explain them. The Quakers seem to have discovered this. They have no priests, therefore no schisms. They judge of the text by the dictates of common sense & common morality. So the printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful, and would have to go to the plough. In the first moments of quietude which have succeeded the election, they seem to have aroused their lying faculties beyond their ordinary state, to re-agitate the public mind. What appointments to office have they detailed which had never been thought of, merely to found a text for their calumniating commentaries.

RECONCILIATION AND REFORM
To Elbridge Gerry
Washington, Mar. 29, 1801

DEAR SIR, -- While on a short visit lately to Monticello, I received from you a copy of your comparative view of Socrates & Jesus, and I avail myself of the first moment of leisure after my return to acknolege the pleasure had in the perusal of it, and the desire it excited to see you take up the subject on a more extensive scale. In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, say of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, & presented in very paradoxical shapes. Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers. His character & doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions & precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man. This is the outline; but I have not the time, & still less the information which the subject needs. It will therefore rest with me in contemplation only. You are the person who of all others would do it best, and most promptly. You have all the materials at hand, and you put together with ease. I wish you could be induced to extend your late work to the whole subject.

JESUS, SOCRATES, AND OTHERS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Apr. 9, 1803

DEAR SIR, -- In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. 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 he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. At the short intervals since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Doctr Priestley, his little treatise of "Socrates & Jesus compared." This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road, and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus, or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity, as wished to see executed by some one of more leisure and information for the task, than myself. This I now send you, as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behoves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God & himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.
SYLLABUS OF AN ESTIMATE OF THE MERIT OF THE DOCTRINES

OF JESUS, COMPARED WITH THOSE OF OTHERS April, 1803
In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry & superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.

Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy, or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.


I. PHILOSOPHERS. 1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind. In this branch of philosophy they were really great.


2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred & friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: toward our neighbors & countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity & love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.


II. JEWS. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God. But their ideas of him & of his attributes were degrading & injurious.


2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason & morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; & repulsive & anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.


III. JESUS. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, & of the sublimest eloquence.


The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.


1. Like Socrates & Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.


2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life & doctrines fell on the most unlettered & ignorant men; who wrote, too, from memory, & not till long after the transactions had passed.


3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to jealousy & combination of the altar and the throne, at about 33. years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of 3. years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.


4. Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, & often unintelligible.
5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating & perverting the simple doctrines he taught by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, & obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, & to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.


The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merit of his doctrines.


1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred & friends, were more pure & perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, & of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.

4. He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted, or disbelieved by the Jews; and wielded it with efficacy, as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.

THE MORALS OF JESUS
To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus
Washington, Apr. 21, 1803

DEAR SIR, -- Your favor of December 12 came duly to hand, as did the 2^d. letter to Doctor Linn, and the treatise of Phlogiston, for which I pray you to accept my thanks. The copy for Mr. Livingston has been delivered, together with your letter to him, to Mr. Harvie, my secretary, who departs in a day or two for Paris, & will deliver them himself to Mr. Livingston, whose attention to your matter cannot be doubted. I have also to add my thanks to Mr. Priestley, your son, for the copy of your Harmony, which I have gone through with great satisfaction. It is the first I have been able to meet with, which is clear of those long repetitions of the same transaction, as if it were a different one because related with some different circumstances.

I rejoice that you have undertaken the task of comparing the moral doctrines of Jesus with those of the ancient Philosophers. You are so much in possession of the whole subject, that you will do it easier & better than any other person living. I think you cannot avoid giving, as preliminary to the comparison, a digest of his moral doctrines, extracted in his own words from the Evangelists, and leaving out everything relative to his personal history and character. It would be short and precious. With a view to do this for my own satisfaction, I had sent to Philadelphia to get two testaments Greek of the same edition, & two English, with a design to cut out the morsels of morality, and paste them on the leaves of a book, in the manner you describe as having been pursued in forming your Harmony. But I shall now get the thing done by better hands.




JESUS, LOUISIANA, AND MALTHUS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Jan. 29, 1804




And so endeth the book of Kings, from all of whom the Lord deliver us, and have you, my friend, and all such good men and true, in his holy keeping.




"THE BOOK OF KINGS"
To Governor John Langdon
Monticello, March 5, 1810




It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine.' Enfield, B. 4. chap. 3. It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook. In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to them. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, andwhich is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.The result is an 8 vo. of 46. pages of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered apostles, the Apostolic fathers, and the Christians of the
1st. century. Their Platonising successors indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the corruptions which they had incorporated into the doctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers cotemporary with them. They excommunicated their followers as heretics, branding them with the opprobrious name of Ebionites or Beggars.


