YES, America CERTAINLY WAS FOUNDED as a CHRISTIAN NATION...

[JakeStarkey]

I merely rebuked your immoral stubbornness with a righteous rebuke, one Christian to another.

Yours is the only prideful matter here, and your comment is dismissed.

There was an Arabic calendar. There was a mayan calendar. They could have been "prideful" and started their own calendar. They could have simply left out "the year of our Lord" with just the date.

And you appear meek and humble.......NOT!

 

[JakeStarkey]

I correct your contradictions.

The Constitution was written and signed by Christians and deists for all Americans.

You have failed in your contention from the beginning and have fallen back steadily every since.

This does not bother me at all. It is what I have been saying all along, that the Constitution was written, signed, and made for Christians. No where did I say that there was any plan (in fact the was a hinderance to) for a "state" declared denomination. Thank you for finally seeing the obvious.

To the other: no where did you or anyone else provide evidence that the people named declared themselves not to be Christian. The Quakers may have wanted Jefferson to ploclaim that he believed as "they" did (not necessarily that he didn't believe in Yeshua).

You contradict yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You describe your approach quite well.

Someone asked for my opinion, and I gave it. If you don't like it, who cares?

That the nation's government was created as secular is a statement of fact.

I believe the nation was generally one of Christians in 1787 and generally one today.

I do not believe that we are, however, a Christian nation created along the thinking of "Christ in America", as do, for instance, the Mormons.

So you believe the government was created secular. Got that. Do you believe this was a Christian Nation or is now?

"Qualifier" alert (you can't back up what you are saying, so you want to make it so, by re-defining the discussion). No where did we talk about what Mormons believed. They were not around when the nation was founded...

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Qualifier alert", which is merely your opinion.

That the nation's government was created as secular is a statement of fact.

I believe the nation was generally one of Christians in 1787 and generally one today.

I do not believe that we are, however, a Christian nation created along the thinking of "Christ in America", as do, for instance, the Mormons.

Many have given their LIVES, and many their health, to keep this nation from being a totalitarian country, and that includes a theocracy. Why fight al Qaeda if the only difference is the METHOD?

Honey, no one is trying to make this country a theocracy. Some of us are just trying to keep others from pretending that Christianity had little or no influence on the founding of this country. Their different "Christian" denominations (because there were no other forms of religion established in the colonies at that time), were used as a basis for the first Amendment. They wanted "Christians" to be able to follow the "Christian" denomination of their choice (not as was done in Europe previous to that where your religion was chosen by the gov't leader). This has allowed peoples of other faiths to come to this country and live in more freedom than in most parts of the world. IMHO, this country is as great as it is specifically because "Christians" have prayed for the Lord to help us live by His Son's teachings. Because of "Christian" beliefs, people assisted their neighbors, their church, and their community, making better cities and states, and country than are found in other parts of the world where "Christianity" is oppressed.

 

[Hollie]

Honey, no one is trying to make this country a theocracy. Some of us are just trying to keep others from pretending that Christianity had little or no influence on the founding of this country. Their different "Christian" denominations (because there were no other forms of religion established in the colonies at that time), were used as a basis for the first Amendment. They wanted "Christians" to be able to follow the "Christian" denomination of their choice (not as was done in Europe previous to that where your religion was chosen by the gov't leader). This has allowed peoples of other faiths to come to this country and live in more freedom than in most parts of the world. IMHO, this country is as great as it is specifically because "Christians" have prayed for the Lord to help us live by His Son's teachings. Because of "Christian" beliefs, people assisted their neighbors, their church, and their community, making better cities and states, and country than are found in other parts of the world where "Christianity" is oppressed.

Sweety, I am surprised you can't understand that Christianity clearly did influence the FF’s and their narrative we call the constitution.

The FF’s knew all too well the negative effects that Christianity had on the lives of the people in England. Their writings absolutely identified that they knew the dangers of allowing religion to interfere in government. That is why they drafted a form of government that put a muzzle on the government’s ability to interfere in the lives of the citizenry.

Yes, the corruption of the truth continues.

