Evangelicals and Trump

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,226
Reaction score
577
Points
85
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
It would be so refreshing to have an honest discussion for once with an advocate for abortion.
.
- and your purpose for the "discussion" you have not already imposed by your incendiary statements.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
To state the obvious; that it is wrong to abort a human life.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok -
.
View attachment 391463
.
you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.

That is moronic. Completely moronic.
.
That is moronic. Completely moronic.
but murdering everything else in Garden Earth is ok - you've not explained how having a vasectomy or using a condom is not the same as an abortion ... fill us in.
.
don't be a coward, give it a whirll -
.
View attachment 391758
.
have you your letter from the priest, their permission for your vasectomy ... bing fixed it for himself no different than an abortion.

A sperm is not a human life you fucking moron. A fertilized egg, is. THe sperm by itself, will not grow up and one day have a family of it's own.

The fertilized egg, will. Because it is a human life. A brand new human life, with a lot of growing in front of him or her, but a human never the less.
.

What part of that, is too hard for you to understand?
.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved - bing chose abortion for himself while denying the same to others the same as you and your self centric, qualifying motivations intervening against the lives of others you have no legitimacy being involved with.
.
The sperm is not.
you are a joke by using a condom you are preventing a birth. the very purpose of a vasectomy is the prevention of life - your doing nothing more than screaming fire in a packed theatre.

Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,


and later on, it is a human being.
.
Except it obvious does matter whether the intervention occurs, before the parts come together it is parts that could become something greater if the right chain of events happens,
and later on, it is a human being.
.
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs - you are nothing more than a disingenuous sociopathic zealot.

at least build and sale your chastity belt you alone have the key for, they will be forever in your debt.

THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
THe line is not one I have drawn, the line is the difference between a human life and not a human life.


YOur denial of this, is you just stonewalling like a troll.
.
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.

you must have no intervention, intercourse but only for the sole purpose you deem as animalistic reproduction whether or not pregnancy is the result for your objection to be valid.

and they will need your approval to make the attempt being certain by your presence no mistakes or loss of fluids occurs.

No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.
.
No, I mustn't. Your words have no weight to them. They are structured as though it is a conclusion with a supporting argument.

But, your claims are empty assertions, with no actual reasons or logic to give them weight.
.
you mustn't what - bear witness to their intercourse to preserve whatever may spill from their bedside.

You said I must. I said, NOT.

You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.
.
You went weird, because you cannot support your conclusion. Yet you will hold to it, for reasons you can not, or will not share.
.
preventative intervention is the same no matter when it occurs - and is the choice made by the individual involved -
the line you yourself have drawn is not conciliatory, the intervention is the same result no matter when it occurs -
no, its your making a false issue from the same result - from beginning to end.
.
my position has been made perfectly clear - your end run is nothing more than sociopathic zealotry.

Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.
He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.
.
He's a subversive. He's knows he's making a bullshit argument. But it's the stupidest argument one could make.
Yes, your position is clear. It just refuses to recognize that a fertilized egg is different than a sperm cell.

ie, you are delusional.
.
there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.
.

Your pretense that it is the Christians who are the would be tyrants in our society today, is not fooling anyone. Try again lefty.
.
there is no pretense to recorded history -

View attachment 393049

christianity is a religion of persecution and victimization of the innocent, uninterrupted since the 4th century to the present day - in this country particularly by their vestiture from the beginning in slavery and other brutalities to indigenous and other peoples of meekness made vulnerable to their evil. correll.

1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.
,
1. you keep making that claim. But you do nothing to support it, other than constant repetition. THat is a tacit admission on your part, that you have no real argument.

2. You claim that Christianity is a religious of persecution TODAY, and to support the post a picture from ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO.... That is you, losing this debate, you anti-Christian bigot.
.
not showing the claim is the only way to prevent the self evident fact from being realized - you can not deny its validity.

there is no difference in the end result for any intervention whenever it occurs - bing's vasectomy is the same as an abortion.
.
what do you mean 100 years ago - as though that makes you any less culpable - what century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
1601170133458.png

.
just recently the racist christians and their protest to protect civil war memorabilia ...

that's probably chick, no need for sunglasses hiding behind a hood. fits her photo profile almost to a T.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,226
Reaction score
577
Points
85
Nothing like a good argument from the 4th Century to give context to a discussion about ... “Evangelicals & Trump.”