For a comparison of the Graecian philosophy with that of Jesus, materials might be largely drawn from the same source. Enfield gives a history, and detailed account of the opinions and principles of the different sects. These relate to


the gods, their natures, grades, places and powers;


the demi-gods and daemons, and their agency with man;


the Universe, it's structure, extent, production and duration;


the origin of things from the elements of fire, water, air and earth;


the human soul, it's essence and derivation;


the summum bonum and finis bonorum; with a thousand idle dreams and fancies on these and other subjects the knowledge of which is withheld from man, leaving but a short chapter for his moral duties, and the principal section of that given to what he owes himself, to precepts for rendering him impassible, and unassailable by the evils of life, and for preserving his mind in a state of constant serenity.


Such a canvas is too broad for the age of seventy, and especially of one whose chief occupations have been in the practical business of life. We must leave therefore to others, younger and more learned than we are, to prepare this euthanasia for Platonic Christianity, and it's restoration to the primitive simplicity of it's founder. I think you give a just outline of the theism of the three religions when you say that the principle of the Hebrew was the fear, of the Gentile the honor, and of the Christian the love of God.

THE CODE OF JESUS
To John Adams
Monticello, Oct. 12, 1813



This is just a small part of Jefferson's take on Christianity, and he wasn't even at the Convention anyway, took no part in it. There or the other 225 or so 'Founders' besides him, and the 5,000 or so other important men of those times whose opinions and influences count for a lot more than those three by far, so you morons can babble about cherry picked stuff from Franklin, Jefferson, and re Paine, who wasn't a 'Founder, he held no offices and wasn't elected to anything, his babbling doesn't mean a thing.

 

[ding]

Dude, if it bothers that much to acknowledge that Jesus Christ was the Lord the constitution referenced in "the year of the Lord," then just ignore it

you lie again about what In saying:

I never said the two words ‘our Lord’ in the five word phrase is not Jesus Christ. I never said the one word ‘Lord’ in the four word phrase is not Jesus Christ. What I did say was that the four word phrase as written “Year of our Lord” is not a reference to ‘Jesus Christ’. It is a reference to the The Gregorian calendar named after Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in October 1582.

Only an idiot would make an argument that the phrase “year of our Lord” can be replaced by the words ‘Jesus Christ,

Here is how it would look:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Jesus Christ one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

If it bothers that much to acknowledge that Jesus Christ was the Lord the constitution referenced in "the year of the Lord," then just ignore it

 

[Correll]

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?

.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.

The sperm is not.

you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.

.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.

.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.
you mustn't what - bear witness to their intercourse to preserve whatever may spill from their bedside.

You said I must. I said, NOT.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved -

the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs -

no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

.
my position has been made perfectly clear - your end run is nothing more than sociopathic zealotry.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

.
there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.
.

Your pretense that it is the Christians who are the would be tyrants in our society today, is not fooling anyone. Try again lefty.

.
there is no pretense to recorded history -

View attachment 393049

christianity is a religion of persecution and victimization of the innocent, uninterrupted since the 4th century to the present day - in this country particularly by their vestiture from the beginning in slavery and other brutalities to indigenous and other peoples of meekness made vulnerable to their evil. correll.

1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.

,

1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.

.
not showing the claim is the only way to prevent the self evident fact from being realized - you can not deny its validity.

there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.

.
what do you mean 100 years ago - as though that makes you any less culpable - what century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
View attachment 393387
.
just recently the racist christians and their protest to protect civil war memorabilia ...

that's probably chick, no need for sunglasses hiding behind a hood. fits her photo profile almost to a T.

You made a claim about today, and for proof you posted a picture from one hundred years ago.


Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.


Are you running away from that idiocy, since I called you on it, or hoping that if you throw enough shit against the wall, like a retarded monkey, that no one will notice how I made a fool of you?


You people are the bigots today and this is all about you wanting to deny Christians the right to participate in the political process by bullying them from the public square, like the marxist thugs you are.

.

Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.

what do you mean 100 years ago - as though that makes you any less culpable - what century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -

.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
View attachment 393678
.
be a while for you to find an example ... christian.

christians have no remorse for their past as they have no remorse - correll

YOu made a claim about Christianity today, and to support it, you posted an ONE HUNDRED YEAR OLD PICTURE.


And you don't see an issue with that?


Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.

 

[Correll]

Well, this discussion of “Evangelicals & Trump” has become a shit show of political and religious partisanship. I won’t go into all that here, but I disagree with almost all the political generalizations ding and Correll and PoliticalChic have made above....

I have already given my bemused thoughts about the claim that a DATE attesting to the accuracy of the text of the Constitution has any real meaning. Then there is the argument that “America” (by which PoliticalChic means our nation from 1776-1789?) ...

“was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible ... which was the single most quoted document by the Founders, and points to Jesus Christ in the text of the Constitution.“

It is absurd to even try to define the meaning of “orthodox Christians” in 1776, or explain exactly what was “based on the Judeo-Christian Bible.” I believe what is key is that NOTHING in the TEXT of the Constitution mentions Christians, nor does it speak of the “Judeo-Christian Bible.” This was a central part of the POLITICAL fight that led to the founding of our Republic and that shaped our nation. Of course there were other equally or more important fights, like that against monarchy and aristocracy, and of course the compromise with slavery.

