Why Religion Must Be Banished....

[BS Filter]

Now, then....as I proved, the Constitution has a clear reference to Jesus Christ....

And literally the ENTIRE rest of the document lays our a secular government and a rule of rational law.

And it never mentions Jesus Christ even once.

Then who is it referring to? You're a liar.

 

[Penelope]

Which Lord? The signing of the Constitution does not say and the day of the Lord is not part of the legal constitution. Because Rome said so.

Before the birth of Christ and after the death of Christ. See it does not include the life of Jesus even. Before and after. Strange hey??
Anno Domini - Wikipedia

tidbit, did you know Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died on July 4th, 1826 , exactly 50 years after signing of the Declaration of Independence.

First, quoting one person that posted on Wikipedia is a joke. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Are you aware of that? Myself and many others including scholars will not accept anything from Wikipedia because it can be edited by anyone. Now, you say "which Lord ?". You tell me. Go ahead, tell me which Lord they are referring to.

Second, Yes, I am aware that Jefferson and Adams both died on july 4th, 1826.

Ad means Anno Domini and it means after the birth of Jesus Christ. Since you didn't read it you don't know what it meant or means. BC stars in 1BC and AD starts in 1AD, and we do not know when the birth of Jesus was.
Gee Jesus in Luke as quoted above, is referring to the Lord as in ISA, the same Lord that anointed King Cyrus.

The calendar is according to Rome, The Julian calendar ( named after Julius Caesar) was changed by St Gregory to observe Easter. Rome.

Very nice. However, can you now tell us who the Lord is in "The year of our Lord" in the Constitution?

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

It means common area. Lord can mean a king or master, after 1AD. Also its not in the constitution, its in reference to a date.

You're a liar. It means Jesus Christ.

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

 

[BS Filter]

First, quoting one person that posted on Wikipedia is a joke. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Are you aware of that? Myself and many others including scholars will not accept anything from Wikipedia because it can be edited by anyone. Now, you say "which Lord ?". You tell me. Go ahead, tell me which Lord they are referring to.

Second, Yes, I am aware that Jefferson and Adams both died on july 4th, 1826.

Ad means Anno Domini and it means after the birth of Jesus Christ. Since you didn't read it you don't know what it meant or means. BC stars in 1BC and AD starts in 1AD, and we do not know when the birth of Jesus was.
Gee Jesus in Luke as quoted above, is referring to the Lord as in ISA, the same Lord that anointed King Cyrus.

The calendar is according to Rome, The Julian calendar ( named after Julius Caesar) was changed by St Gregory to observe Easter. Rome.

Very nice. However, can you now tell us who the Lord is in "The year of our Lord" in the Constitution?

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

It means common area. Lord can mean a king or master, after 1AD. Also its not in the constitution, its in reference to a date.

You're a liar. It means Jesus Christ.

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

 

[Penelope]

Ad means Anno Domini and it means after the birth of Jesus Christ. Since you didn't read it you don't know what it meant or means. BC stars in 1BC and AD starts in 1AD, and we do not know when the birth of Jesus was.
Gee Jesus in Luke as quoted above, is referring to the Lord as in ISA, the same Lord that anointed King Cyrus.

The calendar is according to Rome, The Julian calendar ( named after Julius Caesar) was changed by St Gregory to observe Easter. Rome.

Very nice. However, can you now tell us who the Lord is in "The year of our Lord" in the Constitution?

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

It means common area. Lord can mean a king or master, after 1AD. Also its not in the constitution, its in reference to a date.

You're a liar. It means Jesus Christ.

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

 

[BS Filter]

Very nice. However, can you now tell us who the Lord is in "The year of our Lord" in the Constitution?

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

It means common area. Lord can mean a king or master, after 1AD. Also its not in the constitution, its in reference to a date.

You're a liar. It means Jesus Christ.

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

I admit you're lying about a legal historical document. The men that wrote "the year of our Lord" were referring to Jesus Christ. You know that, but you're agenda will not allow you to admit the truth.

