Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Still acting the communist, still denying the undeniable. No question exists that Washington refused to take communion. End of that story.
You, sir, are a liar and a deceiver. This is no link to a reliable website substantiating your claim Washington refused communion in any of your previous posts. Not the type of honor I would expect from a retired member of our armed forces. And it is quite weird you haven't denied that you are really Rugged Touch. This evasive technique wreaks of her modus operandi.
You don't get to call yet one more time for evidence that is posted above. Not going to happen.
UltimateReality said:That was proof, not proselytizing. But while were are at it, you can go ahead stop proselytizing your materialist religion.
Not the point really, and SCOTUS disagrees with you.
Commentary from the Library of Congress Section on Religion and the Federal Government...
That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an "irreligious" document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an "irreligious" document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion.
UltimateReality said:That was proof, not proselytizing. But while were are at it, you can go ahead stop proselytizing your materialist religion.
A materialist religion is a contradiction in terms.
show me a single reference to god in the constitution.
i'm sorry i have to say this. But you are just plain stupid. This has been done repeatedly even though you continue to deny it because you are insane.
it's really simple even for simpletons, show me where god is mentioned in the constitution.
I think it's insane to insisit that the constitution contains something it does not.
So show us where god is mentioned.
Yup, true. My family businesses do quite well, and, yes, I was in the military for 12 years.
I am a solid Republican who can research, write, and think critically.
Riiiiight. And you are a wealthy businessman too. And a soldier as well.
This was given above. Go look for it. Credible evidence.
Whereas, you have none.
You gave a list of FF that you claim were not Christian. When asked for evidence where these FF declared this about themselves, you could not deliver. In fact, we are STILL waiting for that evidence.
And don't forget the evidence that Washington refused communion. I've been waiting on that too even though Stankey keeps lying and saying he has provided evidence. I seriously think he doesn't know what he is posting and he is getting confused on what you and I have posted.
Got it. You have nothing. There is not a single reference to God in the Constitution. Next.
It's true. There is not a single reference to god in the constitution.
Speaking of frustation, Hawly does this on purpose. This is about the point even a peaceful man would grab her by the back of the neck and press her face against the glass case over Article VII of the Constitution in the National Archives. Hawly, with her nose pressed firmly over the date reference to Christ, would merely close her eyes and repeat it over and over again, "There is no reference to God in the Constitution. There is no reference to God in the Constitution".
Arguing with Hollie is an exercise in absolute futility. She would continue to deny gravity, even as she was falling from a building to her death. I can just hear her, "It's true. Gravity isn't real."
Hawly, the space below is where you now resort to ad hominem attacks as usual.
Show me where it says "Christ". Because that is a legal attestation on all documents. Your silly reasoning why have us think that all folks are Christian because they attested to documents inm that way.
The Constitution does not mention "God" or "Jehovah" or "Jesus" or "Messiah" or "Christ" at all. Religious test oaths are forever banned, though.
Hey Strawboy, it does mention Christ in Article VII in the date. And why not add capital LORD to your list above?? Oh yeah, cause then you'd be
WRONG!
Still waiting for any reference to god in the constitution.Sure it was. It was posted above. Go look for it.
Got it. You have nothing. There is not a single reference to God in the Constitution. Next.
Speaking of frustation, Hawly does this on purpose. This is about the point even a peaceful man would grab her by the back of the neck and press her face against the glass case over Article VII of the Constitution in the National Archives. Hawly, with her nose pressed firmly over the date reference to Christ, would merely close her eyes and repeat it over and over again, "There is no reference to God in the Constitution. There is no reference to God in the Constitution".
Arguing with Hollie is an exercise in absolute futility. She would continue to deny gravity, even as she was falling from a building to her death. I can just hear her, "It's true. Gravity isn't real."
Hawly, the space below is where you now resort to ad hominem attacks as usual.
Show us where Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, and Allan professed themselves unto the Savior.
Only in your twisted dreams Hawly. You love to twist logic around and try to appear smart, thinking no one will notice. The reason your argument so very utterly stupid and ignorant is, the question of whether or not they are Jewish has never been raised. Jefferson, Franklin and Paine were not regularly seen attending Jewish synagogues or wearing Yamakah's, or lighting candles for Hanakah. You argument is an EPIC FAIL.
JakeStankey is claiming that even though they attended Christian churches and referenced Christian writings, that they weren't Christian. Logical4U, like me, sees the overwhelming evidence is that they behaved like Christians and engaged in Christian activities like going to church. Therefore, there would be no logical reason for them, as they exited the Christian church, to loudly proclaim, I am not a Muslim. But there would be a reason, if they truly were Deists, to clarify to those that saw them engaging in behaviors that would indicate they were, in fact, Christians, like quoting the NEW TESTAMENT of the Bible and praying, that one should not automatically assume because they walk like a duck and talk like a duck, that they could in fact, just be pretending to be a duck.