Those who argue that our nation was “founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible” are making a more grievous error even than those who argue that our Constitution constituted a specific defense of “slavery” — likewise left unmentioned. Those who wanted to base our new nation and its foundational institutions on Christianity were politically defeated at the founding of our nation ... fortunately and in large part thanks to the foresight of “enlightened” elites, including slaveowners like Madison and Jefferson.

Most of the revolution’s leaders and the common people too, were deeply influenced in those heady revolutionary years by “enlightened” intellectual discourse on government, or radical thinking as popularized by men like Thomas Paine in “Common Sense.” Enlightenment ideas, Deist concepts and Deist language actually DID find their way into our founding documents. But let us be clear that those revolutionary ideas and most of those revolutionary men soon became old and stultified. Most of the revolution’s leaders became comfortable and rich, power seekers, party men, absorbed by a rush to conquer a continent.

By the time Alex de Tocqueville toured the U.S.A. in the mid-1830s Church membership had soared after the 2nd Great Awakening. Adventist’s, Methodists and every variety and branch of evangelical Christianity flourished. Thomas Paine was ignorantly dubbed a dirty atheist and scoundrel (shades of Picaro : Evangelicals and Trump).

Even the young and ambitious Abraham Lincoln had to hide his copy of Paine’s “Age of Reason,” and a good friend burned a favorable article Lincoln wrote on Paine. An amazingly fast growing country became more and more religious, more amoral, more morally troubled, became civically unstuck by slavery, and was under the heavy thumb of religious hypocrites. Even abolitionism was led by religious men.

The old revolutionary ideas about “Natural Religion,” “Nature’s God” and ideas about natural morality and the rights of all men, in short Deist and Enlightenment concepts, were all but lost. They had never in the 1770s and 1780s in the U.S. counterposed themselves to belief in God per se. In truth, it seems to me today’s Evangelicals, “Christian Nationalists” and even many Catholic intellectuals regularly denigrate the broad and positive influence of Enlightenment thought.

All joking aside, in some ways the Enlightenment actually can be thought to represent a partial return to certain pagan modes of thought. The Federalists discussed the pre-Christian Roman Republic (and what little they knew then about Greek polities) in the Federalist Papers. They did not even consider copying the examples of government provided by the Vatican, or Calvinism, or the ancient Hebrews or early Christian Emperors. The American Revolution occurred in a “new world,” a frontier society of a mere 2 and a half million souls in thirteen rebellious British colonies, at a time when working-class Americans were less than ever inclined to follow preachers and more than ever inclined to free thinking and “Common Sense.”

Why does it bother you that the Abolition Movement was led by religious men?

 

[Picaro]

Jacob Shallus (a FreeMason) must be a huge hero to you and Correll. He was paid $30 bucks to make copies of the Seven Articles and he wrote the LORDY LORDLY date after the articles were signed - and those two words miraculously turned the entire Constitution into a Christian Nationalist Document and we have a new nation founded entirely by white Protestant Christians in 1790 year of our Lord.

OOOOPS !!!!!!!! The Scribe who put “Lord God” in the date line does not come with a guarantee that he was a Christian.

See here is what Freemasons believe:

“.....membership requires acceptance of the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being that includes the gods of Islam, Hinduism, or other religions.“​

​

“Freemasonry refers to its god as the Great Architect of the Universe. In honoring this generic "Great Architect," the person involved in Freemasonry does not worship the God of the Bible but another god.”​

​

“....Masons teach that a person can go to heaven as the result of a person's good works. Of course, to encourage allegiance to any god other than the God of the Bible also reflects a belief that salvation can be found outside of Jesus.“​

​

“.....Mason teachings, in contrast, consider the Bible one of many sacred books (called Volumes of Sacred Law) that hold equal importance.”​

​

“....In contrast, the Mason view of God is a god who is a general being inclusive of all deities. Called the "Nameless one of a hundred names," this view of God represents a multi-god worldview incompatible with biblical Christianity. Further, in Masonic teachings Jesus is only one of many spiritual leaders rather than the only Son of God (John 3:16) and God in human form (John 1:14).“​

​

So ding do you or PC claim to know what Jacob Shallus (a FreeMason) was talking about when he wrote the “Year of Lord” date on the record and display copies?

Which Lord were they talking about exactly?

They (the signers) were not talking about their “Lord”. They were not pointing to JESUS CHRIST. that’s impossible. When the Delegates signed their names the Lordy Date was not on the document.

Now since it looks like a Scribe named Jacob Shallus was paid $30 bucks to write those words on his own because the signers did not say, read or hear them when the articles were ratified.

So PC is a liar., perhaps ignorant of the truth.

Are you disputing this ?

—the "our Lord" clause is not part of the official legal Constitution. The official Constitution's text ends just before these extra words of attestation—extra words that in fact were not ratified by various state conventions in 1787-88​

What is the ‘Year of our Lord’ doing on diplomas, government documents, and the Constitution?