:th_believecrap:
.
recorded history for some is ...

the christian bible was written in the 4th century -
.
Christianity in the 4th century was dominated in its early stage by Constantine the great and the First Council of Nicaea of 325, which was the beginning of the period of the First seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787), and in its late stage by the Edict of Thessalonica of 380, which made Nicene Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire.
.
as the religion of the roman empire. an example of their false empowerment -
.
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
.

the forgeries and fallacies of the 4th century is what empowers already corrupt minds. bing - chick.
.
the forgeries and fallacies of the 4th century is what empowers already corrupt minds. bing - chick.
.
oh, I forgot sicko ...
.
- and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am
.

you can imagine their drulling over the forged empowerment.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,226
Reaction score
577
Points
85
Nothing like a good argument from the 4th Century to give context to a discussion about ... “Evangelicals & Trump.”

:th_believecrap:
.
recorded history for some is ...

the christian bible was written in the 4th century -
.
blah blah blah
.
the forgeries and fallacies of the 4th century is what empowers already corrupt minds. bing - chick.
lol and yet not a single anachronism anywhere in the NT shows up in the texts as being about events in any other time frame than the times it it is supposed to be in, not a single one over how many pages, again? Amazing that some Roman in the 4th Century could pull that off, eh? lol you're a sick man.
.
lol and yet not a single anachronism anywhere in the NT shows up in the texts as being about events in any other time frame than the times it it is supposed to be in, not a single one over how many pages, again? Amazing that some Roman in the 4th Century could pull that off, eh? lol you're a sick man.
.
they spent the entire 4th century writing their christian bible ... if what you say were true picaro what was that time spent for. let me help you -
.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
.
by adding forgeries and fallacies to nearly every page written as the one above.

where are your etched in stone ten commandments - did they disappear after the murder moses threw them to the ground. of course, they are lost . :cuckoo:
 

Jackson

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
27,487
Reaction score
7,873
Points
290
Location
Nashville
If you were any more full of it you’d be infracting the national foie gras restrictions.

'Quote mining' is the term of art designed by liars like you who have no way to defend against actual, correct, and true quotes that I post.

Simple enough to prove.....let's see you post any of the thousands of quotes I've provided that aren't exactly as I documented them to be.

With a certain regularity, we find posters who have always imagined that they are bright, and well educated…..then find someone like me who outranks you by every intellectual metric…..and you can’t get over the damage to your self-image. Time to hand out another trophy for “Not-Tonight-Dear,- I’ve-Got-A-Crushed-Ego.”

I understand that you posted this as a flaccid attempt to assuage the pain of the spankings I've administered to your ego....but be assured: there's more where that came from.

Elsewhere above she writes:
And once again we find a Leftist proving that I am never wrong.
Real discussion with PoliticalChic is impossible because she is a completely immature and narcissistic, not to mention unscrupulous, person. She often takes accurate quotes out of context and claims they prove whatever she wants, even the opposite of the writer’s intentions. This is called “quote mining.” Again, here is the thread with countless examples of her taking quotes out of context and even reversing their meaning: The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'. She is probably unique at USMB in having a thread dedicated to how she uses quotes out of context.

Here is a nice Christian — even anti-evolutionist — reminder that one should not “quote mine” as PoliticalChic so often does:

What Are the Dangers of Quote Mining?

On another subject, the growing modern use of “Common Era” and “BCE” for the traditional “AD/BC/“Year of Our Lord” dating method is often protested by religious rightwing Christians, a protest which I find both childish and repugnant. Actually, I usually use BC and AD myself, but agree CE and BCE is better and more inclusive. Indeed it is the most respectful dating method to use when discussing with those who use the Gregorian Calendar but are culturally NOT Christian.

Personally I don’t like the angry tone taken on BOTH sides of much of today’s religious / atheist arguments. Today there are mercifully few who still advocate “Christian nationalism.” I’m a little old-fashioned. PoliticalChic believes the original Paine was an atheist. He was not. Being a sort of modern Deist myself, I have no problem using “God” in everyday speech, or to make a colorful point or literary allusion. I must confess, though, I do most often use the word when ... swearing. ; )
I don't see you disrepute others that barely make any sense when they post their thoughts. The fact that you have selected one of the finest posters on the board is interesting, until it just take seconds to determine you are nothing more an atheist and you want to denounce her for being tolerant to all people and their beliefs.
 

