OMG! Science Attacks Religion!

[PoliticalChic]

Here....let's give you another chance: You claimed that the sentence in the United States Constitution, i.e., "in the year of our Lord...." did not refer to Jesus Christ.


Do you still stand by your statement?


In every post, you pretend to be oblivious to the question you are being asked....With your skills, you could get a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

It's the English version of Anno Domini... and a designation used to label or number years used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars.

"It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts."

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You have an amazing ability, Underwear, to discover what has previously been discovered.
Great....everyone needs a hobby.


Of course you've obviated any point you may have thought you had with this....from the quote above:
"...Except for one notable instance,..."



And this: "The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however."
Even you must realize how laughable this sentence is.

It reminds me of the line from the Wizard of Oz: 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.'


Keep up the good work.

 

[Hollie]

"You're not paying attention."
Sure am....I'm paying attention to your statement....the one you can't explain.


What is the term for you....brain-dead?

Cowardly?

Incompetent?

Ah! It's atheist fanatic.



Here....let's give you another chance: You claimed that the sentence in the United States Constitution, i.e., "in the year of our Lord...." did not refer to Jesus Christ.


Do you still stand by your statement?


In every post, you pretend to be oblivious to the question you are being asked....With your skills, you could get a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

How is it you're not paying attention?

How's this for a plan: how about you defend the statement you made?

Already did.

Your frantic, sweaty and unhinged tirades make you out as quite the dangerous zealot.

Have a nice glass of Kool-aid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How is it you're not paying attention?

How's this for a plan: how about you defend the statement you made?

Already did.

Your frantic, sweaty and unhinged tirades make you out as quite the dangerous zealot.

Have a nice glass of Kool-aid.

What??

You didn't like the plan?

Here it is: How's this for a plan: how about you defend the statement you made?


And, no, you didn't...you claimed that "Lord" didn't refer to Jesus, even though the term was followed by a number curiously similar to the crucifixion of same.

Care to amplify?



You're so batty that I bet you sleep upside down.

 

[koshergrl]

Here....let's give you another chance: You claimed that the sentence in the United States Constitution, i.e., "in the year of our Lord...." did not refer to Jesus Christ.


Do you still stand by your statement?


In every post, you pretend to be oblivious to the question you are being asked....With your skills, you could get a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

It's the English version of Anno Domini... and a designation used to label or number years used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars.

"It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts."

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You have an amazing ability, Underwear, to discover what has previously been discovered.
Great....everyone needs a hobby.


.....
Keep up the good work.

Lol..well he should, since he requires everything be restated about a half dozen times before it registers...that, combined with his admitted reluctance to actually follow the thread means that not only can he truthfully claim to not have seen evidence, he can also go back later and *discover* stuff that everybody else has already read and addressed.

 

[Hollie]

How's this for a plan: how about you defend the statement you made?

Already did.

Your frantic, sweaty and unhinged tirades make you out as quite the dangerous zealot.

Have a nice glass of Kool-aid.

What??

You didn't like the plan?

Here it is: How's this for a plan: how about you defend the statement you made?


And, no, you didn't...you claimed that "Lord" didn't refer to Jesus, even though the term was followed by a number curiously similar to the crucifixion of same.

Care to amplify?



You're so batty that I bet you sleep upside down.

The angry, self-hating zealot thing is really creepy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Already did.

Your frantic, sweaty and unhinged tirades make you out as quite the dangerous zealot.

Have a nice glass of Kool-aid.

What??

You didn't like the plan?

Here it is: How's this for a plan: how about you defend the statement you made?


And, no, you didn't...you claimed that "Lord" didn't refer to Jesus, even though the term was followed by a number curiously similar to the crucifixion of same.

Care to amplify?



You're so batty that I bet you sleep upside down.

The angry, self-hating zealot thing is really creepy.

What's that?
"Please stop exposing the fact that I can't defend my original posts! Pleeezze!!"

OK...Ok....stop crying.


But...how about a trip down memory lane?

Remember how frustrated you were yesterday?

1. That’s when you went back to your default mode: making things up.
This one:
‘Are you really so deserate (sic) to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution where they don't exist?

Don't the bibles allude to lies and falsehoods as... you know... not good?’


Of course, you can’t find any place where I did any more than point out the truth, hardly forcing religion on anyone. I began to worry about you here.


a. I wrote: “please show where I've demanded anyone subscribe to my religion.