'Year of our Lord' is a religious relic that has been mostly discarded. This anachronistic dating convention is reported to FFRF from time to time as a violation that disgraces

ffrf.org

Here’s what happened;

The Convention debated and edited this draft for more than a month. They then passed it and the copious edits off to the Committee of Style, a political dream team that included James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Governeur Morris. The Committee of Style brought the polished product back to the whole convention on September 12, 1787. There is no lordly date on that draft. You can actually see George Washington's copy of this nearly complete version of the Constitution and his handwritten edits. It runs to four pages and ends with Article VII.​

On September 15, the Convention agreed on the complete text, and, for $30, hired Jacob Shallus to engross (transcribe in legible, bold, and occasionally ornate lettering) the final draft onto the four sheets of vellum that reside in that National Archives today.​

Shallus worked to complete his work from September 15 through 17. The Convention met on September 17 and read Shallus's engrossed copy aloud. It was ony then that Franklin made a motion to add on the date and signatures, the motion Madison recorded: "offered the following as a convenient form ... ''Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth of September, &c —"​

Franklin's motion to add the signatures and date was made after this final draft was read aloud, so when it was read aloud it did not include "Year of our Lord." This also makes sense, Shallus would not have known the actual date of the signing.​

In short, none of the drafts contains the "Year of our Lord." The absence of the date—"Year of our Lord" or otherwise—on the three drafts of the Constitution illustrates the previous point: the date and signatures are not part of the Constitution itself.​

So you and PC are lying through your teeth saying that when they paid a possibly non-Christian scribe to add the date to a record copy he added the “Year of our Lord” and that proves that every other word in the entire Constitution are about JESUS CHRIST and every one who believed that his mother was a virgin, everyone who believed he died on a cross to cancel out every single conceived human’s sins, (if they believed the 1800 year old story) , and who believe he rose from the dead, and will come back some day to be with all the believers and cast everybody who doesn’t believe into the burning fires of hell.

lol one of the most tortured and idiotic narratives yet.

Yeah, what the hell was he even trying to say?

No idea, just some weird crap about Freemasons or something he thinks invalidates stuff and makes us an atheist country or something. Guess he never heard of Black's Law dictionaries and legal guides, the 10 Commandments, Locke, Bolingbrokism, etc., etc., etc., i.e. 2,000 years of western history.

 

[ding]

Well, this discussion of “Evangelicals & Trump” has become a shit show of political and religious partisanship. I won’t go into all that here, but I disagree with almost all the political generalizations ding and Correll and PoliticalChic have made above....

I have already given my bemused thoughts about the claim that a DATE attesting to the accuracy of the text of the Constitution has any real meaning. Then there is the argument that “America” (by which PoliticalChic means our nation from 1776-1789?) ...

“was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible ... which was the single most quoted document by the Founders, and points to Jesus Christ in the text of the Constitution.“

It is absurd to even try to define the meaning of “orthodox Christians” in 1776, or explain exactly what was “based on the Judeo-Christian Bible.” I believe what is key is that NOTHING in the TEXT of the Constitution mentions Christians, nor does it speak of the “Judeo-Christian Bible.” This was a central part of the POLITICAL fight that led to the founding of our Republic and that shaped our nation. Of course there were other equally or more important fights, like that against monarchy and aristocracy, and of course the compromise with slavery.

Those who argue that our nation was “founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible” are making a more grievous error even than those who argue that our Constitution constituted a specific defense of “slavery” — likewise left unmentioned. Those who wanted to base our new nation and its foundational institutions on Christianity were politically defeated at the founding of our nation ... fortunately and in large part thanks to the foresight of “enlightened” elites, including slaveowners like Madison and Jefferson.

Most of the revolution’s leaders and the common people too, were deeply influenced in those heady revolutionary years by “enlightened” intellectual discourse on government, or radical thinking as popularized by men like Thomas Paine in “Common Sense.” Enlightenment ideas, Deist concepts and Deist language actually DID find their way into our founding documents. But let us be clear that those revolutionary ideas and most of those revolutionary men soon became old and stultified. Most of the revolution’s leaders became comfortable and rich, power seekers, party men, absorbed by a rush to conquer a continent.

By the time Alex de Tocqueville toured the U.S.A. in the mid-1830s Church membership had soared after the 2nd Great Awakening. Adventist’s, Methodists and every variety and branch of evangelical Christianity flourished. Thomas Paine was ignorantly dubbed a dirty atheist and scoundrel (shades of Picaro : Evangelicals and Trump).

Even the young and ambitious Abraham Lincoln had to hide his copy of Paine’s “Age of Reason,” and a good friend burned a favorable article Lincoln wrote on Paine. An amazingly fast growing country became more and more religious, more amoral, more morally troubled, became civically unstuck by slavery, and was under the heavy thumb of religious hypocrites. Even abolitionism was led by religious men.

