"A free thinker is Satan's slave"

[koshergrl]

Not as fun as it is to watch anti-Christian pieces of shit pretend that a missing, contested document rumored to contain one phrase, inserted to trick Muslim pirates into dealing with Christians, establishes that the US wasn't founded upon Christian values.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Not as fun as it is to watch anti-Christian pieces of shit pretend that a missing, contested document rumored to contain one phrase, inserted to trick Muslim pirates into dealing with Christians, establishes that the US wasn't founded upon Christian values.

Not anti-christian, anti-hateful fundies of all religions. Hence why we don't get long .

But you'll have to pick your strategy toots, either the Treaty of Tripoli is a great gov't conspiracy or our founders were a bunch of liars who were so cowardly they had to kowtow to muslims.

Can't be both, pick one crazed fanatical view and stick to it.

 

[Montrovant]

How is teaching children in elementary school that having sex ANY way you choose and with whomever you want, not indoctrinating? (BTW, I did differentiate that this is being done by homosexual activists, not all homosexuals) How is teaching children that sex is okay for at any age, and if you don't want your parents to know, we can arrange free birth control?

Christians teach their children to be productive members of society, please tell me again how that compares to the pedophilia mentioned above? Does it bother you that Christians teach their children that there is right and wrong? In the next election will you be voting for someone to control your tax dollars that was convicted of embezzlement?

Why is it when some one points out the differences between Christian morals and other ways that always end up in total corruption, the Christian ways are ridiculed? Don't you ever get sick of the fraud, the abuse, the deceit (the GSA type scandals) that surface where ever morals are ignored and suppressed?

What is being able to versus needing them to? Is one a less obvious type of coercion (it is still force)? If you are against idividual rights, then you are for coercion, period. If people are not "allowed" to keep what they have made, and it is "re-distributed" against their will, how does that benefit society? Did anyone pay attention to what happens when the wealth is handed out freely? Hint, it is wasted and destroyed, and then when people need it, there is nothing. I can understand that you think I am harsh for thinking this way, but if a whole bunch of us don't start thinking about what we will be "forced" to give to the gov't to pay its debts, the gov't will continue to make that bill larger and larger. Do you really want to see what happened in Rome: once they could not collect the burdensome taxes, they started selling the citizens that didn't have the money into slavery? What do you think those in DC are willing to do to us? They are already looking to the UN to rule over us. The President is disregarding congress for Constitutionally defined duties, usurping their power and making the Presidency more of a dictatorship. Just when do you want to stop the corruption?

As to the question on your first paragraph? Having sex with who you choose isn't indoctrination. Telling people that they can have sex only with those who are of the opposite sex is.

Does it bother me that Christians teach their children about right and wrong? Not really, but it depends on how they do it. If you teach an open mind and to love God above all else and to love one another as you love God (as Jesus taught), then yeah, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is those that teach homosexuals are to be persecuted, that you have to believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven (which leaves out a LOT of others, such as the Jews (God's Chosen), the Buddhists, the Taoists, the Hindus, etc), as well as saying that you're going to burn for eternity if you don't believe as they do.

I've got news for you..............if you were born, you can't be eternal, because that means that you're damned even before you're born, because if you're in someplace for eternity, that means you've always been and always will be. If you can't live and choose, why should you be damned for eternity?

As far as "Christian morals"? How are they any more "moral" than the Native Americans?

As far as the last part? Didn't Christ Himself take care of the poor?

Teaching "children" that it is okay for "children" to participate in sex is wrong (I don't care what kind of sex, but it seems where this IS taught, that homosexual and beastiality is included as acceptable). This is far different than facts: if you have multiple sexual partners you are more likely: to have STDs, have an unwanted pregnancey, be a victim of sexual (violent) crime, have mental problems, etc. Discipline in your life, should include all aspects, just because you WANT to eat a half gallon of Moose Tracks ice cream does not mean that you should/ just because you don't want to exercise, doesn't mean you shouldn't/ just because you think sex is great, doesn't mean that you should not CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES/ just because you want to steal something does mean that you should.