If "Christianity" was soooo bad, why did people come to this country to worship the Lord in their specific denomination?
The FF wanted no "state" established religion to avoid gov't leaders from thinking they had the authority to tell "citizens" (different than subjects) how to worship (choose their denomination).

They did not try to prevent the Christian faith from being practiced or sugjugated (that would be the current administration).

Well actually, the original colonies were horrors of christian religious intolerance.

The various sects of Christianity were completely at odds with one another as colonial states. Catholics couldn't live in one state, Quakers were executed if they went to another, Protestants were reviled in still others, and so on. These documents still exist. Research the laws of the original 13 colonies. You'll be surprised at what can learn… not that I’m accusing you of trying to learn anything.

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions - Library of Congress

I just find it shocking SHOCKING that Christians can be just as totalitarian and dogmatic as… well… the Taliban or even… well… fundie Christians.

The better motivation is to accept the world for what it was, in the only way one can perceive the world, with reason and knowledge. Better still, I read more than christian books to get a true perspective on all religions (reading books on Christianity only proved to me that the believers in Christianity could not self-critique either themselves or Christianity-- it always reads like pro-Christiany propaganda). And interestingly, they all fail for the same reason. Which is, of course, reason.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The evidence that Jefferson was not a Christian has been posted several times above.

You are not allowed to keep asking for material with which you disagree.

Overruled and dismissed.

Do you know why "Ben Hur" was written?

It was written to help the author study the Bible. He did not write the Bible according to to what he read, but wrote it to make it more comprehesive to him.

I have seen no evidence that Jefferson did not believe in the Lord. I have seen evidence that he tried to provide hard verifiable facts with practical consideration of the human condition. He did not allow people to "hide" behind their "faith" to stop a discussion, but made them step outside the "box". He made people reach deeper inside and factually to present their side.

You can certainly choose to disbelieve anything you wish.

The fact remains that Jefferson did not believe in Jesus as a savior and did not believe in a resurrection.

You can certainly choose to disbelieve anything you wish.

The fact remains that Jefferson did not believe in Jesus as a savior and did not believe in a resurrection. You can choose not to believe what Jefferson wrote and you can choose not to believe that he was a Deist.

You would of course be wrong. Your certainty that you know things you obviously don’t know is amusing. That said, I happen to find the truth to be very satisfying. Certainty may be even more satisfying, but what has that gained you if your certainty is delusional?

I hear you talking, but again, no evidence that it was as you say....

You screamed and screamed for any reference of God in the Constitution. It was provided.

You make statements and call them facts, but I have seen no evidence that Jefferson ever declared himself not to believe in Yeshua. I have seen no evidence where Jefferson stated that he was a "deist". I find your re-stating of opinions without ever presenting evidence and declaring said opinions as "fact" as deceitful, and intellectually dishonest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hogwash, logical4u, you should have your mouth washed out with soap.

The Puritans hung witches and Quakers for practicing their faiths.

The Congregationalists made it hard on Baptists in Connecticut.

In Virginia, failure to take your child to church on two separate complaints could have your child removed from your custody.

Mormons were driven from Missouri and Illinois, and persecuted in Utah Territory, where the Mormons did a good job of persecuting back.

You simply must key away without thinking.

 

[Crackerjack]

Yes, but no one here is going to forget you claimed the word Lord was not in the Constitution. Everyone knows our date system is a direct reference to Christ. To deny that is absolute foolishness. "Year of our Lord" is a direct reference to Christ.

So which dating system prevalent in the 18th century would a person have to use if he did not want to refer to the Lord.

I'll wait while you Google some more fail.

I don't need to google it Dork. It's called the Gregorian calendar for your info and everyone in the 18th century would have used it. Had you actually read the posts you might have understood that all anyone was arguing against was Hollie's claim there was no reference to Christ in the Constitution. There is a reference to Christ in the Constitution, even if it was just the date. I was not claiming anymore implications other than the mere date. You have created a strawman which are arguing against. Keep arguing against yourself and whatever imagined implicaton you can credit me with. You won't find any post of me arguing anything other than the fact the term "year of our Lord" is a reference to Christ.

