OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[koshergrl]

Yet, in spite of your insistence at assigning your religious beliefs to the Founding Fathers, these "devout Christians" still managed to frame a constitution that placed a muzzle on all government meddling in religious belief.

One only has to read the biographies of the FF's to understand that many were Deists, not Christian, and that they knew religions were poorly disposed toward competing religions.

Many of the FF's had direct experience with one specific Christian theocracy (the church of England), thus knew the danger of religious intolerance.

What biographies? Who? What is 'many'?

And you're exactly right, they were devout Christians who understood the absolute necessity of liberty and freedom because of their beliefs and knowledge of God. And they designed a government and constitution to try to propagate that. Your inane comments about how Christians in the U.S. today are trying to turn this country into a theocracy are complete idiocy. Do you look under your bed every night as well?

There is nothing in the constitution that promotes or infers any propagation of Christianity.

I've made no comment about Christians attempting to turn the country into a theocracy. Are your delusions becoming reality for you?

Some of the FF's were Christian. Some were not. Why the need to force your religious beliefs on others?

Why the pretense that he ever did that?

Kindly point to where Newby tried to force his religious beliefs on others.

Do you need me to find the definition of *force* for you? I suspect you do, but I'll wait for you to make an idiot of yourself before I provide it. I won't have to wait long.

 

[Hollie]

What biographies? Who? What is 'many'?

And you're exactly right, they were devout Christians who understood the absolute necessity of liberty and freedom because of their beliefs and knowledge of God. And they designed a government and constitution to try to propagate that. Your inane comments about how Christians in the U.S. today are trying to turn this country into a theocracy are complete idiocy. Do you look under your bed every night as well?

There is nothing in the constitution that promotes or infers any propagation of Christianity.

I've made no comment about Christians attempting to turn the country into a theocracy. Are your delusions becoming reality for you?

Some of the FF's were Christian. Some were not. Why the need to force your religious beliefs on others?

Why the pretense that he ever did that?

Kindly point to where Newby tried to force his religious beliefs on others.

Do you need me to find the definition of *force* for you? I suspect you do, but I'll wait for you to make an idiot of yourself before I provide it. I won't have to wait long.

Are you tasked with answering on behalf of others?

 

[koshergrl]

This is called a discussion forum. That means that people participate. If you want a private discussion, do it via pm. I know very well that Newby has never posted a single post that promotes the concept of a theocracy, nor has she ever proposed that religion be forced upon anyone. So when I see you making outrageous claims, I'm going to respond, as will most of the posters in this forum. It's a FORUM. You appear not to understand even the most basic precepts of intelligent discourse. Try to learn along the way.

"
Definition of FORUM

1
a : the marketplace or public place of an ancient Roman city forming the center of judicial and public business
b : a public meeting place for open discussion
c : a medium (as a newspaper or online service) of open discussion or expression of ideas

2
: a judicial body or assembly : court

3
a : a public meeting or lecture involving audience discussion

b : a program (as on radio or television) involving discussion of a problem usually by several authorities "

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum

 

[Hollie]

This is called a discussion forum. That means that people participate. If you want a private discussion, do it via pm.

You appear not to understand even the most basic precepts of intelligent discourse. Try to learn along the way.

I'm just not convinced that everyone wants an angry, bellicose, whackjob responding on their behalf.

 

[koshergrl]

The rantings of the religiously insane.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the Founding Fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects me from religious fascists.

And I owe a debt of gratitude to the foundding fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects the religious from anti-Christian fascists, who seek to shut down churches, schools, and freedom of speech in order to replace them with brown shirt brainwashing *educators*.

It was your brown shirt heroes who wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles.
I understand you're infuriated that your brand of religious fascism is throttled by a secular constitution, but your wish to plunge civilization back into the Dark Ages is not going to happen.

Yours is just more ranting of the religiously insane.

No, honey, it wasn't. Progressives supported Nazis whole heartedly. They turned in their Catholic and Jewish neighbors, and in America, they sent money and insisted that Jewish refugees be refused asylum. Meanwhile, Christians helped refugees across the borders and risked their own lives to harbor them, and died alongside Jews in the concentration camps.