We have talked about judgement and facing the Lord. I know that I have specifically addressed you on this matter, so please cut the "you will burn in hell crap", you never got that from me. I did say that living in a sinful manner is unhealthy, and can cause those around you to suffer. BIG DIFFERENCE. Just in case you didn't get it the other multiple times: I believe (from Revelations) that at the last judgement, all sinners will kneel before the Lord. If you believe/accept that He is the Lord, you will be punished for your sins (that means those that are not homosexual will be punished as well, for He IS a "just" Lord). Once your punishment is served, you will be with the Lord. If you curse Him, and deny Him and His authority, you will be "removed". If that is throw into a firey pit for destruction, if it is living eternally in hell, I do not know. Maybe we can talk about that after we receive our punishment.

Again, with the other religions (Native Americans)? Some of them practiced human sacrifice or sent the old out to die. Need I go on, or do you just look at the good parts and ignore the evils?

We get to "definitions". Liberals ignore the abusers (people that take advantage of the system: they work under the table and collect gov't handouts at the same time). Conservatives have no problem assisting people that are "helpless". The widows, the orphans (different than children/women choosing to birth children from unsupportive fathers), the mentally handicapped (not the purposefully drugged children to collect more gov't handouts), the elderly, the physically handicapped (not the people that choose to be "too fat to work").
Liberals choose to "accept" the abuse and allow corruption to grow (all in the name of the needy). Conservatives refuse to "accept" abuse, and protest the increase in gov't handouts (the percentage of population that is needy, stays about the same, why does the number "needing" help increase?). One embraces CORRUPTION (decay, destruction, deceit, death), the other strives towards honor, justice, and personal integrity. All of us have a choice, which will you embrace? Which will demand in your elected officials?

Where is it that underage children are taught sex is good and they should do it? I'd appreciate evidence rather than you making a baseless claim. I'd also like evidence that these places accept bestiality.

 

[Montrovant]

Let's just ignore Islamic extremists; being extremists, of course they are going to have all sorts of issues. I won't argue with you about them in particular.

As far as homosexuals going after the young, Christianity certainly does the same thing. So does any other group that wants their ideas to be spread as far as possible and last as long as possible. It's only common sense that the younger you get someone to agree with an idea, the longer they will be able to be on your side, possibly helping to spread whatever your message is, especially to any children they end up having. When you say homosexuals want children to be sexual playthings, you are just full of shit. I may as well say Christians want your children to be brainwashed slaves. It's an extremist, reactionary statement designed to provoke an emotional response, rather than a reasoned statement backed by evidence. If you are opposed to homosexuality that's fine. Don't pretend that homosexuals are all out to rape your children or anything like that just because you don't like their lifestyle.

To the point of groups requiring others to fund their ideals, I think you mistake being able to have others do so with needing them to. There are enough people who fit into at least some of the groups in this country that they could fund organizations through donations or fees from members if they had to; that doesn't mean they won't get money however they can in other ways, though. A minor point perhaps.

The extremists of many groups would be willing to kill or sacrifice lives to further their cause. That's part of what makes them extremists! There are Christian extremists who are willing to kill. I'll happily admit that, in today's world, they are far, far less frequent than many other groups. That doesn't change the fact that you are basically calling anyone who is a liberal or progressive or socialist or communist or homosexual activist an extremist. That's painting with an awfully broad brush.

I would guess that, to some extent at least, you are not finding the bible accurately depicting some of the groups you mention, but rather you are ascribing qualities to groups that don't exist in order for them to more closely resemble biblical descriptions.

How is teaching children in elementary school that having sex ANY way you choose and with whomever you want, not indoctrinating? (BTW, I did differentiate that this is being done by homosexual activists, not all homosexuals) How is teaching children that sex is okay for at any age, and if you don't want your parents to know, we can arrange free birth control?

Christians teach their children to be productive members of society, please tell me again how that compares to the pedophilia mentioned above? Does it bother you that Christians teach their children that there is right and wrong? In the next election will you be voting for someone to control your tax dollars that was convicted of embezzlement?

