Specially for bob...

---

it's also apparent that the debate here strays somewhat. It's not so much about who was or wasn't a christian but rather whether they make reference to a christian god or, more inclusively, god in general.By the way, the latter would be part of the Masonic philosophy in which Washington believed.

Have you been swinging from power lines??Being rude will get you nowhere. I say, post all the stuff you want, we'll read it. We're not as closed as you, to not read something, simply because it's different. Ref:  Originally Posted By: thorAs for the rest, a lot of popular atheist half-truths, misquotes and flat-out lies. I could post a bunch of stuff from some of the sites I've posted links to that would show the opposite, but what's the point?  Originally Posted By: thor Not the Koran, or any "holy" book of any other religion...the Christian Bible I am going to maintain, you are a racist sonuva....What does that have to do with ANYTHING? You could just say "Bible", no other religion has a book called a Bible...  Originally Posted By: thorThe intent of Congress was to provide public schools with Bibles. Christian Bibles. Are you getting that point yet? Now why do you think that the funding was cut for the printing. Because they thought that church (Bibles) and state (PUBLIC schools) should be separated, like the Founding Fathers thought, so apparently the others are right, you argue in a straight line.  Originally Posted By: thorNot that it'll make any difference to you, but just to show how far your head is buried:President George Washington’s Prayer for the Nation given at Newburg, June 8, 1783, and copies sent to the Governors of all the States. .... Now you DO realize that that's pretty much what Chance was asking you to clarify? Why do you have to be rude at every corner? Why do you think we don't take you seriously half the time? You COULD just try saying things courteously and "You may have it wrong, but...", etc., instead of being rude, and berating. But of course, we can't do that, now can we?

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedif you honestly believe in your own rhetoric, then answer this; if these men were, as you maintain, strong believers in the Christian faith and wanted it to be the foundation of the nation, why would they neglect to mention it in the constitution? Because they wanted it to be the foundation of the nation without it being a "Christians only" club. That is also why it was so important to keep government out of religion...so that all beliefs could flourish.Now we have athiests who are bent on rewriting history...ignorant in that it is what those Christians of the past achieved that allowed this country to form as it did. And, without which, they would probably not have the freedom to speak their mind in the way that we all enjoy today. Do you think you'll be free to speak your mind under Obamanation? Think again. That freedom is already under attack: Is freedom of speech in Obama's lexicon? ...and more recently: Obama to Citizens on Health Care: Send In All Fishy Emails

Sounds about right to me...high five

Originally Posted By: LuvMyCats

Now you DO realize that that's pretty much what Chance was asking you to clarify? Why do you have to be rude at every corner? Why do you think we don't take you seriously half the time? You COULD just try saying things courteously and "You may have it wrong, but...", etc., instead of being rude, and berating. But of course, we can't do that, now can we? :smirk:

What are you, the "rudeness" police? I've been just as nice as everybody else...except to Inelligible; I consider him a hypocrit, though, so that's a little different (though still not an excuse). Chance, however, has been far more rude than anybody else...why don't you go bust his balls?

First link: Perhaps a lapse in judgment on the party's part, perhaps not. Nonetheless, it's horrible what they did, I think that they're letting the power go to they're/his head, becuase everyone was so up-in-arms about letting bush out, that he/they think that he/they can do whatever they/he wants. Boo on the government's part.Second: That video was pretty funny. In the end, if it's what I make it to be (correct me if I'm wrong, not-rudely ) it's just the government stepping in for spam control. But I would say, that most people wouldn't get those anyway, spam filters are a lot more advanced than what they were, I don't get any. But that's not what I want to say...entirely...Free speech doesn't apply on the internet, congress hasn't come up with such laws yet. I remember reading that on a forum elsewhere, I'll see if i can find it, because it's way to hard to moderate the internet, chat rooms, forums, etc. A recent Law and Order episode: A kid was talking in a chat room about burning, mutilating, etc.-ing another kid. Turns out he was only joking, but he ended up going to prison anyway, because what was on the chat rooms was enough to convict.

Then I revise that statement. My apologies, but you seem much more, condescending than the others. I see that as different than being rude, a poor choice of words.>>And because when Chance needs to clarify, he doesn't insult you, tell you that you're wrong, becuase he just doesn't understand. You however, do. [See quoted section in last reply to you, same post this is directed to.]>>>Also, as of now, I'm removing myself again. I'm getting tired of all the back and forth, and it makes me feel horrible every time I have sit here and read, type, etc. By horrible, I mean my mood goes out the window. My being sick, doesn't help.

