Specially for bob...

---

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedsecond, I don't remember claiming to be an atheist but you are comfortable with your many assumptionsFlaming liberal anti-Christians are usually atheists. But if you're not, speak up and tell us all what religion you've chosen to follow. At this point I think the thread can stand a diversion.

Strange, I don't think that they are. But you can believe what you want.And I don't think that U has to defend himself to YOU. Besides, he has a right not to. I wouldn't, actually, I'm surprised you haven't asked ME that question yet. Besides, I don't recall him being anti-Christian, either. Maybe just anti-thor? [[Not speaking for him, it's defending, to be clear, since you had an issue with that before.]]And you really should give that whole "liberal" thing up, it's quite the childish insult. And besides...  Originally Posted By: thor At this point I think the thread can stand a diversion. Now who's "running out of arguments", hmm?

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobaliciousAnd what part of evolutionary theory is twisted to mean what we want it to?You know exactly what it is because you left it out of your little list. It's called "natural selection"...as has been covered on this board ad nauseam.Should I ask whats wrong with Natural Selection or should we save that for another (oh god, another! :P ) thread? Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Paine didn't support evolution as it was known in the 18th century. Natural Selection, the main mechanism for evolution, wasn't even discovered until the middle of the 19th century.Attempting to evade the point again. What you said here doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is the Christian heritage of this country that folks just like you are trying to rewrite. The point is that Paine supported the concept of a creator...God. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of this discussion, how he did this. The fact that he did it remains, and is all that matters here. Strawman arguments will not avail you here.OK, he believes in creationism and presumably a creator. How does that equate to him being a Christian or believing the United States should be run using Christian values? Christianity isn't the only religion that believes in a creator. What is it that shows that what he believed in was the Christian god, when everything we know about him says that he hated Christianity. Bardon himself said it in the video. Oh and by the way, it was Bardon who brought up that Paine wanted creationism taught so I don't know why you're claiming that I've created a strawman argument. I was responding to this and the assumption made that just because Paine was a creationist meant that he was a Christian creationist. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:And who says that the creator had to be God, especially your God. If it was discovered that life on Earth was designed by aliens, would they be God?OK...again, what god then? Allah? Hindu (they have many)? WHICH ONE BOB???? Do you have an answer at all to this question, now that I've asked it several times? Better be able to provide proof to back it up. Is it possible you're trying to evade this question too because you already know the answer is the Christian one? Well??? If not, how about an answer?I don't know what god, but you've shown no valid evidence that it was the Christian god. Can't you see that I'm not the one making a claim? You're saying "its the Christian god!!" and all I'm saying is that the evidence doesn't agree with you. I'm not saying that it points to another god, but that it doesn't seem to point to yours. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Sorry, no need for me to do that. If you want to prove that point then provide the references yourself. Until then, the claim has no backing and is therefore mute. (And please don't take that as ignoring your point, I really am encouraging you to give references yourself and stop relying on others to do the dirty work for you.)Your fear of the truth does not make it false. But your inability to back up what you're saying does kinda take away any credibility in your story. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Thor, did you read the letter? I did, I even linked to it. But in case you didn't, I'll write it out here:To Thomas Jefferson Esq., the President of the united States of America.Sir,Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoy'd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty. That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals. That no man ought to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions. That the legitimate Power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws & usages, & such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek after power & gain under the pretence of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.Sir, we are sensible that the President of the united States is not the national Legislator & also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cal'd you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermin'd opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.Signed in behalf of the Association,Neh'h DodgeEph'm Robbins }The CommitteeStephen S. NelsonDid you notice how the First Amendment isn't mentioned? How they are actually talking about their State constitution and government?I left it here for all to read. If you can't figure out that this applies to the First Amendment, then there's no point in arguing with you any further over the issue. It's so obvious that a chimpanzee could recognize it.Then point it out. Your arguments are actually starting to sound exactly like those of an 8 year old. You seem to be calling me stupid more than you're actually arguing your points with evidence. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:But he didn't sign it that way, it was printed that way. Jefferson simply wrote his name.I make darn sure when I sign something that everything is correct and the way I want it. I would suppose most folks are that way, but I think certainly politicians would be. Either way, it's most likely he saw very clearly what he was signing and could have stricken it out if he didn't like it. Then again, he could just as easily have requested it to be put there. Either way, it certainly signifies that it is the Christian god that is in the minds of Americans at that time, and that this god existed in the minds of politicians, regardless of why it is there. That is the point...not whether Jefferson asked for it to be placed there or not.I don't see anybody arguing that Christianity was not the dominant religion in America at the time, so that argument is useless.And the fact that those words are found in NONE of Jefferson's other letters certainly suggests that it was not put their by his request. That he didn't strike them out means nothing because they are not in any way crucial to the content of the letter. That the words never appeared in a letter again may even suggest that he DID have a problem with them and requested that they weren't used in letters in the future. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:OK, if Jefferson had anything to do with it, then where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that anyone in the senate had any involvement? The House of Representatives made the decision. December 4th, 1800 No evidence required to make my point. Again, it doesn't matter whether Jefferson had anything to do with it or not. It is, once again, evidence that Christ existed in the minds of the politicians of the time.No, it is evidence that some Christians asked to use the room for mass. Now if some Muslims had asked to use the room and the politicians had said no, then maybe we could work out some sort of bias for Christianity, but just letting some people use a room that THEY ASKED to use is not showing any bias towards one religion. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:I read it wrong? Oh, sorry. I just thought that he was pretty clear when he said "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa."Yep...that's exactly what he said. He said government cannot participate in religion. He did NOT say religion cannot be the basis for participation in government...which is what I've been arguing all along.What the fuck are you talking about? You're changing your argument. Originally you said: Originally Posted By: thor Black says that the government is to keep its nose out of church business...not that church has no place in the government.I showed that you are, in fact, completely wrong. So you're either just rewording the same argument hoping that it'll still apply or you're changing your argument because you know that your original argument was wrong. Originally Posted By: thor Quote: Originally Posted By: thorThink of this part of George Washington's farwell address, then go back and read it again:"Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."Yes, George Washington was a Christian, nobody disputes this. Good. I'm glad we're getting somewhere. Sure, but that fact alone means absolutely nothing. Whatever his personal views were, they didn't seem to make it into the constitution so its irrelevant.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobaliciousThe Bible that you speak of was not funded by congress but was in fact already printing when the guy making them requested funding from congress. That particular bible is a very rare book these days because congress refused to fund their printing and the guy went out of business and most of the books were destroyed.Sorry for the vagueness, referring to him as "the guy" but I'm typing this on my phone and don't have access to my papers. I'll post a more detailed account later when I get to my computer. Congress paid for the distribution of 20,000 of them to schools, if memory serves. You can google that one if you don't buy it. But you're pontificating...choosing arguments you think you can win by passing up the main point altogether. The quantity of books and what ultimately happened is irrelevant. The intent of Congress was to provide public schools with Bibles. Christian Bibles. Are you getting that point yet? The Bible was privately printed by Robert Aitken of Philadelphia. All that Congress did was grant one of many requests made by Aitken to have their chaplains examine his work and allowing him to publish their resolutions that based on their chaplains' report, they were satisfied that his editions were accurate. The only reason Congress took any interest in Aitken was because they saw it as a great technical achievement that he was able to print a book as large as the Bible and that it was accurately done. At that time, most printers were only printing pamphlets and those that were making books were prone to inaccuracies and were also more expensive than imported books. So they saw Aitken's Bible as a technical achievement and good promotion for the arts in America. "The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on September 11, 1777, the Continental Congress passed a motion that would have instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." This, however, was not a final vote. A second motion was made to pass an actual resolution to import the Bibles, but was postponed and never considered again." from hereDid you get past the first few lines of that article? Did you get to the bit that says that Congress turned down his requests that his Bibles "be published under the Authority of Congress" or that he "be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of the Sacred Scriptures."So you've seen that your previous argument was completely wrong? That we can see that it was a lie, made by Bardon and blindly repeated by you?OK, so what was your question?  Originally Posted By: thor Now...regardless of the outcome, WHY WOULD CONGRESS BE AT ALL CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THE SUPPLY OF BIBLES TO THE U.S. CUT OFF?W.H.Y.??? I admit that I asked myself this very question. But unlike you, I did not just sit around making assumptions, I looked into it.The suggestion for importing Bibles was made in a memorial to Congress by Reverend Francis Alison. His concern was that as the supply of imported Bibles had been cut off, the prices of those in circulation in America were rising rapidly, as were the prices of most imported goods. With less than half the country in favour of the war in the first place, Congress were very concerned with minimizing hardships like high prices and shortages of items previously imported from England.So W.H.Y were Congress considering importing Bibles? Because the good ol' honest Christian Americans were cheating and robbing each other blind!