The old revolutionary ideas about “Natural Religion,” “Nature’s God” and ideas about natural morality and the rights of all men, in short Deist and Enlightenment concepts, were all but lost. They had never in the 1770s and 1780s in the U.S. counterposed themselves to belief in God per se. In truth, it seems to me today’s Evangelicals, “Christian Nationalists” and even many Catholic intellectuals regularly denigrate the broad and positive influence of Enlightenment thought.

All joking aside, in some ways the Enlightenment actually can be thought to represent a partial return to certain pagan modes of thought. The Federalists discussed the pre-Christian Roman Republic (and what little they knew then about Greek polities) in the Federalist Papers. They did not even consider copying the examples of government provided by the Vatican, or Calvinism, or the ancient Hebrews or early Christian Emperors. The American Revolution occurred in a “new world,” a frontier society of a mere 2 and a half million souls in thirteen rebellious British colonies, at a time when working-class Americans were less than ever inclined to follow preachers and more than ever inclined to free thinking and “Common Sense.”

And I disagree with yours. Every aspect of colonial times was steeped in Christianity, especially education. From the book that educated their children to the universities that prepared them to enter society, Christianity was imbedded in their learning.

The New England Primer was the first reading primer designed for the American Colonies. It became the most successful educational textbook published in 17th century colonial United States and it became the foundation of most schooling before the 1790s. The New England Primer - Wikipedia

 

[Picaro]

Well, this discussion of “Evangelicals & Trump” has become a shit show of political and religious partisanship. I won’t go into all that here, but I disagree with almost all the political generalizations ding and Correll and PoliticalChic have made above....

I have already given my bemused thoughts about the claim that a DATE attesting to the accuracy of the text of the Constitution has any real meaning. Then there is the argument that “America” (by which PoliticalChic means our nation from 1776-1789?) ...

“was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible ... which was the single most quoted document by the Founders, and points to Jesus Christ in the text of the Constitution.“

It is absurd to even try to define the meaning of “orthodox Christians” in 1776, or explain exactly what was “based on the Judeo-Christian Bible.” I believe what is key is that NOTHING in the TEXT of the Constitution mentions Christians, nor does it speak of the “Judeo-Christian Bible.” This was a central part of the POLITICAL fight that led to the founding of our Republic and that shaped our nation. Of course there were other equally or more important fights, like that against monarchy and aristocracy, and of course the compromise with slavery.

Those who argue that our nation was “founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible” are making a more grievous error even than those who argue that our Constitution constituted a specific defense of “slavery” — likewise left unmentioned. Those who wanted to base our new nation and its foundational institutions on Christianity were politically defeated at the founding of our nation ... fortunately and in large part thanks to the foresight of “enlightened” elites, including slaveowners like Madison and Jefferson.

Most of the revolution’s leaders and the common people too, were deeply influenced in those heady revolutionary years by “enlightened” intellectual discourse on government, or radical thinking as popularized by men like Thomas Paine in “Common Sense.” Enlightenment ideas, Deist concepts and Deist language actually DID find their way into our founding documents. But let us be clear that those revolutionary ideas and most of those revolutionary men soon became old and stultified. Most of the revolution’s leaders became comfortable and rich, power seekers, party men, absorbed by a rush to conquer a continent.

By the time Alex de Tocqueville toured the U.S.A. in the mid-1830s Church membership had soared after the 2nd Great Awakening. Adventist’s, Methodists and every variety and branch of evangelical Christianity flourished. Thomas Paine was ignorantly dubbed a dirty atheist and scoundrel (shades of Picaro : Evangelicals and Trump).

Even the young and ambitious Abraham Lincoln had to hide his copy of Paine’s “Age of Reason,” and a good friend burned a favorable article Lincoln wrote on Paine. An amazingly fast growing country became more and more religious, more amoral, more morally troubled, became civically unstuck by slavery, and was under the heavy thumb of religious hypocrites. Even abolitionism was led by religious men.

The old revolutionary ideas about “Natural Religion,” “Nature’s God” and ideas about natural morality and the rights of all men, in short Deist and Enlightenment concepts, were all but lost. They had never in the 1770s and 1780s in the U.S. counterposed themselves to belief in God per se. In truth, it seems to me today’s Evangelicals, “Christian Nationalists” and even many Catholic intellectuals regularly denigrate the broad and positive influence of Enlightenment thought.

All joking aside, in some ways the Enlightenment actually can be thought to represent a partial return to certain pagan modes of thought. The Federalists discussed the pre-Christian Roman Republic (and what little they knew then about Greek polities) in the Federalist Papers. They did not even consider copying the examples of government provided by the Vatican, or Calvinism, or the ancient Hebrews or early Christian Emperors. The American Revolution occurred in a “new world,” a frontier society of a mere 2 and a half million souls in thirteen rebellious British colonies, at a time when working-class Americans were less than ever inclined to follow preachers and more than ever inclined to free thinking and “Common Sense.”