But you wouldn't know that, because you aren't interested in the truth, or in history. You're interested in obliterating Christianity, and Christians, from the face of the earth. And you'll go to any lengths to achieve it. Just as your progressive heroes did back then.

 

[koshergrl]

This is called a discussion forum. That means that people participate. If you want a private discussion, do it via pm.

You appear not to understand even the most basic precepts of intelligent discourse. Try to learn along the way.

I'm just not convinced that everyone wants an angry, bellicose, whackjob responding on their behalf.

The only whackjobs on this site are the lying, bloodthirsty and rabid anti-Chrsitian hysteric propagandists. I can count them on two hands on this site...You are far outnumbered here, as you are in real life. Your tiny circle of supporters in these threads represents the most despised posters of USMB. Both of them, lol.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is called a discussion forum. That means that people participate. If you want a private discussion, do it via pm.

You appear not to understand even the most basic precepts of intelligent discourse. Try to learn along the way.

I'm just not convinced that everyone wants an angry, bellicose, whackjob responding on their behalf.

Hey.....look who's back!

Great.

While you're here....I had a question about something you said:

1. It really seemed to irk you when I reminded of this: “Did you deny that "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." is a part of the Constitution?

No?

Can you explain the phrase 'our Lord' sans religion?
No?

You sure didn’t want to get into that!

But the biggest laugh of the day…at you….was when you wrote this: “What "lord" is referenced in the closing salutation - (not a part of the constitution) - that you claim adds christianity to that document?”

That was the winner in the category of “Unintentional Humor”

a. And then you inadvertently validated my premise when you wrote: “the FF's used very Deist terminology in the writing of the constitution such as "Creator", they made no reference to any of the christian gods.”
Allowing God in to the Founder’s thinking is good enough for me.

b. We could have left it there.
Don't you agree?



2. “And, it is this obvious deletion that caused the Danbury Baptists to argue in favor of incorporating some mention of the Christian god in the document that would define the nation's fundamental laws.”


There is no truth to that contention. You’re wrong….but, notice….I didn’t refer to you as a liar. Just wrong.




3. But…heck…you kept trying: “You still refuse to provide a reference to Jesus Christ in the consitution….. I have seen you provide nothing that references Jesus Christ.”

a. Of course, even you know that that one is a fib. A try at face-saving….but a fib none the less.
Proof? Sure. “"the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Not only is the ‘our LORD’ perfectly clear as to who is referenced, but even if one where slow of wit, the date clinches it….1787 years prior?

When you’re in a hole….stop digging, Crazy Collie.

b.And to make matters worse for you, I reminded of the fact that the folks involved were Christians:

'The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

a. Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
From Coulter’s best seller, “Demonic .”


Wasn't that fun?
Beat you like a rented mule, huh?


Of course, like a bad sport…you simple resorted to claiming that I was guilty of exactly what you were doing:
“Didn't your mommy or perhaps your 1st grade school teacher explain what a lie is and why lies are bad?”


You should wipe that egg off your face.

b. So, what was left for you but to do it again: “As much as you wish to force your belief on others,…”
Really?
Where?

 

[Hollie]

And I owe a debt of gratitude to the foundding fathers who sculpted a constitution that protects the religious from anti-Christian fascists, who seek to shut down churches, schools, and freedom of speech in order to replace them with brown shirt brainwashing *educators*.

It was your brown shirt heroes who wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles.
I understand you're infuriated that your brand of religious fascism is throttled by a secular constitution, but your wish to plunge civilization back into the Dark Ages is not going to happen.

Yours is just more ranting of the religiously insane.

No, honey, it wasn't. Progressives supported Nazis whole heartedly. They turned in their Catholic and Jewish neighbors, and in America, they sent money and insisted that Jewish refugees be refused asylum. Meanwhile, Christians helped refugees across the borders and risked their own lives to harbor them, and died alongside Jews in the concentration camps.

But you wouldn't know that, because you aren't interested in the truth, or in history. You're interested in obliterating Christianity, and Christians, from the face of the earth. And you'll go to any lengths to achieve it.