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
2,022
Reaction score
1,649
Points
1,908
I don't see you disrepute others that barely make any sense when they post their thoughts. The fact that you have selected one of the finest posters on the board is interesting, until it just take seconds to determine you are nothing more an atheist and you want to denounce her for being tolerant to all people and their beliefs.
You are free to be a cheerleader for one of the most childish, obnoxious and grandiose frauds on USMB. But how could you possibly describe her as “tolerant,” and accuse me of “want[ing] to denounce her for being tolerant to all people and their beliefs”? Am I not a person? Do I not have beliefs?

Do you, echoing your heroine, also call Thomas Paine ... “nothing more than an atheist”?

What you “do not see” you can read in my resume. It is all there.
 

Bezukhov

Anarcho-Capitalist
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
456
Reaction score
97
Points
90
Location
Providence, R.I.
LOL one has to be a completely stupid moron to run around trying to claim Christianity had no bearing on the Constitution or the Federal govt. when most of the colonies were made up of RELIGIOUS DISSENTERS and many states had ESTABLISHED CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS SECTS before AND after ratification in 1789. I say 'nearly' because I don't know if they all had established religions or not, never checked Rhode Island out, or some others, but several did. The last state to strike down its established Congregationalist sect's taxing powers was Massachusetts, in 1833, 44 YEARS after ratification. In fact, the establishment clause itself comes directly from one of the main founding platforms of the Baptist sect; it was invented by Thomas Helwys on 1611, one of the founders. He was burned at the stake for his heresy. None were forced to by the Supreme Court, but changed because of demographics. State support was ended by the 1868, by the support of the totally corrupt Chase Court.
Rhode Island? Established religion? No.

Roger Williams

Separation of church and state
Williams was a staunch advocate of separation of church and state. He was convinced that civil government had no basis for meddling in matters of religious belief. He declared that the state should concern itself only with matters of civil order, not with religious belief, and he rejected any attempt by civil authorities to enforce the "first Table" of the Ten Commandments, those commandments that deal with an individual's relationship with and belief in God. Williams believed that the state must confine itself to the commandments dealing with the relations between people: murder, theft, adultery, lying, and honoring parents.[26] He wrote of a "hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world", and Thomas Jefferson used the metaphor in his Letter to Danbury Baptists (1801).[27][28]

Williams considered it "forced worship" if the state attempted to promote any particular religious idea or practice, and he declared, "Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils."[29] He considered Constantine the Great to be a worse enemy to Christianity than Nero because the subsequent state involvement in religious matters corrupted Christianity and led to the death of the Christian church. He described the attempt of the state to pass laws concerning an individual's religious beliefs as "rape of the soul" and spoke of the "oceans of blood" shed as a result of trying to command conformity.[30] The moral principles in the Scriptures ought to inform the civil magistrates, he believed, but he observed that well-ordered, just, and civil governments existed even where Christianity was not present. Thus, all governments had to maintain civil order and justice, but Williams decided that none had a warrant to promote or repress any religious views. Most of his contemporaries criticized his ideas as a prescription for chaos and anarchy, and the vast majority believed that each nation must have its national church and could require that dissenters conform.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,814
Reaction score
1,303
Points
245
Jacob Shallus (a FreeMason) must be a huge hero to you and Correll. He was paid $30 bucks to make copies of the Seven Articles and he wrote the LORDY LORDLY date after the articles were signed - and those two words miraculously turned the entire Constitution into a Christian Nationalist Document and we have a new nation founded entirely by white Protestant Christians in 1790 year of our Lord.

OOOOPS !!!!!!!! The Scribe who put “Lord God” in the date line does not come with a guarantee that he was a Christian.

See here is what Freemasons believe:

“.....membership requires acceptance of the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being that includes the gods of Islam, Hinduism, or other religions.“​
“Freemasonry refers to its god as the Great Architect of the Universe. In honoring this generic "Great Architect," the person involved in Freemasonry does not worship the God of the Bible but another god.”​
“....Masons teach that a person can go to heaven as the result of a person's good works. Of course, to encourage allegiance to any god other than the God of the Bible also reflects a belief that salvation can be found outside of Jesus.“​
“.....Mason teachings, in contrast, consider the Bible one of many sacred books (called Volumes of Sacred Law) that hold equal importance.”​
“....In contrast, the Mason view of God is a god who is a general being inclusive of all deities. Called the "Nameless one of a hundred names," this view of God represents a multi-god worldview incompatible with biblical Christianity. Further, in Masonic teachings Jesus is only one of many spiritual leaders rather than the only Son of God (John 3:16) and God in human form (John 1:14).“​
So ding do you or PC claim to know what Jacob Shallus (a FreeMason) was talking about when he wrote the “Year of Lord” date on the record and display copies?