 

[Penelope]

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

It means common area. Lord can mean a king or master, after 1AD. Also its not in the constitution, its in reference to a date.

You're a liar. It means Jesus Christ.

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

I admit you're lying about a legal historical document. The men that wrote "the year of our Lord" were referring to Jesus Christ. You know that, but you're agenda will not allow you to admit the truth.

Prove that statement. Like I have said before In the year of our Lord is regular language, exp in the late 1700's , it just means in the common era.

 

[BS Filter]

You're a liar. It means Jesus Christ.

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

I admit you're lying about a legal historical document. The men that wrote "the year of our Lord" were referring to Jesus Christ. You know that, but you're agenda will not allow you to admit the truth.

Prove that statement. Like I have said before In the year of our Lord is regular language, exp in the late 1700's , it just means in the common era.

Of course it's regular language. Duh!! Easy to prove. The way we number years changed after Jesus Christ. You're wrong and we both know it, yet you continue to play this silly game because you have an agenda other than the truth. Sad. Answer this question honestly. If I give you the date 300 BC, what does the BC stand for?

 

[hadit]

Very nice. However, can you now tell us who the Lord is in "The year of our Lord" in the Constitution?

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

It means common area. Lord can mean a king or master, after 1AD. Also its not in the constitution, its in reference to a date.

You're a liar. It means Jesus Christ.

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

 

[Penelope]

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

It means common area. Lord can mean a king or master, after 1AD. Also its not in the constitution, its in reference to a date.

You're a liar. It means Jesus Christ.

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

 

[BS Filter]

You're a liar. It means Jesus Christ.

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

You're still deflecting from the point. The point is when the people in that day said "In the year of our Lord", the Lord they were referring to was Jesus Christ. You're never going to admit that because you're dishonest.

 

[Penelope]

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

You're still deflecting from the point. The point is when the people in that day said "In the year of our Lord", the Lord they were referring to was Jesus Christ. You're never going to admit that because you're dishonest.

I imagine they just signed it and even some left and didn't sign it. I have no problem admitting that the year of the lord is reference to JC, but that is not what they signed it as , did they use this name. It is a legality , not a religions date today. Lord as I said before is generic. It means different things to different people, and most do not even use it anymore.

 

[BS Filter]

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

You're still deflecting from the point. The point is when the people in that day said "In the year of our Lord", the Lord they were referring to was Jesus Christ. You're never going to admit that because you're dishonest.

I imagine they just signed it and even some left and didn't sign it. I have no problem admitting that the year of the lord is reference to JC, but that is not what they signed it as , did they use this name. It is a legality , not a religions date today. Lord as I said before is generic. It means different things to different people, and most do not even use it anymore.

I don't care what the term means to different people. My POINT is what the term "Lord" meant to the men that signed the Constitution. End of story.

 

[Penelope]

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

You're still deflecting from the point. The point is when the people in that day said "In the year of our Lord", the Lord they were referring to was Jesus Christ. You're never going to admit that because you're dishonest.

I imagine they just signed it and even some left and didn't sign it. I have no problem admitting that the year of the lord is reference to JC, but that is not what they signed it as , did they use this name. It is a legality , not a religions date today. Lord as I said before is generic. It means different things to different people, and most do not even use it anymore.

I don't care what the term means to different people. My POINT is what the term "Lord" meant to the men that signed the Constitution. End of story.

Like I said legal term. End of story, thank God.

 

[BS Filter]

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

You're still deflecting from the point. The point is when the people in that day said "In the year of our Lord", the Lord they were referring to was Jesus Christ. You're never going to admit that because you're dishonest.

I imagine they just signed it and even some left and didn't sign it. I have no problem admitting that the year of the lord is reference to JC, but that is not what they signed it as , did they use this name. It is a legality , not a religions date today. Lord as I said before is generic. It means different things to different people, and most do not even use it anymore.

I don't care what the term means to different people. My POINT is what the term "Lord" meant to the men that signed the Constitution. End of story.

Like I said legal term. End of story, thank God.

What's the name of the God you are thanking?