Ahh, so it is a conspiracy that your brown shirt heroes wore the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles.

proverbs 1 (revised): "the'eth religiously insane shall'eth not'eth get liquored up".

 

[Newby]

Yet, in spite of your insistence at assigning your religious beliefs to the Founding Fathers, these "devout Christians" still managed to frame a constitution that placed a muzzle on all government meddling in religious belief.

One only has to read the biographies of the FF's to understand that many were Deists, not Christian, and that they knew religions were poorly disposed toward competing religions.

Many of the FF's had direct experience with one specific Christian theocracy (the church of England), thus knew the danger of religious intolerance.

What biographies? Who? What is 'many'?

And you're exactly right, they were devout Christians who understood the absolute necessity of liberty and freedom because of their beliefs and knowledge of God. And they designed a government and constitution to try to propagate that. Your inane comments about how Christians in the U.S. today are trying to turn this country into a theocracy are complete idiocy. Do you look under your bed every night as well?

There is nothing in the constitution that promotes or infers any propagation of Christianity.

I've made no comment about Christians attempting to turn the country into a theocracy. Are your delusions becoming reality for you?

Some of the FF's were Christian. Some were not. Why the need to force your religious beliefs on others?

I never claimed that the Constitution infered any propagation of Christianity, nor have I seen anyone else do so, so I guess you're arguing with yourself?

What is 'forcing your religious beliefs on others' then? You're implying thru those words that Christians are trying to do so, therefore making this country a theocracy.

Most were Christians. What beliefs are being forced on you? Seriously, give us a list.

 

[Hollie]

What biographies? Who? What is 'many'?

And you're exactly right, they were devout Christians who understood the absolute necessity of liberty and freedom because of their beliefs and knowledge of God. And they designed a government and constitution to try to propagate that. Your inane comments about how Christians in the U.S. today are trying to turn this country into a theocracy are complete idiocy. Do you look under your bed every night as well?

There is nothing in the constitution that promotes or infers any propagation of Christianity.

I've made no comment about Christians attempting to turn the country into a theocracy. Are your delusions becoming reality for you?

Some of the FF's were Christian. Some were not. Why the need to force your religious beliefs on others?

I never claimed that the Constitution infered any propagation of Christianity, nor have I seen anyone else do so, so I guess you're arguing with yourself?

What is 'forcing your religious beliefs on others' then? You're implying thru those words that Christians are trying to do so, therefore making this country a theocracy.

Most were Christians. What beliefs are being forced on you? Seriously, give us a list.

Did you somehow forget what you wrote or fail to read your own post?

 

[Underhill]

Except they didn't found this country, nor write the founding documents, nor establish in their writings on what precepts the country and its founding documents were based on. The idea that the founding fathers were not Christians is ludicrous and easily debunked. A good 30 to 40 of the founding fathers had theology degrees, the very first session of congress spent its first several hours in prayer. It's all fact and easily looked up in the National Archives for all to see.

I don't think that is the argument. I certainly haven't said they weren't christians. I have said I don't think they were all christians. Certainly not fundamentalist type christians. And I do think their writings back me up in this.

Some of them were, probably even most. Just as most of our politicians today profess to be christians. But I have read a great deal of Jefferson, and a fair amount written by Franklin (also Adams, but there is no denying he was a christian) and I would say both were agnostics who believed a god may very well be out there, but had no confidence in established religions.

But this whole argument started because someone tried to claim our country was created as a christian nation. And that I disagree with fundamentally.

 

[koshergrl]

This is called a discussion forum. That means that people participate. If you want a private discussion, do it via pm.

You appear not to understand even the most basic precepts of intelligent discourse. Try to learn along the way.

I'm just not convinced that everyone wants an angry, bellicose, whackjob responding on their behalf.

Hey.....look who's back!

Great.

While you're here....I had a question about something you said:

1. It really seemed to irk you when I reminded of this: “Did you deny that "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." is a part of the Constitution?

No?

Can you explain the phrase 'our Lord' sans religion?
No?

You sure didn’t want to get into that!

But the biggest laugh of the day…at you….was when you wrote this: “What "lord" is referenced in the closing salutation - (not a part of the constitution) - that you claim adds christianity to that document?”