It's fascinating to watch you move the goalposts as often as you do. You must get exhausted from all that.

 

[Crackerjack]

Yes, but no one here is going to forget you claimed the word Lord was not in the Constitution. Everyone knows our date system is a direct reference to Christ. To deny that is absolute foolishness. "Year of our Lord" is a direct reference to Christ.

So which dating system prevalent in the 18th century would a person have to use if he did not want to refer to the Lord.

I'll wait while you Google some more fail.

There was an Arabic calendar. There was a mayan calendar. They could have been "prideful" and started their own calendar. They could have simply left out "the year of our Lord" with just the date.

Yes, I can see them using the Mayan calendar to date their documents. That's totally within the realm of possibilities.

The mental gymnastics you've got going on here are Olympic caliber.

 

[Crackerjack]

Typical. Your quotes have proved nothing because you have supplied no post numbers and no context.

Lie.You brought it up, slapnuts.

I guess the whole not bearing false witness rule doesn't apply to you.

Click on the arrows next to the user names. It takes you right to the post.

I shouldn't be so surprised that you're this stupid ...

I figured you'd ignore this.

Predictable.

 

[UltimateReality]

Seriously, this is Hawly isn't it??? She is the only person I know that never provides evidence to her claims. She always responds with attacks, not evidence. Dismissed and overruled.

All who have read the thread know that you once again are lying. Overruled and dismissed.

UR is pretending that he never argued that Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, and Allan were Christians.

His a typical far right extremist reactionary who accuses other people of saying things they didn't so that he can attack them.

He is fail as a poster here.

I never argued that and you, sir, are a liar if you say I did. Please provide supporting evidence, ie, find my post. I'm still waiting for your evidence of Washington refusing communion.

 

[UltimateReality]

Deception and trickery will get you no where. Just provide an answer to the question. I am getting more and more convinced this is Rugged Touch, isn't it?

This has been given above in the thread. You do not get to have the evidence kept being given to you.

Accept the fact that you are wrong.

That Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, and Allan were deists or non-Christians has been conclusively proven in this thread and elsewhere.

That logical4u refuses to accept the truth is her problem. Her objections are overruled by the clear and convincing facts.

In order for this statement to be true, you would have to state what definition of Diest you are referring to.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yours is the only prideful matter here, and your comment is dismissed.

There was an Arabic calendar. There was a mayan calendar. They could have been "prideful" and started their own calendar. They could have simply left out "the year of our Lord" with just the date.

And you appear meek and humble.......NOT!

to think he was insinuating I was the bully.

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm confused. Are you still playing the part of the wealthy businessman extraordinaire and super soldier, or are you now Judged Judy?

So you are now admitting they did not use the Christian honorifics in addressing the "lord".

Your arguments are overruled and dismissed then.

One, which particular incidents?

Two, did they use the terms 'Jesus', 'the Christ', 'Our Father', or other terms clearly referring to the Christian god.

Without the above, your statement below means nothing.

What is it that "you" say.... evidence has already been given.

You on the other hand have provided no evidence that any of the founding fathers ever wrote or publicly stated (and was documented, as many of their other statemenst were) that they did NOT believe in Yeshua, the Savior. You did post evidence where particular denominations or the establishment of a "state" religion were rejected, but nothing demonstrating the personal beliefs of these men.

 

[UltimateReality]

I just find it shocking SHOCKING that Christians can be just as totalitarian and dogmatic as… well… the Taliban or even… well… fundie Christians.

Of course you mean minus beheading all the homosexuals, suicide bombers, and honor killings right?

PHOENIX -- An Iraqi immigrant was sentenced Friday to 34 1/2 years in an Arizona prison for running over and killing his 20-year-old daughter because she became too Westernized.

Arizona 'Honor Killing': Iraqi Immigrant Sentenced To 34 1/2 Years In Prison For Running Over, Killing Daughter

 

[UltimateReality]

It's fascinating how you twist your strawman into me moving goal post. Newsflash: you aren't even on the field.