Which Lord were they talking about exactly?
They (the signers) were not talking about their “Lord”. They were not pointing to JESUS CHRIST. that’s impossible. When the Delegates signed their names the Lordy Date was not on the document.

Now since it looks like a Scribe named Jacob Shallus was paid $30 bucks to write those words on his own because the signers did not say, read or hear them when the articles were ratified.

So PC is a liar., perhaps ignorant of the truth.

Are you disputing this ?

—the "our Lord" clause is not part of the official legal Constitution. The official Constitution's text ends just before these extra words of attestation—extra words that in fact were not ratified by various state conventions in 1787-88​

Here’s what happened;

The Convention debated and edited this draft for more than a month. They then passed it and the copious edits off to the Committee of Style, a political dream team that included James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Governeur Morris. The Committee of Style brought the polished product back to the whole convention on September 12, 1787. There is no lordly date on that draft. You can actually see George Washington's copy of this nearly complete version of the Constitution and his handwritten edits. It runs to four pages and ends with Article VII.​

On September 15, the Convention agreed on the complete text, and, for $30, hired Jacob Shallus to engross (transcribe in legible, bold, and occasionally ornate lettering) the final draft onto the four sheets of vellum that reside in that National Archives today.​

Shallus worked to complete his work from September 15 through 17. The Convention met on September 17 and read Shallus's engrossed copy aloud. It was ony then that Franklin made a motion to add on the date and signatures, the motion Madison recorded: "offered the following as a convenient form ... ''Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth of September, &c —"​

Franklin's motion to add the signatures and date was made after this final draft was read aloud, so when it was read aloud it did not include "Year of our Lord." This also makes sense, Shallus would not have known the actual date of the signing.​

In short, none of the drafts contains the "Year of our Lord." The absence of the date—"Year of our Lord" or otherwise—on the three drafts of the Constitution illustrates the previous point: the date and signatures are not part of the Constitution itself.​

So you and PC are lying through your teeth saying that when they paid a possibly non-Christian scribe to add the date to a record copy he added the “Year of our Lord” and that proves that every other word in the entire Constitution are about JESUS CHRIST and every one who believed that his mother was a virgin, everyone who believed he died on a cross to cancel out every single conceived human’s sins, (if they believed the 1800 year old story) , and who believe he rose from the dead, and will come back some day to be with all the believers and cast everybody who doesn’t believe into the burning fires of hell.
 
Last edited:

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,290
Reaction score
4,257
Points
290
Location
Texas
LOL one has to be a completely stupid moron to run around trying to claim Christianity had no bearing on the Constitution or the Federal govt. when most of the colonies were made up of RELIGIOUS DISSENTERS and many states had ESTABLISHED CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS SECTS before AND after ratification in 1789. I say 'nearly' because I don't know if they all had established religions or not, never checked Rhode Island out, or some others, but several did. The last state to strike down its established Congregationalist sect's taxing powers was Massachusetts, in 1833, 44 YEARS after ratification. In fact, the establishment clause itself comes directly from one of the main founding platforms of the Baptist sect; it was invented by Thomas Helwys on 1611, one of the founders. He was burned at the stake for his heresy. None were forced to by the Supreme Court, but changed because of demographics. State support was ended by the 1868, by the support of the totally corrupt Chase Court.
Rhode Island? Established religion? No.

Roger Williams

Separation of church and state
Williams was a staunch advocate of separation of church and state. He was convinced that civil government had no basis for meddling in matters of religious belief. He declared that the state should concern itself only with matters of civil order, not with religious belief, and he rejected any attempt by civil authorities to enforce the "first Table" of the Ten Commandments, those commandments that deal with an individual's relationship with and belief in God. Williams believed that the state must confine itself to the commandments dealing with the relations between people: murder, theft, adultery, lying, and honoring parents.[26] He wrote of a "hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world", and Thomas Jefferson used the metaphor in his Letter to Danbury Baptists (1801).[27][28]