Why does it bother you that the Abolition Movement was led by religious men?

This clown never heard of the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings, for one, doesn't even know basic American grade school history yet he thinks he's scoring big Gotchas here. lol

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Why do you continually distort my complaint Correll ? Here it is:

So why do you support white Protestant Evangelical Christians going around spewing an untrue statement that America was founded as a Christian Nation and is a Christian nation.

I’m not a Christian and I do not live in a Christian Nation. I live in a nation where the majority profess to be Christian of one Denomination or another. The majority of them are not clamoring to the world that America was founded as a Christian Nation.

I’ll say it again. I absolutely respect and appreciate the contributions made to the founding of America by those whoever @Correl ding PoliticalChic favor to be part of our Christian Heritage. I fully accept that the Religious majority when the Constitution was written, was predominantly Trinitarian Protestant and anti-Catholic. I welcome and support as I said many times those ‘heritage’ Christians of today bring their religion to the public square. Do not be

My complaint is that this from PoliticalChic is a flat out lie about the Constitution:

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible...

That being considered why must I keep responding to this lie by my opponents?

It seems that W is having a hard time acknowledging America's Christian heritage. It would seem to me that having the phrase "the year of the Lord" in the constitution would be an obvious artifact of a Christian heritage.

I‘m not having a hard time acknowledging America's Christian heritage. I fully endorse it. Your point is a flat out lie.

Try to follow this ding

It would seem to me that having the phrase "the year of the Lord" in the constitution would be an obvious artifact of a Christian heritage. And that admitting that that literally was referencing Jesus Christ as Lord without having to argue that our country was created as a theocracy or the constitution was a Christian document, whatever that means.

It appears ding is confused. I understand that “our Lord” is a reference to Jesus Christ .

I have already given my bemused thoughts about the claim that a DATE attesting to the accuracy of the text of the Constitution has any real meaning.

Bemused is being generous. It would be hilarious as the words of a total nutjob except PoliticalChic actual believes the reference to the year the Constitution was signed is proof that America was founded fully and with no other input by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible..

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible...

That’s just nuts. there is no other way to pit it.

I won’t go into all that here, but I disagree with almost all the political generalizations @ding and @Correll and @PoliticalChic have made above....

Then there is the argument that “America” (by which @PoliticalChic means our nation from 1776-1789) ...“was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible ...

When PoliticalChic says that and she is backed up by Correll and ding they are
not saying America was founded as a Christian Theocracy.

They are however saying that It was ONLY trinitarian Protestant Christianity that founded America in order to promote that brand of Christianity because that Judeo Christian Heritage promotes the only proper morality available to mankind,

My complaint is that such Judeo-Christian historical revisionism is false, and it needlessly divides working class Americans between based upon choices made about religion. And that sucks with all the modern issues workers face in the modern world .

 

[Correll]

Why do you continually distort my complaint Correll ? Here it is:

So why do you support white Protestant Evangelical Christians going around spewing an untrue statement that America was founded as a Christian Nation and is a Christian nation.

I’m not a Christian and I do not live in a Christian Nation. I live in a nation where the majority profess to be Christian of one Denomination or another. The majority of them are not clamoring to the world that America was founded as a Christian Nation.

I’ll say it again. I absolutely respect and appreciate the contributions made to the founding of America by those whoever @Correl ding PoliticalChic favor to be part of our Christian Heritage. I fully accept that the Religious majority when the Constitution was written, was predominantly Trinitarian Protestant and anti-Catholic. I welcome and support as I said many times those ‘heritage’ Christians of today bring their religion to the public square. Do not be

My complaint is that this from PoliticalChic is a flat out lie about the Constitution:

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible...

That being considered why must I keep responding to this lie by my opponents?

It seems that W is having a hard time acknowledging America's Christian heritage. It would seem to me that having the phrase "the year of the Lord" in the constitution would be an obvious artifact of a Christian heritage.

I‘m not having a hard time acknowledging America's Christian heritage. I fully endorse it. Your point is a flat out lie.

Try to follow this ding

It would seem to me that having the phrase "the year of the Lord" in the constitution would be an obvious artifact of a Christian heritage. And that admitting that that literally was referencing Jesus Christ as Lord without having to argue that our country was created as a theocracy or the constitution was a Christian document, whatever that means.

It appears ding is confused. I understand that “our Lord” is a reference to Jesus Christ .

I have already given my bemused thoughts about the claim that a DATE attesting to the accuracy of the text of the Constitution has any real meaning.

Bemused is being generous. It would be hilarious as the words of a total nutjob except PoliticalChic actual believes the reference to the year the Constitution was signed is proof that America was founded fully and with no other input by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible..

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible...

That’s just nuts. there is no other way to pit it.

I won’t go into all that here, but I disagree with almost all the political generalizations @ding and @Correll and @PoliticalChic have made above....

Then there is the argument that “America” (by which @PoliticalChic means our nation from 1776-1789) ...“was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible ...

When PoliticalChic says that and she is backed up by Correll and ding they are
not saying America was founded as a Christian Theocracy.

They are however saying that It was ONLY trinitarian Protestant Christianity that founded America in order to promote that brand of Christianity because that Judeo Christian Heritage promotes the only proper morality available to mankind,

My complaint is that such Judeo-Christian historical revisionism is false, and it needlessly divides working class Americans between based upon choices made about religion. And that sucks with all the modern issues workers face in the modern world .

No, it does not. YOU divide US, when you pretend that such a historical argument is relevant to today's policies.


I have repeatedly asked you to give ONE example of a current issue, that would be impacted by an admission that this country was founded as a Christian Nation.


You have ignored my requests, and we both know why.

 

[Picaro]

Why do you continually distort my complaint Correll ? Here it is:

So why do you support white Protestant Evangelical Christians going around spewing an untrue statement that America was founded as a Christian Nation and is a Christian nation.

I’m not a Christian and I do not live in a Christian Nation. I live in a nation where the majority profess to be Christian of one Denomination or another. The majority of them are not clamoring to the world that America was founded as a Christian Nation.

I’ll say it again. I absolutely respect and appreciate the contributions made to the founding of America by those whoever @Correl ding PoliticalChic favor to be part of our Christian Heritage. I fully accept that the Religious majority when the Constitution was written, was predominantly Trinitarian Protestant and anti-Catholic. I welcome and support as I said many times those ‘heritage’ Christians of today bring their religion to the public square. Do not be

My complaint is that this from PoliticalChic is a flat out lie about the Constitution:

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible...

That being considered why must I keep responding to this lie by my opponents?

It seems that W is having a hard time acknowledging America's Christian heritage. It would seem to me that having the phrase "the year of the Lord" in the constitution would be an obvious artifact of a Christian heritage.

I‘m not having a hard time acknowledging America's Christian heritage. I fully endorse it. Your point is a flat out lie.

Try to follow this ding

It would seem to me that having the phrase "the year of the Lord" in the constitution would be an obvious artifact of a Christian heritage. And that admitting that that literally was referencing Jesus Christ as Lord without having to argue that our country was created as a theocracy or the constitution was a Christian document, whatever that means.

It appears ding is confused. I understand that “our Lord” is a reference to Jesus Christ .

I have already given my bemused thoughts about the claim that a DATE attesting to the accuracy of the text of the Constitution has any real meaning.

Bemused is being generous. It would be hilarious as the words of a total nutjob except PoliticalChic actual believes the reference to the year the Constitution was signed is proof that America was founded fully and with no other input by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible..

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible...

That’s just nuts. there is no other way to pit it.

I won’t go into all that here, but I disagree with almost all the political generalizations @ding and @Correll and @PoliticalChic have made above....

Then there is the argument that “America” (by which @PoliticalChic means our nation from 1776-1789) ...“was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible ...

When PoliticalChic says that and she is backed up by Correll and ding they are
not saying America was founded as a Christian Theocracy.

They are however saying that It was ONLY trinitarian Protestant Christianity that founded America in order to promote that brand of Christianity because that Judeo Christian Heritage promotes the only proper morality available to mankind,

My complaint is that such Judeo-Christian historical revisionism is false, and it needlessly divides working class Americans between based upon choices made about religion. And that sucks with all the modern issues workers face in the modern world .

No, it does not. YOU divide US, when you pretend that such a historical argument is relevant to today's policies.


I have repeatedly asked you to give ONE example of a current issue, that would be impacted by an admission that this country was founded as a Christian Nation.


You have ignored my requests, and we both know why.

The New Testament and Jesus even led the way re womens' rights, a radical concept in his day and one of the reasons he prvoked so much anger and fear among the Pharisees; he hung out with prostitutes and commoner women and acknowledged them as humans with souls equal with men to God's eyes..

 

[ding]

The Mayflower Compact was the first document to establish self-government in the New World. Notice their syntax for the date. Maybe the Lord reference in the Constitution was to the King of England.

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.:

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith, and the honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another; covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Why does it bother you that the Abolition Movement was led by religious men?

You are mistaking my comment on history for a criticism. The religious and moral opposition to slavery was the norm in the 1830s, though most religious leaders were either firm supporters of slavery or merely denounced abolitionists — as you today denounce Liberals, socialists and communists. Almost all the famous and heroic early abolitionist leaders, white and black, men and women, were religious. The problem was that most of them until the late 1840s were passivists, for “moral suasion,” recognized governing authorities as in a pact with the devil, and saw our basic law as a “slave constitution.” This was natural, since the political realities of the times made their dreams seem “otherworldly.” It was actually only after “direct action” began defending runaway slaves against “slave catchers” (emboldened by the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act), that political abolitionism grew stronger. Frederick Douglass rejected William Lloyd Harrison’s apolitical religious abolitionism and the movement saw in Free Soilers and Republicans, however racist and dilatory they were, potential allies in the struggle.