That was the winner in the category of “Unintentional Humor”

a. And then you inadvertently validated my premise when you wrote: “the FF's used very Deist terminology in the writing of the constitution such as "Creator", they made no reference to any of the christian gods.”
Allowing God in to the Founder’s thinking is good enough for me.

b. We could have left it there.
Don't you agree?



2. “And, it is this obvious deletion that caused the Danbury Baptists to argue in favor of incorporating some mention of the Christian god in the document that would define the nation's fundamental laws.”


There is no truth to that contention. You’re wrong….but, notice….I didn’t refer to you as a liar. Just wrong.




3. But…heck…you kept trying: “You still refuse to provide a reference to Jesus Christ in the consitution….. I have seen you provide nothing that references Jesus Christ.”

a. Of course, even you know that that one is a fib. A try at face-saving….but a fib none the less.
Proof? Sure. “"the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Not only is the ‘our LORD’ perfectly clear as to who is referenced, but even if one where slow of wit, the date clinches it….1787 years prior?

When you’re in a hole….stop digging, Crazy Collie.

b.And to make matters worse for you, I reminded of the fact that the folks involved were Christians:

'The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

a. Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
From Coulter’s best seller, “Demonic .”


Wasn't that fun?
Beat you like a rented mule, huh?


Of course, like a bad sport…you simple resorted to claiming that I was guilty of exactly what you were doing:
“Didn't your mommy or perhaps your 1st grade school teacher explain what a lie is and why lies are bad?”


You should wipe that egg off your face.

b. So, what was left for you but to do it again: “As much as you wish to force your belief on others,…”
Really?
Where?

This is where she either disappears for a bit, or screeches, "YOU RELIGIOUS FUNDIE YOU!"

I wish we'd get one that presents more of a challenge.

Though I have to admit, gaddawg's infrequent sputterings do make her look less retarded by comparison.

 

[Newby]

There is nothing in the constitution that promotes or infers any propagation of Christianity.

I've made no comment about Christians attempting to turn the country into a theocracy. Are your delusions becoming reality for you?

Some of the FF's were Christian. Some were not. Why the need to force your religious beliefs on others?

I never claimed that the Constitution infered any propagation of Christianity, nor have I seen anyone else do so, so I guess you're arguing with yourself?

What is 'forcing your religious beliefs on others' then? You're implying thru those words that Christians are trying to do so, therefore making this country a theocracy.

Most were Christians. What beliefs are being forced on you? Seriously, give us a list.

Did you somehow forget what you wrote or fail to read your own post?

You're a fraud, one without substance, wasting everyone's time, or you've run out defenses for your argument. I guess it doesn't really matter which it is.

Let's keep it simple. Provide a list of what is being 'forced' on you and how it is being 'forced' on you. Can you handle that much?

 

[Hollie]

I never claimed that the Constitution infered any propagation of Christianity, nor have I seen anyone else do so, so I guess you're arguing with yourself?

What is 'forcing your religious beliefs on others' then? You're implying thru those words that Christians are trying to do so, therefore making this country a theocracy.

Most were Christians. What beliefs are being forced on you? Seriously, give us a list.

Did you somehow forget what you wrote or fail to read your own post?

You're a fraud, one without substance, wasting everyone's time, or you've run out defenses for your argument. I guess it doesn't really matter which it is.

Let's keep it simple. Provide a list of what is being 'forced' on you and how it is being 'forced' on you. Can you handle that much?

Read the comments you posted. Don't be a fraud.

 

[Newby]

Except they didn't found this country, nor write the founding documents, nor establish in their writings on what precepts the country and its founding documents were based on. The idea that the founding fathers were not Christians is ludicrous and easily debunked. A good 30 to 40 of the founding fathers had theology degrees, the very first session of congress spent its first several hours in prayer. It's all fact and easily looked up in the National Archives for all to see.

I don't think that is the argument. I certainly haven't said they weren't christians. I have said I don't think they were all christians. Certainly not fundamentalist type christians. And I do think their writings back me up in this.