Williams considered it "forced worship" if the state attempted to promote any particular religious idea or practice, and he declared, "Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils."[29] He considered Constantine the Great to be a worse enemy to Christianity than Nero because the subsequent state involvement in religious matters corrupted Christianity and led to the death of the Christian church. He described the attempt of the state to pass laws concerning an individual's religious beliefs as "rape of the soul" and spoke of the "oceans of blood" shed as a result of trying to command conformity.[30] The moral principles in the Scriptures ought to inform the civil magistrates, he believed, but he observed that well-ordered, just, and civil governments existed even where Christianity was not present. Thus, all governments had to maintain civil order and justice, but Williams decided that none had a warrant to promote or repress any religious views. Most of his contemporaries criticized his ideas as a prescription for chaos and anarchy, and the vast majority believed that each nation must have its national church and could require that dissenters conform.
Which is why I said I didn't know, I never looked it up. New Jersey and Pennsylvania, didn't either, but Pennsylvania subsidized a lot of Quaker sponsored educational institutions, and so did Georgia. they all did, and so did Thomas Jefferson as President used Federal tax money to subsidize Christian missionary activity. Doesn't change the obvious fact that such establishment of a state sponsored sect was legal under the Constitution as far as the Founders and original intent is concerned. There were many more Founders than Franklin and Jefferson, and many of them were ministers; Franklin himself paid pew rents in 8 different churches, an indication of just how important churches and Christians were to the Revolution. Those 'Evangelicals' of the First and Second Great Awakenings are responsible for getting Thomas Jefferson elected to VP and President. The country would have been very different now if the Federalists had won instead, and not happily so. We know for a fact the establishment clause applied only to the Federal govt., as one would expect with so many states having different state sects; it would have been impossible to form a union otherwise without the clause restricting the Fed from sponsoring a particular Christian sect, and it did not at all mean a rejection of Christianity in general.
 
Last edited:

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,290
Reaction score
4,257
Points
290
Location
Texas
I don't see you disrepute others that barely make any sense when they post their thoughts. The fact that you have selected one of the finest posters on the board is interesting, until it just take seconds to determine you are nothing more an atheist and you want to denounce her for being tolerant to all people and their beliefs.
You are free to be a cheerleader for one of the most childish, obnoxious and grandiose frauds on USMB. But how could you possibly describe her as “tolerant,” and accuse me of “want[ing] to denounce her for being tolerant to all people and their beliefs”? Am I not a person? Do I not have beliefs?

Do you, echoing your heroine, also call Thomas Paine ... “nothing more than an atheist”?

What you “do not see” you can read in my resume. It is all there.
Paine was merely a hired propagandist and almost immediately forgotten as soon as the war was over. He died in obscure poverty in NYC, being subisidized by a few friends. The only reason he's popular today is because he is one of the very few atheists the assorted deviants and sociopaths can dredge up to support their bizarre narratives about the founders and Evul Xians.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,290
Reaction score
4,257
Points
290
Location
Texas
Jacob Shallus (a FreeMason) must be a huge hero to you and Correll. He was paid $30 bucks to make copies of the Seven Articles and he wrote the LORDY LORDLY date after the articles were signed - and those two words miraculously turned the entire Constitution into a Christian Nationalist Document and we have a new nation founded entirely by white Protestant Christians in 1790 year of our Lord.

OOOOPS !!!!!!!! The Scribe who put “Lord God” in the date line does not come with a guarantee that he was a Christian.

See here is what Freemasons believe:

“.....membership requires acceptance of the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being that includes the gods of Islam, Hinduism, or other religions.“​
“Freemasonry refers to its god as the Great Architect of the Universe. In honoring this generic "Great Architect," the person involved in Freemasonry does not worship the God of the Bible but another god.”​
“....Masons teach that a person can go to heaven as the result of a person's good works. Of course, to encourage allegiance to any god other than the God of the Bible also reflects a belief that salvation can be found outside of Jesus.“​
“.....Mason teachings, in contrast, consider the Bible one of many sacred books (called Volumes of Sacred Law) that hold equal importance.”​
“....In contrast, the Mason view of God is a god who is a general being inclusive of all deities. Called the "Nameless one of a hundred names," this view of God represents a multi-god worldview incompatible with biblical Christianity. Further, in Masonic teachings Jesus is only one of many spiritual leaders rather than the only Son of God (John 3:16) and God in human form (John 1:14).“​
So ding do you or PC claim to know what Jacob Shallus (a FreeMason) was talking about when he wrote the “Year of Lord” date on the record and display copies?