These posts are getting longer and longer... Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: bobalicious Now we know better.No...now there are those arrogant enough to think mankind has all the answers...when in reality we have few. But mankinds fallable answers can be twisted to mean what folks want them to...which is easy to do with something that is not 100% true. That is why there are those who embrace them for no other reason than that they can be twisted.Science NEVER claimed to have all the answers. Is that why you don't like it? Because you think thats what science says?And what part of evolutionary theory is twisted to mean what we want it to? Genetics? Fossils? Vestigial limbs and organs? The phylogenetic tree? Transitional forms? Anatomical and molecular parahomology? Anatomical and molecular convergence?  Originally Posted By: thorBut you attempt to evade the point made...that Paine supported Creationism vs natural selection or some other form of malarkey. For creationism to exist, there must be a creator...God.Wrong, 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.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? Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Psalms 139A passage from the Bible that Bardon claims was the founding fathers' "basis of life". He has offered nothing to support this, showed no documents and referenced no specific documents or books.Which does not mean that those references do not exist...merely that he doesn't have them to present. Remember, he does not have in his posession most of the documents in question. But studies have been done (Donald S Lutz) that show that the Bible was quoted in political correspondences more than all other references combined during the time when the founding fathers were discussing the Constitution. You can google that one yourself.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.) Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Danbury BaptistsBardon's claim that the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson because they objected to the First Amendment and were afraid that it might give the federal government the right to regulate religion is a complete lie and absolutely ridiculous. Their letter wasn't even about the First Amendment, but in order to claim that Jefferson's words of "a wall of separation between church and state" was merely reassurance for the Danbury Baptists that the federal government was not going to interfere with their religious activities, Bardon has to lie about what Jefferson was replying to. Without lying about that, his interpretation of what Jefferson says in his letter doesn't make any sense.Your personal and incorrect spin has no foundation, while Barton's does. While not absolute, the odds heavily favor him being right, and you being wrong. When the "interpretation" was changed in 1947 (as Barton mentions), there must have been those folks who believed Bartons interpretation of Jefferson's original intent to be the one understood by everyone at the time...otherwise, why would they need to change it?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? Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Now, Jefferson did not date any of his letters "in the year of our Lord" and he especially never added a "Christ". What is more likely is that he signed a letter that was already dated this way, which would probably be quite apparent if we saw the whole document, so perhaps this is why he doesn't.Showing the document as a whole would not allow it to be read by a TV viewer. You are supposing with absolutely no proof at all. The document says what it says.He brought an entire page from a treaty and using the magic of tv, they were able to highlight the part he was talking about. The letter that he brought with him was physically cut off or folded back. If you watch any of his seminars he only ever shows the very bottom of the letter. On his website or in his books he never says what the letter was.And yes, the letter says what it says, and that part of the letter is printed and not written by hand. There is no evidence that Jefferson asked for that wording, and since he never wrote any of his other letters with that wording.Think I'm wrong? Then prove it. HERE are 634 letter written by Thomas Jefferson, find one where he ends it with "in the year of our Lord". In fact, HERE is a letter he wrote on November 26th, 1804. Maybe its a habit he got into around that time? Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Not one presidential document actually written by Jefferson was dated "in the year of our Lord", let alone "in the year of our Lord Christ".Irrelevant. It is what Jefferson obviously believed strongly enough in for him to sign it that way...regardless of whether it was any official document or not. Hard evidence of the importance of Christ to a founding father and a Constitutional Framer.But he didn't sign it that way, it was printed that way. Jefferson simply wrote his name. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Evangelising the Kaskaskia IndiansAnother document, finally we're getting some evidence. And yes, Catholic missionaries were sent to the Kaskaskia tribe as written in the treaty, but if the argument is that Jefferson used federal funds to send priests, Barton should have read all of Article 3 of the treaty because he left out stuff at the beginning and end of it.And whereas the greater part of the said tribe have been baptised and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars toward the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for said tribe the duties of his office, and also to instruct as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature, and the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars, to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.Oh no! Not only using federal funds to pay a priest, but also to build a church!? Well, yes, and this was allowed because this was a treaty with a sovereign nation. Unless a treaty provision threatened the rights or interests of Americans, there was no constitutional reason not to allow it, even if the same provision would be unconstitutional in a law made by congress.And as the beginning of article 3 states, the Kaskaskia Indians were already Catholics. They began converting nearly a century before this treaty after meeting a French Jesuit priest, Father Jacques Marquette, along the Mississippi river in 1673. The priest and the church were provided by request of the Kaskaskia tribe.If anyone would like to see for themselves how Bardon selected what information to highlight, go to the third video and skip ahead to 16 minutes and 35 seconds. At this point you can see that it says that they were baptised Catholics, but when Barton highlights the bit he is talking about at 16 minutes and 42 seconds, he conveniently cuts that bit out.Again, the government sent folks out to evangelize the natives to Christianity. Not Islam, not Hindu, not Bhuddist...CHRISTIANITY! All your pontification in an effort to cloud this fact is ineffective and pointless.Did you actually read what I wrote? Did you read that section of the treaty? The Indians were already Catholic! It was the Indians who REQUESTED a Catholic priest and funds to build a church! The government simply gave them what they wanted. Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Church in the Captiol!Now this was a cute little lie that Bardon very quickly threw in and then moved on. He says that Jefferson started a church service in the Capitol building which is not true, this decision had absolutely nothing to do with Jefferson or even the Senate.How would you know he had nothing to do with it? Where's your proof? Your word is not more valid than Bartons on this one.But...Jefferson didn't stop it, did he? I'm quite certain if he was Muslim, he would have...don't you think? You (intentionally) miss the point. The point is that this was a Christian nation, and nobody back then would batt an eye at the idea of a church service at the capital...unlike today. 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  Originally Posted By: thor Quote:Justice Hugo BlackFor this, I'm just going to quote Justice Black, as his words speak for themselves:"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.So Bardon pretty much just lied about this one. Nothing about the 1947 decision stopped people from expressing their religious beliefs. Separation of church and state does not mean all religions except Christianity.I completely disagree. You read the whole thing wrong. Black says that the government is to keep its nose out of church business...not that church has no place in the government.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." 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.