Why is it when some one points out the differences between Christian morals and other ways that always end up in total corruption, the Christian ways are ridiculed? Don't you ever get sick of the fraud, the abuse, the deceit (the GSA type scandals) that surface where ever morals are ignored and suppressed?

What is being able to versus needing them to? Is one a less obvious type of coercion (it is still force)? If you are against idividual rights, then you are for coercion, period. If people are not "allowed" to keep what they have made, and it is "re-distributed" against their will, how does that benefit society? Did anyone pay attention to what happens when the wealth is handed out freely? Hint, it is wasted and destroyed, and then when people need it, there is nothing. I can understand that you think I am harsh for thinking this way, but if a whole bunch of us don't start thinking about what we will be "forced" to give to the gov't to pay its debts, the gov't will continue to make that bill larger and larger. Do you really want to see what happened in Rome: once they could not collect the burdensome taxes, they started selling the citizens that didn't have the money into slavery? What do you think those in DC are willing to do to us? They are already looking to the UN to rule over us. The President is disregarding congress for Constitutionally defined duties, usurping their power and making the Presidency more of a dictatorship. Just when do you want to stop the corruption?

As to the question on your first paragraph? Having sex with who you choose isn't indoctrination. Telling people that they can have sex only with those who are of the opposite sex is.

Does it bother me that Christians teach their children about right and wrong? Not really, but it depends on how they do it. If you teach an open mind and to love God above all else and to love one another as you love God (as Jesus taught), then yeah, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is those that teach homosexuals are to be persecuted, that you have to believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven (which leaves out a LOT of others, such as the Jews (God's Chosen), the Buddhists, the Taoists, the Hindus, etc), as well as saying that you're going to burn for eternity if you don't believe as they do.

I've got news for you..............if you were born, you can't be eternal, because that means that you're damned even before you're born, because if you're in someplace for eternity, that means you've always been and always will be. If you can't live and choose, why should you be damned for eternity?

As far as "Christian morals"? How are they any more "moral" than the Native Americans?

As far as the last part? Didn't Christ Himself take care of the poor?

I think I've brought this up multiple times before. Your narrow definition of eternal is not the only one. Something can have a beginning and still be eternal. Something that goes on without end one way still goes on without end.

 

[Newby]

Not as fun as it is to watch anti-Christian pieces of shit pretend that a missing, contested document rumored to contain one phrase, inserted to trick Muslim pirates into dealing with Christians, establishes that the US wasn't founded upon Christian values.

Not anti-christian, anti-hateful fundies of all religions. Hence why we don't get long .

But you'll have to pick your strategy toots, either the Treaty of Tripoli is a great gov't conspiracy or our founders were a bunch of liars who were so cowardly they had to kowtow to muslims.

Can't be both, pick one crazed fanatical view and stick to it.

Have you ever read the founders letters, Drock? I think you'd be in for a big surprise.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Not as fun as it is to watch anti-Christian pieces of shit pretend that a missing, contested document rumored to contain one phrase, inserted to trick Muslim pirates into dealing with Christians, establishes that the US wasn't founded upon Christian values.

Not anti-christian, anti-hateful fundies of all religions. Hence why we don't get long .

But you'll have to pick your strategy toots, either the Treaty of Tripoli is a great gov't conspiracy or our founders were a bunch of liars who were so cowardly they had to kowtow to muslims.

Can't be both, pick one crazed fanatical view and stick to it.

Have you ever read the founders letters, Drock? I think you'd be in for a big surprise.

Sure have. Some founders viewed this country as having been founded on the christian faith, others didn't. I'm not a hardliner, but it isn't near as black and white as both sides pretend it is. But it's a fact though, the Treaty of Tripoli doesn't do your side any favors.

 

[Newby]

Not anti-christian, anti-hateful fundies of all religions. Hence why we don't get long .

But you'll have to pick your strategy toots, either the Treaty of Tripoli is a great gov't conspiracy or our founders were a bunch of liars who were so cowardly they had to kowtow to muslims.

Can't be both, pick one crazed fanatical view and stick to it.

Have you ever read the founders letters, Drock? I think you'd be in for a big surprise.