Which Lord were they talking about exactly?
They (the signers) were not talking about their “Lord”. They were not pointing to JESUS CHRIST. that’s impossible. When the Delegates signed their names the Lordy Date was not on the document.

Now since it looks like a Scribe named Jacob Shallus was paid $30 bucks to write those words on his own because the signers did not say, read or hear them when the articles were ratified.

So PC is a liar., perhaps ignorant of the truth.

Are you disputing this ?

—the "our Lord" clause is not part of the official legal Constitution. The official Constitution's text ends just before these extra words of attestation—extra words that in fact were not ratified by various state conventions in 1787-88​

Here’s what happened;

The Convention debated and edited this draft for more than a month. They then passed it and the copious edits off to the Committee of Style, a political dream team that included James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Governeur Morris. The Committee of Style brought the polished product back to the whole convention on September 12, 1787. There is no lordly date on that draft. You can actually see George Washington's copy of this nearly complete version of the Constitution and his handwritten edits. It runs to four pages and ends with Article VII.​

On September 15, the Convention agreed on the complete text, and, for $30, hired Jacob Shallus to engross (transcribe in legible, bold, and occasionally ornate lettering) the final draft onto the four sheets of vellum that reside in that National Archives today.​

Shallus worked to complete his work from September 15 through 17. The Convention met on September 17 and read Shallus's engrossed copy aloud. It was ony then that Franklin made a motion to add on the date and signatures, the motion Madison recorded: "offered the following as a convenient form ... ''Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present the seventeenth of September, &c —"​

Franklin's motion to add the signatures and date was made after this final draft was read aloud, so when it was read aloud it did not include "Year of our Lord." This also makes sense, Shallus would not have known the actual date of the signing.​

In short, none of the drafts contains the "Year of our Lord." The absence of the date—"Year of our Lord" or otherwise—on the three drafts of the Constitution illustrates the previous point: the date and signatures are not part of the Constitution itself.​

So you and PC are lying through your teeth saying that when they paid a possibly non-Christian scribe to add the date to a record copy he added the “Year of our Lord” and that proves that every other word in the entire Constitution are about JESUS CHRIST and every one who believed that his mother was a virgin, everyone who believed he died on a cross to cancel out every single conceived human’s sins, (if they believed the 1800 year old story) , and who believe he rose from the dead, and will come back some day to be with all the believers and cast everybody who doesn’t believe into the burning fires of hell.
lol one of the most tortured and idiotic narratives yet.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,814
Reaction score
1,303
Points
245
ol one of the most tortured and idiotic narratives yet.
,but you cannot explain why!!! Not sure why you accept the idiotic and absurd notion, put forth here by an idiot, that the entire US Constitution was transformed from the godless, never Jesusified, secular document that it is, to a powerful and sectarian endorsement of the Christian religion as evidence that America was founded exclusively as a Christian Nation, by virtue of a Freemason scribe, named Jacob Shallus, having been paid $30 to make four copies of the ratified DRAFT of the Constitution. The date it was signed was basically done by Jacob AFTER the Articles of Confederation was ratified.

Freemasonry runs contrary to the religious doctrine of today’s white Christian evangelicals who are the ones actively clamoring that America was founded as a Christian Nation when it was not.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,814
Reaction score
1,303
Points
245
The only reason he's popular today is because he is one of the very few atheists the assorted deviants and sociopaths can dredge up to support their bizarre narratives about the founders and Evul Xians.
What exactly is one of the bizarre narratives about the founders and Evul Xians.

Has every Christian believer in the Holy Trinity surrendered his reason and has no remaining guard against the most monstrous absurdities?

Here is Jefferson’s hocus pocus hate of the doctrine of the Christian trinity,
The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs... In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.​

Letter to James Smith discussing Jefferson's hate of the doctrine of the Christian trinity, December 8 1822


Tell me. Picaro , is pointing out that our Third President held such anti-Christian views, a bizarre narrative about the founders and Evul Xians?
 
Last edited:

Bezukhov

Anarcho-Capitalist
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
456
Reaction score
97
Points
90
Location
Providence, R.I.
Did Jesus at any time hint, suggest or infer that His followers set up Christian Nations?

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. (John 18:36)
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6:33)
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,118
Reaction score
35,536
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
the Year of our Lord

one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

That would be Jesus Christ

JESUS CHRIST is a YEAR????