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.

So they saw Aitken's Bible as a technical achievementEEK, that sounds almost like science!

know what makes me happy Thor?No matter how much you cry and twist the truth, no matter how much you want it to be so, no matter what hannity and beck tell you to believe, it changes nothing.THe people are sick of your shit, Obama is the president.We now will fix what teh republicans fucked up over the last 8 years, while people are stupid enough to vote hte fuckers in again, atleast that will not be for a while, your party is out of control, and falling apart at the seams. All you can do is argue on a board on the net, and jerk off to the musings of fox news with your thumb up your ass for atleast 4 more years.THat makes me happy.All your rhetoric, all your bullshit? its just bullshit and the same fear mongering shit that bush cried for 8 years, not even anything new.The only thing anyone can do to change it is to kill obma, that would put biden in office, not a republican. your side still loses.You have to sit back and take it for 4 more fucking years, then and only maybe then would it change, and i hoenstly hope it does not.Now spout off about how wrong I am and your crack pot fucking theories about obama and his birth certifiable and how Ill change once i know the truth. I will be elsewhere, I have a life and shit to do, can not stick around here all day crying unlike yourself.

awww, don't spoil his fun

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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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 here 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.???

Originally Posted By: Grvtykllrknow what makes me happy Thor?No matter how much you cry and twist the truth, no matter how much you want it to be so, no matter what hannity and beck tell you to believe, it changes nothing.THe people are sick of your shit, Obama is the president.We now will fix what teh republicans fucked up over the last 8 years, while people are stupid enough to vote hte fuckers in again, atleast that will not be for a while, your party is out of control, and falling apart at the seams. All you can do is argue on a board on the net, and jerk off to the musings of fox news with your thumb up your ass for atleast 4 more years.THat makes me happy.All your rhetoric, all your bullshit? its just bullshit and the same fear mongering shit that bush cried for 8 years, not even anything new.The only thing anyone can do to change it is to kill obma, that would put biden in office, not a republican. your side still loses.You have to sit back and take it for 4 more fucking years, then and only maybe then would it change, and i hoenstly hope it does not.Now spout off about how wrong I am and your crack pot fucking theories about obama and his birth certifiable and how Ill change once i know the truth. I will be elsewhere, I have a life and shit to do, can not stick around here all day crying unlike yourself. roflmaopriceless

obviously, the concepts of monotheism are well and truly beyond your narrow view of the world. It's only a minor point in your long tirade of nonsense but seriously. Allah, Jehovah, Jawei and all other pronunciations of the tetragramaton are all the same god.Of course, YOUR god is the best right?

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedobviously, the concepts of monotheism are well and truly beyond your narrow view of the world. It's only a minor point in your long tirade of nonsense but seriously. Allah, Jehovah, Jawei and all other pronunciations of the tetragramaton are all the same god.Of course, YOUR god is the best right? Sheesh...only on this board will you get an athiest telling a Christian about who God is. The irony is classic ATA.

thor would presumably believe that other religions are worshipping a non-existent god, so he can still be technically monotheistic, but at the cost of limiting God to being concerned only with Christians and (presumably) Jews, and turning a deaf ear to the rest. It's not my belief about the nature of God.

you are ignorant about religion, especially the one you profess to follow... even Christians think you're full of shitsecond, I don't remember claiming to be an atheist but you are comfortable with your many assumptions

Originally Posted By: Ineligible

thor would presumably believe that other religions are worshipping a non-existent god, so he can still be technically monotheistic, but at the cost of limiting God to being concerned only with Christians and (presumably) Jews, and turning a deaf ear to the rest. It's not my belief about the nature of God.

God IS concerned with EVERYONE...that's my belief. And yes, I also believe folks of other religions (except Jews) are worshipping non-existant (or false) Gods. These two beliefs are a part of Christianity. Remember them if you want to call yourself a Christian.