Some of them were, probably even most. Just as most of our politicians today profess to be christians. But I have read a great deal of Jefferson, and a fair amount written by Franklin (also Adams, but there is no denying he was a christian) and I would say both were agnostics who believed a god may very well be out there, but had no confidence in established religions.

But this whole argument started because someone tried to claim our country was created as a christian nation. And that I disagree with fundamentally.

The post I quoted with my response clearly stated that the FF's were not Christians, I even bolded the line to show what my post was answering. So, yes, someone was making the claim that they were not Christians.

The FF's in their writings clearly state that the foundation for the Constitution stemmed from their beliefs as Christians. That did not mean that they were creating a theocracy or forcing their religion on anyone. They believed in freedeom, which they held as very valuable because of their religious beliefs and felt that their morals, which were used to shape the documents they created, also stemmed from their religious Christian beliefs. Whether or not that makes this a 'christian nation' can be up to your own opiinon, but it was certainly founded on Christian principles. The wrtings found by the FF's clearly show that to be true.

 

[Underhill]

No, it wasn't, you idiot. Read the OP. The OP is where the argument started. And where it ends. Despite the logical fallacies, the diversionary tactics, the outright lies and the various and assorted insanity posted by the loons who can't adhere to even the most basic structure of intelligent discussion.

Fucknut, I wasn't talking to you.

This discussion, on whether the founders were christians, traces back to a discussion on whether we were founded as a christian nation within this thread. There was earlier discussion, but as a thread, the topic constantly shifts.

So if you are going to hurl insults, you might want to make sure you are right before doing so.

Now shut the fuck up and let the adults talk.

 

[Hollie]

I'm just not convinced that everyone wants an angry, bellicose, whackjob responding on their behalf.

Hey.....look who's back!

Great.

While you're here....I had a question about something you said:

1. It really seemed to irk you when I reminded of this: “Did you deny that "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." is a part of the Constitution?

No?

Can you explain the phrase 'our Lord' sans religion?
No?

You sure didn’t want to get into that!

But the biggest laugh of the day…at you….was when you wrote this: “What "lord" is referenced in the closing salutation - (not a part of the constitution) - that you claim adds christianity to that document?”

That was the winner in the category of “Unintentional Humor”

a. And then you inadvertently validated my premise when you wrote: “the FF's used very Deist terminology in the writing of the constitution such as "Creator", they made no reference to any of the christian gods.”
Allowing God in to the Founder’s thinking is good enough for me.

b. We could have left it there.
Don't you agree?



2. “And, it is this obvious deletion that caused the Danbury Baptists to argue in favor of incorporating some mention of the Christian god in the document that would define the nation's fundamental laws.”


There is no truth to that contention. You’re wrong….but, notice….I didn’t refer to you as a liar. Just wrong.




3. But…heck…you kept trying: “You still refuse to provide a reference to Jesus Christ in the consitution….. I have seen you provide nothing that references Jesus Christ.”

a. Of course, even you know that that one is a fib. A try at face-saving….but a fib none the less.
Proof? Sure. “"the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Not only is the ‘our LORD’ perfectly clear as to who is referenced, but even if one where slow of wit, the date clinches it….1787 years prior?

When you’re in a hole….stop digging, Crazy Collie.

b.And to make matters worse for you, I reminded of the fact that the folks involved were Christians:

'The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

a. Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
From Coulter’s best seller, “Demonic .”


Wasn't that fun?
Beat you like a rented mule, huh?


Of course, like a bad sport…you simple resorted to claiming that I was guilty of exactly what you were doing:
“Didn't your mommy or perhaps your 1st grade school teacher explain what a lie is and why lies are bad?”


You should wipe that egg off your face.

b. So, what was left for you but to do it again: “As much as you wish to force your belief on others,…”
Really?
Where?

This is where she either disappears for a bit, or screeches, "YOU RELIGIOUS FUNDIE YOU!"

I wish we'd get one that presents more of a challenge.

Though I have to admit, gaddawg's infrequent sputterings do make her look less retarded by comparison.

Gee whiz. It's like a smorgasbord of angry, self-loathing religious zealots.

 

[Newby]

Did you somehow forget what you wrote or fail to read your own post?

You're a fraud, one without substance, wasting everyone's time, or you've run out defenses for your argument. I guess it doesn't really matter which it is.