So which dating system prevalent in the 18th century would a person have to use if he did not want to refer to the Lord.

I'll wait while you Google some more fail.

I don't need to google it Dork. It's called the Gregorian calendar for your info and everyone in the 18th century would have used it. Had you actually read the posts you might have understood that all anyone was arguing against was Hollie's claim there was no reference to Christ in the Constitution. There is a reference to Christ in the Constitution, even if it was just the date. I was not claiming anymore implications other than the mere date. You have created a strawman which are arguing against. Keep arguing against yourself and whatever imagined implicaton you can credit me with. You won't find any post of me arguing anything other than the fact the term "year of our Lord" is a reference to Christ.

It's fascinating to watch you move the goalposts as often as you do. You must get exhausted from all that.

 

[UltimateReality]

Typical. Your quotes have proved nothing because you have supplied no post numbers and no context.

Click on the arrows next to the user names. It takes you right to the post.

I shouldn't be so surprised that you're this stupid ...

I figured you'd ignore this.

Predictable.

Even more predictable is your total and complete lack of grasp on English grammar. Just to let you know the word 'AND' is a conjunction, so the first thought should be read in the context of the second thought. Here is the quote, and then I will explain it to you in common English.

No one is falling for your saintly act. You think no on will notice how you conveniently left out all your bullying quotes? Someone else brought up the fact I was a cop and discredited my service before I made mention of my unblemished record, so nice try on twisting the truth.

And now for the English you missed: "Someone else [that is, another poster, i.e. Craker pot, not Starkey] brought up the fact I was a cop AND discredited my service." I didn't say "someone else brought up the fact I was a cop originally.". The point was you brought it up AND you AND Stankey discredited it. Here are the post, in chronologically order [do I need to explain what that means, Crackerpot?]

Someone should really cement in those goalposts Barney Fife keeps moving around.

He says he used to be a cop, too. Scary ...

UR was a police officer. Heavens help the citizens.

Yep, decorated too, without a single blemish on my perfect record. Any more Ad Hominem attacks you would like to bring while you are at it?

UR bragged about himself, his job, his whatever, and I told him that none of that counted

Why do I wasted my time here when folks can't even communicate in common English???

 

[Hollie]

I just find it shocking SHOCKING that Christians can be just as totalitarian and dogmatic as… well… the Taliban or even… well… fundie Christians.

Of course you mean minus beheading all the homosexuals, suicide bombers, and honor killings right?

PHOENIX -- An Iraqi immigrant was sentenced Friday to 34 1/2 years in an Arizona prison for running over and killing his 20-year-old daughter because she became too Westernized.

Arizona 'Honor Killing': Iraqi Immigrant Sentenced To 34 1/2 Years In Prison For Running Over, Killing Daughter

I do find it interesting that you would compare some of your co-religionists to Islamic fundies. There is, among the more excitable of the fundie Christians in the this country, a certain fondness for the same attitudes embraced by the Taliban.

Fortunately, we in this nation have a secular government that serves to throttle the Christian Taliban.

Have you ever considered that among the reasons the FF’s realized the need for a secular constitution was precisely the behavior of Christians in the early settlements? Those lovely folks were just as intolerant and hateful as folks like you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Evidence was posted above. If you did not look for it, that is your problem. Your confusion is noted.

Seriously, this is Hawly isn't it??? She is the only person I know that never provides evidence to her claims. She always responds with attacks, not evidence. Dismissed and overruled.

All who have read the thread know that you once again are lying. Overruled and dismissed.

I never argued that and you, sir, are a liar if you say I did. Please provide supporting evidence, ie, find my post. I'm still waiting for your evidence of Washington refusing communion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Put down the donuts and go look for the evidence previously posted above. No one is going to keep posting material for you if you simply keep denying that it is there.

Deception and trickery will get you no where. Just provide an answer to the question. I am getting more and more convinced this is Rugged Touch, isn't it?

This has been given above in the thread. You do not get to have the evidence kept being given to you.

Accept the fact that you are wrong.

In order for this statement to be true, you would have to state what definition of Diest you are referring to.