Note....I've never mentioned my religion.”

b. No response.

So.....would you like to defend your claim that I "force your religion on others"?
I mean....that's what you said....so...could you show that?





2. You changed the subject with: “Why do you claim the nation was "designed for a moral biblically based people" when such a comment is unsupportable.”


And I buried you with: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

You walked right into that one, huh?

You were probably trying to brush something off your face there….not realizing it was the floor!

 

[Hollie]

What??

You didn't like the plan?

Here it is: How's this for a plan: how about you defend the statement you made?


And, no, you didn't...you claimed that "Lord" didn't refer to Jesus, even though the term was followed by a number curiously similar to the crucifixion of same.

Care to amplify?



You're so batty that I bet you sleep upside down.

The angry, self-hating zealot thing is really creepy.

What's that?
"Please stop exposing the fact that I can't defend my original posts! Pleeezze!!"

OK...Ok....stop crying.


But...how about a trip down memory lane?

Remember how frustrated you were yesterday?

1. That’s when you went back to your default mode: making things up.
This one:
‘Are you really so deserate (sic) to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution where they don't exist?

Don't the bibles allude to lies and falsehoods as... you know... not good?’


Of course, you can’t find any place where I did any more than point out the truth, hardly forcing religion on anyone. I began to worry about you here.


a. I wrote: “please show where I've demanded anyone subscribe to my religion.

Note....I've never mentioned my religion.”

b. No response.

So.....would you like to defend your claim that I "force your religion on others"?
I mean....that's what you said....so...could you show that?





2. You changed the subject with: “Why do you claim the nation was "designed for a moral biblically based people" when such a comment is unsupportable.”


And I buried you with: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

You walked right into that one, huh?

You were probably trying to brush something off your face there….not realizing it was the floor!

And here you are again, with another pointless tirade designed only as a feeble attempt to disguise your inability to defend your derelict and refuted arguments.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The angry, self-hating zealot thing is really creepy.

What's that?
"Please stop exposing the fact that I can't defend my original posts! Pleeezze!!"

OK...Ok....stop crying.


But...how about a trip down memory lane?

Remember how frustrated you were yesterday?

1. That’s when you went back to your default mode: making things up.
This one:
‘Are you really so deserate (sic) to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution where they don't exist?

Don't the bibles allude to lies and falsehoods as... you know... not good?’


Of course, you can’t find any place where I did any more than point out the truth, hardly forcing religion on anyone. I began to worry about you here.


a. I wrote: “please show where I've demanded anyone subscribe to my religion.

Note....I've never mentioned my religion.”

b. No response.

So.....would you like to defend your claim that I "force your religion on others"?
I mean....that's what you said....so...could you show that?





2. You changed the subject with: “Why do you claim the nation was "designed for a moral biblically based people" when such a comment is unsupportable.”


And I buried you with: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

You walked right into that one, huh?

You were probably trying to brush something off your face there….not realizing it was the floor!

And here you are again, with another pointless tirade designed only as a feeble attempt to disguise your inability to defend your derelict and refuted arguments.

No, silly....the point is for you to defend what YOU said.

 

[Hollie]

What's that?
"Please stop exposing the fact that I can't defend my original posts! Pleeezze!!"

OK...Ok....stop crying.
Y

But...how about a trip down memory lane?

Remember how frustrated you were yesterday?

1. That’s when you went back to your default mode: making things up.
This one:
‘Are you really so deserate (sic) to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution where they don't exist?

Don't the bibles allude to lies and falsehoods as... you know... not good?’


Of course, you can’t find any place where I did any more than point out the truth, hardly forcing religion on anyone. I began to worry about you here.


a. I wrote: “please show where I've demanded anyone subscribe to my religion.

Note....I've never mentioned my religion.”

b. No response.

So.....would you like to defend your claim that I "force your religion on others"?
I mean....that's what you said....so...could you show that?





2. You changed the subject with: “Why do you claim the nation was "designed for a moral biblically based people" when such a comment is unsupportable.”


And I buried you with: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

You walked right into that one, huh?

You were probably trying to brush something off your face there….not realizing it was the floor!

And here you are again, with another pointless tirade designed only as a feeble attempt to disguise your inability to defend your derelict and refuted arguments.