Let's keep it simple. Provide a list of what is being 'forced' on you and how it is being 'forced' on you. Can you handle that much?

Read the comments you posted. Don't be a fraud.

Perhaps you should illustrate what the hell it is you're talking about? Cause I'm pretty sure no one else here is following you at all. I know you think that you're somehow being 'clever', but really, it's not coming across that way at all. It appears that you are dodging. So either have an adult conversation, or go play in traffic.

Now, what comment is it that you are referring too? I've made many posts with many comments, and since I don't live inside your head, thank God, I have no idea what you're going on about. And maybe you'd like to answer just one question posted to you in this thread to show that you have any credibility at all?

 

[Newby]

Hey.....look who's back!

Great.

While you're here....I had a question about something you said:

1. It really seemed to irk you when I reminded of this: “Did you deny that "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." is a part of the Constitution?

No?

Can you explain the phrase 'our Lord' sans religion?
No?

You sure didn’t want to get into that!

But the biggest laugh of the day…at you….was when you wrote this: “What "lord" is referenced in the closing salutation - (not a part of the constitution) - that you claim adds christianity to that document?”

That was the winner in the category of “Unintentional Humor”

a. And then you inadvertently validated my premise when you wrote: “the FF's used very Deist terminology in the writing of the constitution such as "Creator", they made no reference to any of the christian gods.”
Allowing God in to the Founder’s thinking is good enough for me.

b. We could have left it there.
Don't you agree?



2. “And, it is this obvious deletion that caused the Danbury Baptists to argue in favor of incorporating some mention of the Christian god in the document that would define the nation's fundamental laws.”


There is no truth to that contention. You’re wrong….but, notice….I didn’t refer to you as a liar. Just wrong.




3. But…heck…you kept trying: “You still refuse to provide a reference to Jesus Christ in the consitution….. I have seen you provide nothing that references Jesus Christ.”

a. Of course, even you know that that one is a fib. A try at face-saving….but a fib none the less.
Proof? Sure. “"the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven." Not only is the ‘our LORD’ perfectly clear as to who is referenced, but even if one where slow of wit, the date clinches it….1787 years prior?

When you’re in a hole….stop digging, Crazy Collie.

b.And to make matters worse for you, I reminded of the fact that the folks involved were Christians:

'The reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

a. Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
From Coulter’s best seller, “Demonic .”


Wasn't that fun?
Beat you like a rented mule, huh?


Of course, like a bad sport…you simple resorted to claiming that I was guilty of exactly what you were doing:
“Didn't your mommy or perhaps your 1st grade school teacher explain what a lie is and why lies are bad?”


You should wipe that egg off your face.

b. So, what was left for you but to do it again: “As much as you wish to force your belief on others,…”
Really?
Where?

This is where she either disappears for a bit, or screeches, "YOU RELIGIOUS FUNDIE YOU!"

I wish we'd get one that presents more of a challenge.

Though I have to admit, gaddawg's infrequent sputterings do make her look less retarded by comparison.

Gee whiz. It's like a smorgasbord of angry, self-loathing religious zealots.

Seriously, Hollie, you're the only one here that is coming across as 'angry' and a 'zealot'. I'm guessing even those arguing your side of the debate would agree with me.

 

[Hollie]

You're a fraud, one without substance, wasting everyone's time, or you've run out defenses for your argument. I guess it doesn't really matter which it is.

Let's keep it simple. Provide a list of what is being 'forced' on you and how it is being 'forced' on you. Can you handle that much?

Read the comments you posted. Don't boe a fraud.

Perhaps you should illustrate what the hell it is you're talking about? Cause I'm pretty sure no one else here is following you at all. I know you think that you're somehow being 'clever', but really, it's not coming across that way at all. It appears that you are dodging. So either have an adult conversation, or go play in traffic.

Now, what comment is it that you are referring too? I've made many posts with many comments, and since I don't live inside your head, thank God, I have no idea what you're going on about. And maybe you'd like to answer just one question posted to you in this thread to show that you have any credibility at all?

There's no reason to be angry at anyone else for being held accountable for what you wrote.