Sure have. Some founders viewed this country as having been founded on the christian faith, others didn't. I'm not a hardliner, but it isn't near as black and white as both sides pretend it is. But it's a fact though, the Treaty of Tripoli doesn't do your side any favors.

Most did and it's very evident in their writings. I forget what percentage, but many of them had theology degrees as well.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Have you ever read the founders letters, Drock? I think you'd be in for a big surprise.

Sure have. Some founders viewed this country as having been founded on the christian faith, others didn't. I'm not a hardliner, but it isn't near as black and white as both sides pretend it is. But it's a fact though, the Treaty of Tripoli doesn't do your side any favors.

Most did and it's very evident in their writings. I forget what percentage, but many of them had theology degrees as well.

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed unanamously by Congress in 1797, John Adams ratified it, and the original negotiator was appointed by George Washington. Heavy heavy founders influence, and the treaty was read aloud for everyone in Congress to hear. So they heard this line "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and still signed it.

 

[koshergrl]

Again. More slowly.

There is question about what the original document actually said, as it no longer exists. If it ever did.

It is generally understood and accepted, except for the particularly ignorant, that the clause was added because the MUSLIM PIRATES refused to recognize countries, or statesmen from countries, founded upon Christianity.

THE MUSLIMS RECOGNIZED US AS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY.

So the statesmen lied to them, in order to facilitate continued dealings with them.

 

[koshergrl]

And, incidentally, 8 years after the treaty was signed...that article was dropped.

Go figure.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Again. More slowly.

There is question about what the original document actually said, as it no longer exists. If it ever did.

It is generally understood and accepted, except for the particularly ignorant, that the clause was added because the MUSLIM PIRATES refused to recognize countries, or statesmen from countries, founded upon Christianity.

THE MUSLIMS RECOGNIZED US AS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY.

So the statesmen lied to them, in order to facilitate continued dealings with them.

You still haven't narrowed down your choice. You're simultaneously sticking with the gov't conspiracy theory and that our founders were a bunch of lying wussies who kowtowed to muslims. Pick one and run with it.

If you think the muslims recognized us as a christian gov't, then you must also recognize that gov't wanted to correct that view, and agreed to do so unanimously.

There's a reason you're so sensitive about it, it's a truth you don't like. People get a lot angrier about those than they do lies.

 

[Newby]

Sure have. Some founders viewed this country as having been founded on the christian faith, others didn't. I'm not a hardliner, but it isn't near as black and white as both sides pretend it is. But it's a fact though, the Treaty of Tripoli doesn't do your side any favors.

Most did and it's very evident in their writings. I forget what percentage, but many of them had theology degrees as well.

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed unanamously by Congress in 1797, John Adams ratified it, and the original negotiator was appointed by George Washington. Heavy heavy founders influence, and the treaty was read aloud for everyone in Congress to hear. So they heard this line "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and still signed it.

That means we weren't a theocrasy, I don't understand why that's a difficult concept to grasp? The Bill of Rights detailed it long before this treaty, it expresses religious freedom.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Most did and it's very evident in their writings. I forget what percentage, but many of them had theology degrees as well.

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed unanamously by Congress in 1797, John Adams ratified it, and the original negotiator was appointed by George Washington. Heavy heavy founders influence, and the treaty was read aloud for everyone in Congress to hear. So they heard this line "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and still signed it.

That means we weren't a theocrasy, I don't understand why that's a difficult concept to grasp? The Bill of Rights detailed it long before this treaty, it expresses religious freedom.

No, it means "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

 

[Newby]

The Treaty of Tripoli was signed unanamously by Congress in 1797, John Adams ratified it, and the original negotiator was appointed by George Washington. Heavy heavy founders influence, and the treaty was read aloud for everyone in Congress to hear. So they heard this line "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" and still signed it.

That means we weren't a theocrasy, I don't understand why that's a difficult concept to grasp? The Bill of Rights detailed it long before this treaty, it expresses religious freedom.