Franklin quoted the New Testament of the Bible, and not just the New Testament, he quoted Christ!!!! Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, and Buddhists don't recognize the New Testament as a sacred writing. Here is definitive proof Franklin was a Christian...
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006642.jpg
"I have lived, sir, a long time, and, the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men [This is not a Deist viewpoint]. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?
Jesus speaking in Matthew 10:
8 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
This is really not the forum for proselytizing.
Your frantic need to insert Christ in the constitution includes one meaningless reference which has nothing to do with any intent of the FF's relative to the design of their nations founding principles.This quote shows just how thick you really are. You are confusing me with Logical4U because you lack reading comprehension skills. I have never claimed the "legal attestation" makes it a Christian document. All I said was there is a reference to Christ in the document and there is. You can read more into that if you want, but you look foolish to continue to argue since you are wrong. I'll say it one more time so maybe it will sink in... There absolutely is a reference to Christ contained in the Constitution. I have not claimed that the Gregorian Calendar reference to Christ in the Constitution makes it a Christian document. I have only argued that the reference exists.
Show me where it says "Christ". Because that is a legal attestation on all documents. Your silly reasoning why have us think that all folks are Christian because they attested to documents inm that way.
Hey Strawboy, it does mention Christ in Article VII in the date. And why not add capital LORD to your list above?? Oh yeah, cause then you'd be
WRONG!
Oh so typical!! Everyone can see you have no proof. I have questioned it and still you provide NOTHING. You have proven time and again you are a liar so that pretty much negates anything you say here from now on. You credibility is totally gone. Time for you to leave.
Still acting the communist, still denying the undeniable. No question exists that Washington refused to take communion. End of that story.
You, sir, are a liar and a deceiver. This is no link to a reliable website substantiating your claim Washington refused communion in any of your previous posts. Not the type of honor I would expect from a retired member of our armed forces. And it is quite weird you haven't denied that you are really Rugged Touch. This evasive technique wreaks of her modus operandi.
And your point is??? SCOTUS is only one vote away from totally trashing the 2nd Amendment so I wouldn't be using them as an example of what is good or true if I were you.
Not the point really, and SCOTUS disagrees with you.
Commentary from the Library of Congress Section on Religion and the Federal Government...
That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an "irreligious" document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an "irreligious" document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion.
i'm sorry i have to say this. But you are just plain stupid. This has been done repeatedly even though you continue to deny it because you are insane.
it's really simple even for simpletons, show me where god is mentioned in the constitution.
I think it's insane to insisit that the constitution contains something it does not.
So show us where god is mentioned.
epic fail.
Sure you were.
Yup, true. My family businesses do quite well, and, yes, I was in the military for 12 years.
Riiiiight. And you are a wealthy businessman too. And a soldier as well.
Still waiting for any reference to god in the constitution.Sure it was. It was posted above. Go look for it.
Got it. You have nothing. There is not a single reference to God in the Constitution. Next.
Sorry Stankey. Repeating something over and over again ad nauseum will never make it true. You are a liar and you have never supplied the information requested.
This was given above. Go look for it. Credible evidence.
Whereas, you have none.
And don't forget the evidence that Washington refused communion. I've been waiting on that too even though Stankey keeps lying and saying he has provided evidence. I seriously think he doesn't know what he is posting and he is getting confused on what you and I have posted.
This quote shows just how thick you really are. You are confusing me with Logical4U because you lack reading comprehension skills. I have never claimed the "legal attestation" makes it a Christian document. All I said was there is a reference to Christ in the document and there is. You can read more into that if you want, but you look foolish to continue to argue since you are wrong. I'll say it one more time so maybe it will sink in... There absolutely is a reference to Christ contained in the Constitution. I have not claimed that the Gregorian Calendar reference to Christ in the Constitution makes it a Christian document. I have only argued that the reference exists.
Show me where it says "Christ". Because that is a legal attestation on all documents. Your silly reasoning why have us think that all folks are Christian because they attested to documents inm that way.
Hey Strawboy, it does mention Christ in Article VII in the date. And why not add capital LORD to your list above?? Oh yeah, cause then you'd be
WRONG!
False premise AGAIN. This is not a requirement to be a Christian.
Show us where Franklin, Jefferson, Paine, and Allan professed themselves unto the Savior.
This is really not the forum for proselytizing.