 

[BreezeWood]

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?

.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.

The sperm is not.

you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.

.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.

.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.
you mustn't what - bear witness to their intercourse to preserve whatever may spill from their bedside.

You said I must. I said, NOT.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved -

the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs -

no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

.
my position has been made perfectly clear - your end run is nothing more than sociopathic zealotry.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

.
there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.
.

Your pretense that it is the Christians who are the would be tyrants in our society today, is not fooling anyone. Try again lefty.

.
there is no pretense to recorded history -

View attachment 393049

christianity is a religion of persecution and victimization of the innocent, uninterrupted since the 4th century to the present day - in this country particularly by their vestiture from the beginning in slavery and other brutalities to indigenous and other peoples of meekness made vulnerable to their evil. correll.

1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.

,

1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.

.
not showing the claim is the only way to prevent the self evident fact from being realized - you can not deny its validity.

there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.

.
what do you mean 100 years ago - as though that makes you any less culpable - what century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
View attachment 393387
.
just recently the racist christians and their protest to protect civil war memorabilia ...

that's probably chick, no need for sunglasses hiding behind a hood. fits her photo profile almost to a T.

You made a claim about today, and for proof you posted a picture from one hundred years ago.


Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.


Are you running away from that idiocy, since I called you on it, or hoping that if you throw enough shit against the wall, like a retarded monkey, that no one will notice how I made a fool of you?


You people are the bigots today and this is all about you wanting to deny Christians the right to participate in the political process by bullying them from the public square, like the marxist thugs you are.

.

Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.

what do you mean 100 years ago - as though that makes you any less culpable - what century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -

.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
View attachment 393678
.
be a while for you to find an example ... christian.

christians have no remorse for their past as they have no remorse - correll

YOu made a claim about Christianity today, and to support it, you posted an ONE HUNDRED YEAR OLD PICTURE.


And you don't see an issue with that?


Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.

.

Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.

there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -

.
the maleficence of christianity is rooted in their 4th century christian bible that is what you claim to be your religion it is you who can not abide by your own literature and its recorded history to the present day.
.

.
the illustration is a reflection of the christian bible and its aftermath and of those that perpetuate its deception and their use of the crucifixion of an innocent person for their own illicit purposes.

- that this is not a christian nation is directly relevant to the history you deny and do nothing to change.

 

[ding]

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.

It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.

.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.

but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?

.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.

The sperm is not.

you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.

.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.

.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.

.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.

.
you mustn't what - bear witness to their intercourse to preserve whatever may spill from their bedside.

You said I must. I said, NOT.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.

.

preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved -

the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs -

no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

.
my position has been made perfectly clear - your end run is nothing more than sociopathic zealotry.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

.

He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.

.
there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.
.

Your pretense that it is the Christians who are the would be tyrants in our society today, is not fooling anyone. Try again lefty.

.
there is no pretense to recorded history -

View attachment 393049

christianity is a religion of persecution and victimization of the innocent, uninterrupted since the 4th century to the present day - in this country particularly by their vestiture from the beginning in slavery and other brutalities to indigenous and other peoples of meekness made vulnerable to their evil. correll.

1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.

,

1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.

.
not showing the claim is the only way to prevent the self evident fact from being realized - you can not deny its validity.

there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.

.
what do you mean 100 years ago - as though that makes you any less culpable - what century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
View attachment 393387
.
just recently the racist christians and their protest to protect civil war memorabilia ...

that's probably chick, no need for sunglasses hiding behind a hood. fits her photo profile almost to a T.

You made a claim about today, and for proof you posted a picture from one hundred years ago.


Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.


Are you running away from that idiocy, since I called you on it, or hoping that if you throw enough shit against the wall, like a retarded monkey, that no one will notice how I made a fool of you?


You people are the bigots today and this is all about you wanting to deny Christians the right to participate in the political process by bullying them from the public square, like the marxist thugs you are.

.

Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.

what do you mean 100 years ago - as though that makes you any less culpable - what century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -

.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
View attachment 393678
.
be a while for you to find an example ... christian.

christians have no remorse for their past as they have no remorse - correll

YOu made a claim about Christianity today, and to support it, you posted an ONE HUNDRED YEAR OLD PICTURE.


And you don't see an issue with that?


Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.

.

Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.

there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -

.
the maleficence of christianity is rooted in their 4th century christian bible that is what you claim to be your religion it is you who can not abide by your own literature and its recorded history to the present day.
.
View attachment 393775
.
the illustration is a reflection of the christian bible and its aftermath and of those that perpetuate its deception and their use of the crucifixion of an innocent person for their own illicit purposes.

- that this is not a christian nation is directly relevant to the history you deny and do nothing to change.

You believe the lies and forgeries of 1st century Gnostic Christians. You believe in the forgeries and fallacies of 4th century Gnostic Christians who rejected the Almighty and who celebrated the triumph of evil over good. You worship Satan.