No, silly....the point is for you to defend what YOU said.[/QUOTE
Already done. That's why I was curious as to why you spent such effort to stutter and mumble as you have done in you silly tirades, false examples, bad analogies and goofy histrionics.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And here you are again, with another pointless tirade designed only as a feeble attempt to disguise your inability to defend your derelict and refuted arguments.

No, silly....the point is for you to defend what YOU said.[/QUOTE
Already done. That's why I was curious as to why you spent such effort to stutter and mumble as you have done in you silly tirades, false examples, bad analogies and goofy histrionics.

I look forward to the day when you approach normalcy.

 

[Hollie]

No, silly....the point is for you to defend what YOU said.[/QUOTE
Already done. That's why I was curious as to why you spent such effort to stutter and mumble as you have done in you silly tirades, false examples, bad analogies and goofy histrionics.

I look forward to the day when you approach normalcy.

You're pissy. I understand. You've been unable to defend your bankrupt claims and you could only watch, helplessly, as your minor amount of credibility was taken away.

 

[koshergrl]

What??

You didn't like the plan?

Here it is: How's this for a plan: how about you defend the statement you made?


And, no, you didn't...you claimed that "Lord" didn't refer to Jesus, even though the term was followed by a number curiously similar to the crucifixion of same.

Care to amplify?



You're so batty that I bet you sleep upside down.

The angry, self-hating zealot thing is really creepy.

What's that?
"Please stop exposing the fact that I can't defend my original posts! Pleeezze!!"

OK...Ok....stop crying.


But...how about a trip down memory lane?

Remember how frustrated you were yesterday?

1. That’s when you went back to your default mode: making things up.
This one:
‘Are you really so deserate (sic) to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution where they don't exist?

Don't the bibles allude to lies and falsehoods as... you know... not good?’


Of course, you can’t find any place where I did any more than point out the truth, hardly forcing religion on anyone. I began to worry about you here.


a. I wrote: “please show where I've demanded anyone subscribe to my religion.

Note....I've never mentioned my religion.”

b. No response.

So.....would you like to defend your claim that I "force your religion on others"?
I mean....that's what you said....so...could you show that?





2. You changed the subject with: “Why do you claim the nation was "designed for a moral biblically based people" when such a comment is unsupportable.”


And I buried you with: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

You walked right into that one, huh?

You were probably trying to brush something off your face there….not realizing it was the floor!

Holly doesn't have adequate understanding to realize how foolish she looks.

I refer you to the thread about how illiterate morons are too uneducated to know how imbecilic they are...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/278855-illiteracy-and-posting.html?&

 

[Underhill]

Here....let's give you another chance: You claimed that the sentence in the United States Constitution, i.e., "in the year of our Lord...." did not refer to Jesus Christ.


Do you still stand by your statement?


In every post, you pretend to be oblivious to the question you are being asked....With your skills, you could get a job as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.

It's the English version of Anno Domini... and a designation used to label or number years used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars.

"It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts."

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You have an amazing ability, Underwear, to discover what has previously been discovered.
Great....everyone needs a hobby.

Then why the fuck are you still unable to understand such a simple concept?

Of course you've obviated any point you may have thought you had with this....from the quote above:
"...Except for one notable instance,...".

And yet you miss the next line.

"where the date is written thusly"

It has nothing to do with god. It is how they wrote the date.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The angry, self-hating zealot thing is really creepy.

What's that?
"Please stop exposing the fact that I can't defend my original posts! Pleeezze!!"

OK...Ok....stop crying.


But...how about a trip down memory lane?

Remember how frustrated you were yesterday?

1. That’s when you went back to your default mode: making things up.
This one:
‘Are you really so deserate (sic) to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution where they don't exist?

Don't the bibles allude to lies and falsehoods as... you know... not good?’


Of course, you can’t find any place where I did any more than point out the truth, hardly forcing religion on anyone. I began to worry about you here.


a. I wrote: “please show where I've demanded anyone subscribe to my religion.

Note....I've never mentioned my religion.”

b. No response.

So.....would you like to defend your claim that I "force your religion on others"?
I mean....that's what you said....so...could you show that?





2. You changed the subject with: “Why do you claim the nation was "designed for a moral biblically based people" when such a comment is unsupportable.”


And I buried you with: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

You walked right into that one, huh?