JESUS H. Christ PC you ARE dumb?


I’m positive whoever wrote that was referencing a calandar year, not your Savior who died on the cross for all your sins. One of which is lying about the CONSTITUTION mentioning the words JESUS CHRIST in the text.

So where is JESUS CHRIST, the alleged Son of God ‘pointed to’ in the ‘text’ of the CONSTITUTION?

you’ve shown me where someone pointed to the year the SEVEN articles were signed.

There is no referece to JESUS CHRIST.
From the United States 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....


the Year of our Lord

one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven

That would be Jesus Christ


You’re kinda the modern version of Goebbels, in Gucci loafers instead of hobnail boots.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,118
Reaction score
35,536
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
The Constitution’s Article 1 Text does mention pagan “SUNday” and “MOONday”! :eek: But it purposely and intentionally left out any mention of Christ or the Judeo-Christian bible.

I tell you, it’s a godless pagan CONSPIRACY! : )

The Constitution provides for an observance of the Sabbath in its Presentment Clause, mandating that the President has ten days, excluding Sundays, to veto a bill lest it become binding.

And the instrument was framed with a view to the Declaration, which unequivocally bestows gratitude on the God of the Bible for America's independence.
If you were any more full of it you’d be infracting the national foie gras restrictions.

'Quote mining' is the term of art designed by liars like you who have no way to defend against actual, correct, and true quotes that I post.

Simple enough to prove.....let's see you post any of the thousands of quotes I've provided that aren't exactly as I documented them to be.

With a certain regularity, we find posters who have always imagined that they are bright, and well educated…..then find someone like me who outranks you by every intellectual metric…..and you can’t get over the damage to your self-image. Time to hand out another trophy for “Not-Tonight-Dear,- I’ve-Got-A-Crushed-Ego.”

I understand that you posted this as a flaccid attempt to assuage the pain of the spankings I've administered to your ego....but be assured: there's more where that came from.

Elsewhere above she writes:
And once again we find a Leftist proving that I am never wrong.
Real discussion with PoliticalChic is impossible because she is a completely immature and narcissistic, not to mention unscrupulous, person. She often takes accurate quotes out of context and claims they prove whatever she wants, even the opposite of the writer’s intentions. This is called “quote mining.” Again, here is the thread with countless examples of her taking quotes out of context and even reversing their meaning: The Dishonest Creationist Tactic of 'Quote Mining'. She is probably unique at USMB in having a thread dedicated to how she uses quotes out of context.

Here is a nice Christian — even anti-evolutionist — reminder that one should not “quote mine” as PoliticalChic so often does:

What Are the Dangers of Quote Mining?

On another subject, the growing modern use of “Common Era” and “BCE” for the traditional “AD/BC/“Year of Our Lord” dating method is often protested by religious rightwing Christians, a protest which I find both childish and repugnant. Actually, I usually use BC and AD myself, but agree CE and BCE is better and more inclusive. Indeed it is the most respectful dating method to use when discussing with those who use the Gregorian Calendar but are culturally NOT Christian.

Personally I don’t like the angry tone taken on BOTH sides of much of today’s religious / atheist arguments. Today there are mercifully few who still advocate “Christian nationalism.” I’m a little old-fashioned. PoliticalChic believes the original Paine was an atheist. He was not. Being a sort of modern Deist myself, I have no problem using “God” in everyday speech, or to make a colorful point or literary allusion. I must confess, though, I do most often use the word when ... swearing. ; )
I don't see you disrepute others that barely make any sense when they post their thoughts. The fact that you have selected one of the finest posters on the board is interesting, until it just take seconds to determine you are nothing more an atheist and you want to denounce her for being tolerant to all people and their beliefs.

You've left me speechless, Jackson.....a rare occurrence.

Thank you.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,814
Reaction score
1,303
Points
245
That would be Jesus Christ
So Jesus Christ is a “year of our Lord”

Are you absolutely certain that a Freemason scribe, named Jacob Shallus was a Christian?

I realize idiocy never needs to deal with facts but the facts appear to be that the reference to the year of our Lord was not on the document that the delegates signed nor was the words “our Lord“‘ read to them.

I know it will be hard for an idiot Christian nationalist to understand but here goes again for the record:

Because not one Delegate that signed the Final draft of the Constitution chose to reference the calendar year in that way, it is a lie to state that the reference to the date it was signed means there was an intent to insert the religion (allegedly) founded by Jesus Christ (Trinitarian Protestant Anti/Catholic Christianity or Freemasonry , or Unitarianism, or Deism , or rational religion, into the ratified version of the US Constitution.

If anything an idiot says can be true it would be that the reference to the year of his Lord that was inserted into the Constitution by Jacob Shallus means that America was Founded as a Freemason Nation.

That's because the Freemason Jacob Shallus is the one guy who wrote it on the copies after - not before the delegates signed it. Therefore the use of that phrase binds the entire Constitution.to Freemasonry. it does not bind the Constitution to Trinitarian Christianity as allegedly founded by Jesus Christ in the Year of our Lord 0000AD
 
Last edited:

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,118
Reaction score
35,536
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
That would be Jesus Christ
So Jesus Christ is a “year of our Lord”

Are you absolutely certain that a Freemason scribe, named Jacob Shallus was a Christian?

I realize idiocy never needs to deal with facts but the facts appear to be that the reference to the year of our Lord was not on the document that the delegates signed nor was the words “our Lord“‘ read to them.

I know it will be hard for an idiot Christian nationalist to understand but here goes again for the record:

Because not one Delegate that signed the Final draft of the Constitution chose to reference the calendar year in that way, it is a lie to state that the reference to the date it was signed means there was an intent to insert the religion (allegedly) founded by Jesus Christ (Trinitarian Protestant Anti/Catholic Christianity or Freemasonry , or Unitarianism, or Deism , or rational religion, into the ratified version of the US Constitution.

If anything an idiot says can be true it would be that the reference to the year of his Lord that was inserted into the Constitution by Jacob Shallus means that America was Founded as a Freemason Nation.

That's because the Freemason Jacob Shallus is the one guy who wrote it on the copies after - not before the delegates signed it. Therefore the use of that phrase binds the entire Constitution.to Freemasonry. it does not bind the Constitution to Trinitarian Christianity.

In 1915 there was actually one state supreme court which said that the reference to "in the year of our Lord" in the U.S. Constitution was a reference to Jesus Christ!
Herold v Parish Board of School Directors, 136 L.R. 1034 at 1044 (1915).
Where is God in the Constitution?



NEXT!
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,814
Reaction score
1,303
Points
245
In 1915 there was actually one state supreme court which said that the reference to "in the year of our Lord" in the U.S. Constitution was a reference to Jesus Christ!
Herold v Parish Board of School Directors, 136 L.R. 1034 at 1044 (1915).
Where is God in the Constitution?
How do you know that Freemason Jacob Shallus was a believer in Trinitarian Christianity that was allegedly founded by Jesus Christ. He could have been a Unitarian like John Adams.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,118
Reaction score
35,536
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
In 1915 there was actually one state supreme court which said that the reference to "in the year of our Lord" in the U.S. Constitution was a reference to Jesus Christ!
Herold v Parish Board of School Directors, 136 L.R. 1034 at 1044 (1915).
Where is God in the Constitution?
How do you know that Freemason Jacob Shallus was a believer in Trinitarian Christianity that was allegedly founded by Jesus Christ. He could have been a Unitarian like John Adams.

While we both know you've lost the argument, and it was fun slapping you around, I have no intention of permitting you to change the subject.


Let's simply review what you learned today:


America was not founded to be a Christian only nation.
It was never meant to be a theocracy.

But it was founded by orthodox Christians, based on the Judeo-Christian Bible....which was the single most quoted document by the Founders, and points to Jesus Christ in the text of the Constitution. Segments of our founding documents come directly from the Bible.


That religion and that book were always seen as the guidance that would form the basis of our morality.

It is the neo-Marxist influence of government school that has corrupted your view and deprived you of the truth. I doubt you will ever recover from said intellectual abuse.




But.....as magnanimous as I am, and as your consolation prize, let me offer to provide a reading curriculum which will make you less of a moron.
Say the word....
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,814
Reaction score
1,303
Points
245
, I have no intention of permitting you to change the subject.
I didn’t change the subject. you are running from the facts as usual.

Freemason Jacob Shallus has been identified as the one person who wrote “Year of our Lord in the Constitutiin.

It was not the Framers that worded it that way.

So framers have not inserted their Unitarian, Trinitarian or Deist religious affiliations inti the Constitution.

For the recird did Jesus Christ of “our Lord’ found a Trinitarian religion or a Unitarian religion?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top