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobaliciousThe Bible that you speak of was not funded by congress but was in fact already printing when the guy making them requested funding from congress. That particular bible is a very rare book these days because congress refused to fund their printing and the guy went out of business and most of the books were destroyed.Sorry for the vagueness, referring to him as "the guy" but I'm typing this on my phone and don't have access to my papers. I'll post a more detailed account later when I get to my computer. Congress paid for the distribution of 20,000 of them to schools, if memory serves. You can google that one if you don't buy it. But you're pontificating...choosing arguments you think you can win by passing up the main point altogether. The quantity of books and what ultimately happened is irrelevant. The intent of Congress was to provide public schools with Bibles. Christian Bibles. Are you getting that point yet? The Bible was privately printed by Robert Aitken of Philadelphia. All that Congress did was grant one of many requests made by Aitken to have their chaplains examine his work and allowing him to publish their resolutions that based on their chaplains' report, they were satisfied that his editions were accurate. The only reason Congress took any interest in Aitken was because they saw it as a great technical achievement that he was able to print a book as large as the Bible and that it was accurately done. At that time, most printers were only printing pamphlets and those that were making books were prone to inaccuracies and were also more expensive than imported books. So they saw Aitken's Bible as a technical achievement and good promotion for the arts in America. "The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on September 11, 1777, the Continental Congress passed a motion that would have instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." This, however, was not a final vote. A second motion was made to pass an actual resolution to import the Bibles, but was postponed and never considered again." from hereDid you get past the first few lines of that article? Did you get to the bit that says that Congress turned down his requests that his Bibles "be published under the Authority of Congress" or that he "be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of the Sacred Scriptures."So you've seen that your previous argument was completely wrong? That we can see that it was a lie, made by Bardon and blindly repeated by you?OK, so what was your question?  Originally Posted By: thor Now...regardless of the outcome, WHY WOULD CONGRESS BE AT ALL CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THE SUPPLY OF BIBLES TO THE U.S. CUT OFF?W.H.Y.??? I admit that I asked myself this very question. But unlike you, I did not just sit around making assumptions, I looked into it.The suggestion for importing Bibles was made in a memorial to Congress by Reverend Francis Alison. His concern was that as the supply of imported Bibles had been cut off, the prices of those in circulation in America were rising rapidly, as were the prices of most imported goods. With less than half the country in favour of the war in the first place, Congress were very concerned with minimizing hardships like high prices and shortages of items previously imported from England.So W.H.Y were Congress considering importing Bibles? Because the good ol' honest Christian Americans were cheating and robbing each other blind! As with the other post above it, you have missed the point entirely. (It's a good thing you aren't planning on being a scientist...or are you?)The majority of the original settlers came to this country to escape religious persecution. Those settlers were Christian...not any other religion. If you disagree, show evidence.The videos (and thier documents and the links I posted) all clearly show one thing: Regardless of how anybody attempts to pick them apart, they show that Christianity was in the minds of the majority of the people (including the politicians) at that time. The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming and unavoidable. If you can't see it, it can only be decuced that you don't want to. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't get him to admit it's wet, even if you stick his nose in it. With that, I'm done here. Have a nice weekend.

Originally Posted By: LuvMyCats

Originally Posted By: thor

At this point I think the thread can stand a diversion. Now who's "running out of arguments", hmm?

More like I've run out of things to argue against. You have a good weekend too. :wink:

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobaliciousThe Bible that you speak of was not funded by congress but was in fact already printing when the guy making them requested funding from congress. That particular bible is a very rare book these days because congress refused to fund their printing and the guy went out of business and most of the books were destroyed.Sorry for the vagueness, referring to him as "the guy" but I'm typing this on my phone and don't have access to my papers. I'll post a more detailed account later when I get to my computer. Congress paid for the distribution of 20,000 of them to schools, if memory serves. You can google that one if you don't buy it. But you're pontificating...choosing arguments you think you can win by passing up the main point altogether. The quantity of books and what ultimately happened is irrelevant. The intent of Congress was to provide public schools with Bibles. Christian Bibles. Are you getting that point yet? The Bible was privately printed by Robert Aitken of Philadelphia. All that Congress did was grant one of many requests made by Aitken to have their chaplains examine his work and allowing him to publish their resolutions that based on their chaplains' report, they were satisfied that his editions were accurate. The only reason Congress took any interest in Aitken was because they saw it as a great technical achievement that he was able to print a book as large as the Bible and that it was accurately done. At that time, most printers were only printing pamphlets and those that were making books were prone to inaccuracies and were also more expensive than imported books. So they saw Aitken's Bible as a technical achievement and good promotion for the arts in America. "The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on September 11, 1777, the Continental Congress passed a motion that would have instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere." This, however, was not a final vote. A second motion was made to pass an actual resolution to import the Bibles, but was postponed and never considered again." from hereDid you get past the first few lines of that article? Did you get to the bit that says that Congress turned down his requests that his Bibles "be published under the Authority of Congress" or that he "be commissioned or otherwise appointed & Authorized to print and vend Editions of the Sacred Scriptures."So you've seen that your previous argument was completely wrong? That we can see that it was a lie, made by Bardon and blindly repeated by you?OK, so what was your question?  Originally Posted By: thor Now...regardless of the outcome, WHY WOULD CONGRESS BE AT ALL CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THE SUPPLY OF BIBLES TO THE U.S. CUT OFF?W.H.Y.??? I admit that I asked myself this very question. But unlike you, I did not just sit around making assumptions, I looked into it.The suggestion for importing Bibles was made in a memorial to Congress by Reverend Francis Alison. His concern was that as the supply of imported Bibles had been cut off, the prices of those in circulation in America were rising rapidly, as were the prices of most imported goods. With less than half the country in favour of the war in the first place, Congress were very concerned with minimizing hardships like high prices and shortages of items previously imported from England.So W.H.Y were Congress considering importing Bibles? Because the good ol' honest Christian Americans were cheating and robbing each other blind! As with the other post above it, you have missed the point entirely. (It's a good thing you aren't planning on being a scientist...or are you?)The majority of the original settlers came to this country to escape religious persecution. Those settlers were Christian...not any other religion. If you disagree, show evidence.The videos (and thier documents and the links I posted) all clearly show one thing: Regardless of how anybody attempts to pick them apart, they show that Christianity was in the minds of the majority of the people (including the politicians) at that time. The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming and unavoidable. If you can't see it, it can only be decuced that you don't want to. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't get him to admit it's wet, even if you stick his nose in it. With that, I'm done here. Have a nice weekend. You're argument is that the majority of Americans were Christians, therefore it was set up as a Christian nation. This is the most pathetic argument and no matter how many times I show you, and no matter how many of your bullshit arguments I disprove, I feel like you're never going to admit you're wrong. This isn't surprising to me as you've never once admitted fault on this forum on any issue, its just very sad.America was established as a nation with a Christian majority population. You haven't shown anything to prove otherwise except your arrogant opinion which, like mine, means nothing.

CALLING ALL CHRISTIANSBased on what we've discussed here, what do you think is more likely? Did the founding fathers, who were not all Christians or even theists, establish the United States of America as a Christian nation, or as a secular nation with a Christian majority population that did not want one religion to have an influence on the government that could alienate other members of the population who did not follow that religion?

Iiwake shinai-de.Don't make excuses.I agree with bob, that they may have been have been Christian, but they didn't want that to play into the formation of the government. The majority came over a Puritans, I thought, which was a bit different than Christianity was? Either way, I'll take your word for it, something I intend to do rarely.Yes, the evidence may show that they were Christian when they came over, etc. That's all well and good. But they don't say (and apparently, neither do you) that they came over here with the intention to form a Christian government. Besides that, they were all Christian, and that was what the majority of the population was Christian, but realistically, what other religions were around at the time? They couldn't have been another, becuase, as far as they know (the enlightenment fearing god serving people) none other exist.And don't get all mad at bob, man. He's leveling with you, nearly directing the same jabs at himself, as he is to you. Besides, in the last post that you made, I don't recall the point of the one you were referring to (sorry about the confusing-ness) being that the majority of Americans were Christian, it was just that Congress funded the printing of bibles. Yeah, so? Who do you think funds churches? Mosques? Temples? Synagogues? The cities, which are provided and allocated funds by the government, in the long run, especially with government stim. packs. So does that mean that the government is then poly-theistic, or poly-religious? And all that aside, it's hard to have a good weekend, when A) You have junk to deal with, and B) you wish it on someone on SATURDAY. Demo, arigato!But, thanks! Bob: I think that they formed the government for freedom from any religion persecution, the way that they said, and what still holds true today, regardless of what they thought. Maybe they were TRUE Christians, and actually practiced the whole "Love thy neighbor" thing, and didn't really care what other people were, because we're all the same, anyway.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousCALLING ALL CHRISTIANSBased on what we've discussed here, what do you think is more likely? Did the founding fathers, who were not all Christians or even theists, establish the United States of America as a Christian nation, or as a secular nation with a Christian majority population that did not want one religion to have an influence on the government that could alienate other members of the population who did not follow that religion? It believe it was a secular CHRISTIAN nation.  Quote: alienate other members of the population who did not follow that religion? When you say "that religion".. I think it only applied to branches of Christianity.

I'm sure the problem of distrust between the many Christian denominations and groups was a major motivating force, but I think the matter goes deeper. I think nowadays we miss the significance of the fact that the new nation did not establish a new monarchy, but a republic, in which power derived ultimately from the people. At the time, this would have been considered by many to be irreligious in itself. The conventional thinking was that the only original source of authority was God, and that this authority was delegated to specific people - hence the divine right of kings. But the framers of the US Constitution not only rejected rule by the British King: they rejected rule by any king. They specifically excluded the possibility of theocracy by stating that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".Now they would particularly have had in mind the English Test Acts, which were directed specifically against Roman Catholics; but by totally abolishing the possibility of such a test they were saying that a government officer's private religion had no connexion with his authority.Similarly the First Amendment's prohibition of the establishment of a religion was another blow to the relationship of nation and church as it had previously been considered. The King of England was also Supreme Head of the Church of England, the established religion (which still continues); and it had been widely considered that religion was a corporate matter, not an individual matter as the philosophers of the Enlightenment taught. It had been considered by most governments as essential that the people should be of one faith - the First Amendment specifically rejects this view.It is however also significant that US republicanism did not go as far as French republicanism, which attempted to take over the church and religious authority (in France still all churches are legally the property of the state).