You were probably trying to brush something off your face there….not realizing it was the floor!

Holly doesn't have adequate understanding to realize how foolish she looks.

I refer you to the thread about how illiterate morons are too uneducated to know how imbecilic they are...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/278855-illiteracy-and-posting.html?&

I see what you mean.

 

[Hollie]

What's that?
"Please stop exposing the fact that I can't defend my original posts! Pleeezze!!"

OK...Ok....stop crying.


But...how about a trip down memory lane?

Remember how frustrated you were yesterday?

1. That’s when you went back to your default mode: making things up.
This one:
‘Are you really so deserate (sic) to force your religion on others that you will hope to insert your gods in the wording of the constitution where they don't exist?

Don't the bibles allude to lies and falsehoods as... you know... not good?’


Of course, you can’t find any place where I did any more than point out the truth, hardly forcing religion on anyone. I began to worry about you here.


a. I wrote: “please show where I've demanded anyone subscribe to my religion.

Note....I've never mentioned my religion.”

b. No response.

So.....would you like to defend your claim that I "force your religion on others"?
I mean....that's what you said....so...could you show that?





2. You changed the subject with: “Why do you claim the nation was "designed for a moral biblically based people" when such a comment is unsupportable.”


And I buried you with: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

You walked right into that one, huh?

You were probably trying to brush something off your face there….not realizing it was the floor!

Holly doesn't have adequate understanding to realize how foolish she looks.

I refer you to the thread about how illiterate morons are too uneducated to know how imbecilic they are...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/278855-illiteracy-and-posting.html?&

I see what you mean.

How cute. Tag team zealots.

Just like professional wrestling - two loud, sweaty, smelly wrestlers.

 

[koshergrl]

Like you and underhill?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's the English version of Anno Domini... and a designation used to label or number years used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars.

"It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts."

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You have an amazing ability, Underwear, to discover what has previously been discovered.
Great....everyone needs a hobby.

Then why the fuck are you still unable to understand such a simple concept?

Of course you've obviated any point you may have thought you had with this....from the quote above:
"...Except for one notable instance,...".

And yet you miss the next line.

"where the date is written thusly"

It has nothing to do with god. It is how they wrote the date.

Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself forcefully.

"It has nothing to do with god. It is how they wrote the date."


Well, in that case, dunce, when places their hand over their heart and announces "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,.." that simply a way of raising the flag.....


Why do you suppose Christian nations used that way of writing the date?

And to whom does "...our Lord..." refer?






Your use of language, and the quality of your post go hand in glove, Underwear.

 

[koshergrl]

It's the English version of Anno Domini... and a designation used to label or number years used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars.

"It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: "Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven". The use of the word "Lord" here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts."

Things That Are Not In the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

You have an amazing ability, Underwear, to discover what has previously been discovered.
Great....everyone needs a hobby.

Then why the fuck are you still unable to understand such a simple concept?

Of course you've obviated any point you may have thought you had with this....from the quote above:
"...Except for one notable instance,...".

And yet you miss the next line.

"where the date is written thusly"

It has nothing to do with god. It is how they wrote the date.

Lol...

Idiot. Idiot. Idiot. Idiot.

Hollie maintains that the Lord isn't mentioned. The Lord is mentioned. Then some idiot..was it you? Maintained we dont' know what lord they were referencing...whereupon we pointed out that when "the year of Our Lord" is used, the reference is to Christ and the numerical number used is the years elapsed since his crucifixion....

And you maintain that has nothing to do with God?

Seriously. Do you have a learning disability? That's a serious question.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Holly doesn't have adequate understanding to realize how foolish she looks.

I refer you to the thread about how illiterate morons are too uneducated to know how imbecilic they are...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/usmb-badlands/278855-illiteracy-and-posting.html?&

I see what you mean.

How cute. Tag team zealots.

Just like professional wrestling - two loud, sweaty, smelly wrestlers.

Beat the heck out of you, didn't we.

 

[Hollie]

I see what you mean.

How cute. Tag team zealots.

Just like professional wrestling - two loud, sweaty, smelly wrestlers.

Beat the heck out of you, didn't we.

Not at all. Your attempts to refute my arguments have been complete failures. The result has been a most embarrassing display of fundie xtian incompetence.

You and the other fundie exemplify the very worst attributes of vulgar, self-hating religious fundamentalist whack jobs.