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

[UltimateReality]

Sorry Charlie, Anno Domini is a direct reference to Christ. In fact, they didn't even use the term AD, they said "Year of OUR Lord". And again you make a comment about the implications of this when I have said numerous times I am not arguing the implications. How long will you cling to your strawman?

There is no reference to "Christ", only to "anno domini". There is no reference to "Jevohah" or "Jesus" and so forth. The document is secular. End of your argument.

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.

 

[UltimateReality]

Peace to all who post here!! I have not been banned but I am banning myself. I will not support a forum that does not respect the First Amendment. When sarcasm to prove a point is prohibited speech, and the terms "child molester" and "wife beater" are prohibited, yet someone else can make fun of the most sacred of religious beliefs which are protected by the Constitution, and spew the most hateful venom and vitriol against Christ followers, I would say there is a little prejudicial imbalance here. You can't mention someone's wife in sarcastic jest, but you can trash someone's Savior with the most deep seated hate imaginable??? Hmmm. I personally will not support their banner advertisements by giving them my "hit" anymore. My prayer is that Hawly [Just in case you didn't get the spelling of your name, it is in reference you referring to God as Gawd], Cracker and Jake will find the truth some day. And what is Truth??

Truth is Ultimate Reality. It is what is REALLY REAL. It is not twisted by human emotion or experience or worldview. It is God's un-tainted view of reality, not the modified version many are proposing in this very thread. Peace out.

 

[newpolitics]

Peace to all who post here!! I have not been banned but I am banning myself. I will not support a forum that does not respect the First Amendment. When sarcasm to prove a point is prohibited speech, and the terms "child molester" and "wife beater" are prohibited, yet someone else can make fun of the most sacred of religious beliefs which are protected by the Constitution, and spew the most hateful venom and vitriol against Christ followers, I would say there is a little prejudicial imbalance here. You can't mention someone's wife in sarcastic jest, but you can trash someone's Savior with the most deep seated hate imaginable??? Hmmm. I personally will not support their banner advertisements by giving them my "hit" anymore. My prayer is that Hawly [Just in case you didn't get the spelling of your name, it is in reference you referring to God as Gawd], Cracker and Jake will find the truth some day. And what is Truth??

Truth is Ultimate Reality. It is what is REALLY REAL. It is not twisted by human emotion or experience or worldview. It is God's un-tainted view of reality, not the modified version many are proposing in this very thread. Peace out.

Firstly, No one is crippling the first amendment here. You are free to post as you wish.

Second thing is, you have don't have truth. You have faith, and faith is belief without evidence. Please, stop saying you know truth, when you have not demonstrated any of your claims about god to be true. You have what you believe to be true, and that is it, which is fine. I'm not condemning that, but please stop telling everyone else that they should believe because you do. You're entitled to your faith, but stop proselytizing. You wonder why you receive such vitriol? Because you put out vitriol by the action of telling everyone else what reality is, insulting their intelligence implicitly, especially when what you proselytize is a religion responsible for such much hate, atrocity, and scientific ignorance, as you yourself demonstrate. Don't appeal to emotion in claiming christian belief is sacred to this country. That's horseshit. This is a secular nation, because it was founded on secular principles. You don't get to have a copyright on morality as a theist.

 

[Hollie]

Peace to all who post here!! I have not been banned but I am banning myself. I will not support a forum that does not respect the First Amendment. When sarcasm to prove a point is prohibited speech, and the terms "child molester" and "wife beater" are prohibited, yet someone else can make fun of the most sacred of religious beliefs which are protected by the Constitution, and spew the most hateful venom and vitriol against Christ followers, I would say there is a little prejudicial imbalance here. You can't mention someone's wife in sarcastic jest, but you can trash someone's Savior with the most deep seated hate imaginable??? Hmmm. I personally will not support their banner advertisements by giving them my "hit" anymore. My prayer is that Hawly [Just in case you didn't get the spelling of your name, it is in reference you referring to God as Gawd], Cracker and Jake will find the truth some day. And what is Truth??

Truth is Ultimate Reality. It is what is REALLY REAL. It is not twisted by human emotion or experience or worldview. It is God's un-tainted view of reality, not the modified version many are proposing in this very thread. Peace out.

May the spirit of David Koresh be with you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, my, what a thin skin.

Simple rules, I understand: leave family, pedophilia and etc out of the posting.

That is not hard.

Bon voyage and may you find the gentle spirit and peace of Jesus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister." -- Bishop White.
"On sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the Congregation." -- Rev. Dr. Abercromble.
"After that, [Dr. Abercrombie's reproof,] upon communion days, he absented himself altogether from the church." -- Rev. Dr. Wilson.
"The General was accustomed, on communion Sundays, to leave the church with her [Nelly Custis], sending the carriage back for Mrs. Washington. " -- Rev. Dr. Beverly Tucker.
"He never was a communicant in them [Dr. White's churches]." -- Rev. Dr. Bird Wilson.
"I find no one who ever communed with him." -- Rev. William Jackson.
"The President was not a communicant." -- Rev. E.D. Neill.
"This [his ceasing to commune] may be admitted and regretted." -- Rev. Jared Sparks.
"There is no reliable evidence that he ever took communion." -- Gen. A.W. Greely.
"There is nothing to show that he was ever a member of the church." -- St. Louis Globe.
"I have never been a communicant." -- Washington, quoted by Dr. Abercrombie.

 

[ima]

The truth is, there's no solid proof that Jesus even existed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The truth is, there's no solid proof that ima even exists.

 

[ima]

There's for sure no solid proof that Jak has any proof that Jesus existed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no solid evidence that ima has proof that Jesus never existed.

 

[ima]

There is no solid evidence that jak has proof that the tooth fairy never existed.
Or Santa Claus.
Or the great spaghetti monster in the sky.

Otherwise known as the weakest argument ever invented. Is that all you got? Cuz that's total crap bro.

 

[ima]

But if you want I'll keep going along your thinking:

There is no solid evidence that Jak has proof that Jesus never swallowed a man's semen or caught it in the posterior.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ima, you are lost in this, it's obvious. Whenever the sexual innuendos are brought out by the weak headed, they admit they have lost.

If you don't believe in Jesus, that's up to you. The evidence is sufficient, though, that Jesus lived and died in the lands of ancient Judaism.

If that bug you, I will give you a hint: no one cares.

 

[ima]

ima, you are lost in this, it's obvious. Whenever the sexual innuendos are brought out by the weak headed, they admit they have lost.

If you don't believe in Jesus, that's up to you. The evidence is sufficient, though, that Jesus lived and died in the lands of ancient Judaism.

If that bug you, I will give you a hint: no one cares.

Hey, I can say that a guy named Jesus LIKELY lived... maybe. But all the acts and words attributed to him? No way jose, that's all made up stuff, for things like walking on water or turning water into wine or coming back to life, well, for that they're no proof whatsoever.

I know that bugs you. Sorry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ima, don't move the goal posts.

You are irked you were corrected.

Get over it.

 

[ima]

Ima, don't move the goal posts.

You are irked you were corrected.

Get over it.

You WISH I was irked.

Get over it.

Anyways, I said there's no real proof that Jesus existed, and there isn't. So bite me.

But I'm generous, so I'll say that he LIKELY existed? But not sure because of no real proof.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ima, you are entitled to your belief, but you are mistaken and not generous. Jesus lived when and where it is reported so. Your disbelief or your doubt simply does not invalidate those facts. You need to get over being corrected.

Ima, don't move the goal posts.

You are irked you were corrected.

Get over it.

You WISH I was irked.

Get over it.

Anyways, I said there's no real proof that Jesus existed, and there isn't. So bite me.

But I'm generous, so I'll say that he LIKELY existed? But not sure because of no real proof.

 

[ima]

Ima, you are entitled to your belief, but you are mistaken and not generous. Jesus lived when and where it is reported so. Your disbelief or your doubt simply does not invalidate those facts. You need to get over being corrected.

Ima, don't move the goal posts.

You are irked you were corrected.

Get over it.

You WISH I was irked.

Get over it.

Anyways, I said there's no real proof that Jesus existed, and there isn't. So bite me.

But I'm generous, so I'll say that he LIKELY existed? But not sure because of no real proof.

Ok, even without proof (do you have any?), if he did exist, do you think that the "miracles" attributed to him actually happened?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ima moves the goal posts again.

Whether Jesus is the living Son of God is not the point here.

If Ima is agnostic or atheist, then her opinion on the divinity of Jesus is immaterial.

 

[ima]

Ima moves the goal posts again.

Whether Jesus is the living Son of God is not the point here.

If Ima is agnostic or atheist, then her opinion on the divinity of Jesus is immaterial.

I'm agnostic: I don't believe that a god has yet been proven but I leave the door open in the event that someone ever comes up with solid, tangible proof. So my questioning is totally relevant, I'm trying to find some proof out there. I have an enquiring mind.
Just answer the question: if he did exist, do you think that the "miracles" attributed to him actually happened?