 

[Penelope]

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

You're still deflecting from the point. The point is when the people in that day said "In the year of our Lord", the Lord they were referring to was Jesus Christ. You're never going to admit that because you're dishonest.

I imagine they just signed it and even some left and didn't sign it. I have no problem admitting that the year of the lord is reference to JC, but that is not what they signed it as , did they use this name. It is a legality , not a religions date today. Lord as I said before is generic. It means different things to different people, and most do not even use it anymore.

I don't care what the term means to different people. My POINT is what the term "Lord" meant to the men that signed the Constitution. End of story.

Like I said legal term. End of story, thank God.

What's the name of the God you are thanking?

No idea what his name is, its a figure of speech.

 

[BS Filter]

You're still deflecting from the point. The point is when the people in that day said "In the year of our Lord", the Lord they were referring to was Jesus Christ. You're never going to admit that because you're dishonest.

I imagine they just signed it and even some left and didn't sign it. I have no problem admitting that the year of the lord is reference to JC, but that is not what they signed it as , did they use this name. It is a legality , not a religions date today. Lord as I said before is generic. It means different things to different people, and most do not even use it anymore.

I don't care what the term means to different people. My POINT is what the term "Lord" meant to the men that signed the Constitution. End of story.

Like I said legal term. End of story, thank God.

What's the name of the God you are thanking?

No idea what his name is, its a figure of speech.

I agree. You have no idea. The men that wrote and signed the Constitution did know His name.

 

[RWNJ]

I imagine they just signed it and even some left and didn't sign it. I have no problem admitting that the year of the lord is reference to JC, but that is not what they signed it as , did they use this name. It is a legality , not a religions date today. Lord as I said before is generic. It means different things to different people, and most do not even use it anymore.

I don't care what the term means to different people. My POINT is what the term "Lord" meant to the men that signed the Constitution. End of story.

Like I said legal term. End of story, thank God.

What's the name of the God you are thanking?

No idea what his name is, its a figure of speech.

I agree. You have no idea. The men that wrote and signed the Constitution did know His name.

It's like arguing with someone who claims that the sky is not blue, while looking right at it.

 

[hadit]

You're a liar. It means Jesus Christ.

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

 

[Penelope]

I don't care what the term means to different people. My POINT is what the term "Lord" meant to the men that signed the Constitution. End of story.

Like I said legal term. End of story, thank God.

What's the name of the God you are thanking?

No idea what his name is, its a figure of speech.

I agree. You have no idea. The men that wrote and signed the Constitution did know His name.

It's like arguing with someone who claims that the sky is not blue, while looking right at it.

I agree it is.

 

[Penelope]

No its whoever you want to be your Master. Since Jews and Muslim, among others live under our constitution, they all have different masters and lords , even atheist or agnostic, humanist , etc. For you, you can believe its means Jesus Christ, wonder why they left his name out on purpose?

That's another lie. The men that wrote that Constitution believed the Lord to be Jesus Christ. However, the Constitution protects freedom of religion. You're trying to rewrite a historical legal document to fit your agenda. That makes you a liar.

Prove that. Most probably didn't even read that and its just a saying, many who signed it didn't agree with many parts of the constitution and to be blunt it was a common saying so common it didn't mean anything. If you have nothing better than this, then admit you have nothing.

You cannot be taken seriously if you really believe the crafters of the Constitution did not read every part of it, carefully. That's a really lame argument.

Did I say that? No I didn't. I say and I repeat the signers of the Con. disagreed with different parts of it, though many signed anyway, and
the words "in the year of our Lord" was on everything and they most likely paid no attention to it. Anyone that used that reference, and most if not all used it in legal documents did it to verify it was signed in the common era.

Not a thing to do with Jesus Christ.

It doesn't matter if they agreed with stuff or not. That's the whole point of a legal document, it holds the signer accountable to their signature. The bottom line remains that the writers of the Constitution lived in a prominently Christian culture and had no problem with, for example, individual states having official churches.

Do you see Jesus Christ anywhere wrote there , NO!