No, it means "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

That's your opinion Drock, they 'said' the very same thing, that this country was not a theocrasy when they set up the Bill of Rights. Government has no influence on religion, and religion has no influence on government/laws. It doesn't mean that the values and virtues that were found in christianity weren't used to derive that very concept of religious freedom that we have to this day. There is no force in christianity to conform that is not of your own free will.

P.S. If you read the founders writings, you would know/understand this.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That means we weren't a theocrasy, I don't understand why that's a difficult concept to grasp? The Bill of Rights detailed it long before this treaty, it expresses religious freedom.

No, it means "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

That's your opinion Drock, they 'said' the very same thing, that this country was not a theocrasy when they set up the Bill of Rights. Government has no influence on religion, and religion has no influence on government/laws. It doesn't mean that the values and virtues that were found in christianity weren't used to derive that very concept of religious freedom that we have to this day. There is no force in christianity to conform that is not of your own free will.

P.S. If you read the founders writings, you would know/understand this.

No, it's not opinion. It's fact. You're trying to replace the fact with your opinion because you don't like the fact.

If it gives you comfort to believe this country was founded on christian principles, have at it.

 

[Newby]

No, it means "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

That's your opinion Drock, they 'said' the very same thing, that this country was not a theocrasy when they set up the Bill of Rights. Government has no influence on religion, and religion has no influence on government/laws. It doesn't mean that the values and virtues that were found in christianity weren't used to derive that very concept of religious freedom that we have to this day. There is no force in christianity to conform that is not of your own free will.

P.S. If you read the founders writings, you would know/understand this.

No, it's not opinion. It's fact. You're trying to replace the fact with your opinion because you don't like the fact.

If it gives you comfort to believe this country was founded on christian principles, have at it.

How is that 'fact'? Sorry honey, but it's your opinion. I don't have to 'believe', I can read their very own words, which you obviously have not.

 

[koshergrl]

There's no point to discussing this anymore. Drock is lying, and we all know it. All the scholars know it. The founding fathers said ad nauseum that they structured our government using Christian tenets. They stated that our government wouldn't work unless applied to a Christian citizenry.

We know what that article, which was removed a few years later (because it was inaccurate and simply put in to facilitate dealings with criminals who otherwise would continue to attack and steal from us, as a Christian country) does not negate the reality, and in fact no longer exists.

Next. Let Drock lie and whine about this all he wants. Our country foundation was not laid upon one article in a now-revised treaty meant to bring Muslim pirates to heel.

 

[Newby]

John Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

 

[Dr.Drock]

That's your opinion Drock, they 'said' the very same thing, that this country was not a theocrasy when they set up the Bill of Rights. Government has no influence on religion, and religion has no influence on government/laws. It doesn't mean that the values and virtues that were found in christianity weren't used to derive that very concept of religious freedom that we have to this day. There is no force in christianity to conform that is not of your own free will.

P.S. If you read the founders writings, you would know/understand this.

No, it's not opinion. It's fact. You're trying to replace the fact with your opinion because you don't like the fact.

If it gives you comfort to believe this country was founded on christian principles, have at it.

How is that 'fact'? Sorry honey, but it's your opinion. I don't have to 'believe', I can read their very own words, which you obviously have not.

How is it a fact? Cuz it's what the document says. You're not just reading the words, you're reading the words, and changing them to mean what you want them to mean.

Again that harms no one, so by all means believe it if you like.

 

[Newby]

For example, in the House Report on March 27, 1854, it noted:

There certainly can be no doubt as to the practice of employing chaplains in deliberative bodies previous to the adoption of the Constitution. We are, then, prepared to see if any change was made in that respect in the new order of affairs. . . . On the 1st day of May [1789], Washington’s first speech was read to the House, and the first business after that speech was the appointment of Dr. Linn as chaplain. By whom was this plan made? Three out of six of that joint committee were members of the Convention that framed the Constitution. Madison, Ellsworth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the [Constitutional] Convention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was constitutional? . . . It seems to us that the men who would raise the cry of danger in this state of things would cry fire on the 39th day of a general deluge. . . . But we beg leave to rescue ourselves from the imputation of asserting that religion is not needed to the safety of civil society. It must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment—without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices.