Evangelicals and Trump

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,349
Reaction score
5,649
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Christianity, the spoken religion of antiquity - the triumph of good over evil for admission into the everlasting. :)
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,229
Reaction score
577
Points
85
Original Intent, the 1st Amendment, and the 'Founding Fathers'

Three Acts signed into law by Thomas Jefferson:

Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventh Congress,
“ An Act in addition to An Act, Entitled, 'An Act in addition to an Act Regulating the Grants of Land for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen' “ This was followed by two supplementary Acts in the Seventh Congress, Second Session[ and the Eighth Congress, with additions. I didn't post page numbers because they will vary according to which edition is used, but there is enough above to go on for the average semi-literate.

See also the Jefferson treaty with the Kaskakia Indians, citing by SCJ Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion on Wallace v. Jafrees 472 U.S. 38, 103 (1985), providing a Federal subsidy for a Roman Catholic priest's support.

For a different spin on the significance of this for those who pee their pants over 'Da Xian Menace!', I'll even post a link to a discussion of that treaty, just for entertainment purposes. I don't buy their pretty weak spin on it, but I think it is an interesting treaty in light of all the horror and doom Bush's 'Faith based Initiatives' in Africa generated in neurotics claiming it was a violation of the Establishment clause, a common falsehood wildly popular with the ACLU, a group mainly concerned with generating zillions of billable hours and big paydays for lawyers despite its obviously ludicrous high minded claims of 'supporting the Constitution', but that's another topic.

Jefferson wrote The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth for the benefit of Indians and their education, as well.

Thomas Jefferson never claimed to be a 'Deist', and in fact always personally identified himself as a Christian, even if he only considered Jesus a great philosopher. Jefferson was a big fan of Jesus, and there is more than enough evidence to prove it.

Re the famous 'Tripoli Treaty' of 1797, wildly popular with the ignorant as 'proof' of the 'Founding Fathers' hatred of religion, always taken out of context, naturally, if selectively citing a phrase in a treaty as 'evidence' of hatred of religion, and more specifically Christianity is valid, then the treaty with Great Britain ending the Revolutionary War can be cited as well. It begins with “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity,”, and was signed by John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. So much for finding stuff in treaties and selectively editing passages. See also the Kakaskia Treaty and a couple of others for Jefferson's views on using Federal funds to promote christianity.

But, historically literate people know the 1st Amendment was referring to preventing the Fed establishing a denomination as the Federal religion, not banning religion altogether, and certainly not christianity, and in fact the 1st Amendment also prevents the Fed from hindering it, quite the opposite of what is falsely claimed these days, i.e. barring religious icons or even religious services from Federal property.

It also doesn't prevent the Federal government from using Federal funds to advance christian education, including schools. It just couldn't favor one denomination over the other.

I'll post some more later, on George Mason, the 'Father of the Bill of Rights', Jefferson, Madison, the Adamses, Witherspoon, Benjamin Rush, Franklin, Patrick Henry, and others on intent and christianity. They considered the Bible the cornerstone of republicanism and freedom. Anybody who thinks they can claim the 'Founders' support in an argument over the 1st Amendement and christianity in general will lose miserably. They in fact supported government funding of education using the Bible and christianity as a basic requirement.

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.

But enough of this: it is more than I have before committed to paper on the subject of all the lies that has been preached and printed against me. I have not seen the work of Sonnoni which you mention, but I have seen another work on Africa, (Parke's,) which I fear will throw cold water on the hopes of the friends of freedom. You will hear an account of an attempt at insurrection in this state. I am looking with anxiety to see what will be it's effect on our state. We are truly to be pitied. I fear we have little chance to see you at the Federal city or in Virginia, and as little at Philadelphia. It would be a great treat to receive you here. But nothing but sickness could effect that; so I do not wish it. For I wish you health and happiness, and think of you with affection. Adieu.

To Dr. Benjamin Rush
Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800


Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, -- the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, -- endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame. But it was the Lilliputians upon Gulliver.

SOMETHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Mar. 21, 1801


But am in hopes their good sense will dictate to them, that since the mountain will not come to them, they had better go to the mountain: that they will find their interest in acquiescing in the liberty and science of their country, and that the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.

WISDOM AND PATRIOTISM
To Moses Robinson
Washington, March 23, 1


Those who have acted well have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me in opinion: those who have done ill, however, have nothing to hope; nor shall I fail to do justice lest it should be ascribed to that difference of opinion. A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers. They, like the clergy, live by the zeal they can kindle, and the schisms they can create. It is contest of opinion in politics as well as religion which makes us take great interest in them, and bestow our money liberally on those who furnish aliment to our appetite. The mild and simple principles of the Christian philosophy would produce too much calm, too much regularity of good, to extract from it's disciples a support for a numerous priesthood, were they not to sophisticate it, ramify it, split it into hairs, and twist it's texts till they cover the divine morality of it's author with mysteries, and require a priesthood to explain them. The Quakers seem to have discovered this. They have no priests, therefore no schisms. They judge of the text by the dictates of common sense & common morality. So the printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful, and would have to go to the plough. In the first moments of quietude which have succeeded the election, they seem to have aroused their lying faculties beyond their ordinary state, to re-agitate the public mind. What appointments to office have they detailed which had never been thought of, merely to found a text for their calumniating commentaries.

RECONCILIATION AND REFORM
To Elbridge Gerry
Washington, Mar. 29, 1801


DEAR SIR, -- While on a short visit lately to Monticello, I received from you a copy of your comparative view of Socrates & Jesus, and I avail myself of the first moment of leisure after my return to acknolege the pleasure had in the perusal of it, and the desire it excited to see you take up the subject on a more extensive scale. In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, say of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, & presented in very paradoxical shapes. Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers. His character & doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions & precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man. This is the outline; but I have not the time, & still less the information which the subject needs. It will therefore rest with me in contemplation only. You are the person who of all others would do it best, and most promptly. You have all the materials at hand, and you put together with ease. I wish you could be induced to extend your late work to the whole subject.

JESUS, SOCRATES, AND OTHERS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Apr. 9, 1803


DEAR SIR, -- In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. At the short intervals since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Doctr Priestley, his little treatise of "Socrates & Jesus compared." This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road, and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus, or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity, as wished to see executed by some one of more leisure and information for the task, than myself. This I now send you, as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behoves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God & himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.
SYLLABUS OF AN ESTIMATE OF THE MERIT OF THE DOCTRINES

OF JESUS, COMPARED WITH THOSE OF OTHERS April, 1803
In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry & superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.

Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy, or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.


I. PHILOSOPHERS. 1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind. In this branch of philosophy they were really great.


2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred & friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: toward our neighbors & countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity & love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.


II. JEWS. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God. But their ideas of him & of his attributes were degrading & injurious.


2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason & morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; & repulsive & anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.


III. JESUS. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, & of the sublimest eloquence.


The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.


1. Like Socrates & Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.


2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life & doctrines fell on the most unlettered & ignorant men; who wrote, too, from memory, & not till long after the transactions had passed.


3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to jealousy & combination of the altar and the throne, at about 33. years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of 3. years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.


4. Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, & often unintelligible.
5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating & perverting the simple doctrines he taught by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, & obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, & to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.


The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merit of his doctrines.


1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred & friends, were more pure & perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, & of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.

4. He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted, or disbelieved by the Jews; and wielded it with efficacy, as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.

THE MORALS OF JESUS
To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus
Washington, Apr. 21, 1803


DEAR SIR, -- Your favor of December 12 came duly to hand, as did the 2^d. letter to Doctor Linn, and the treatise of Phlogiston, for which I pray you to accept my thanks. The copy for Mr. Livingston has been delivered, together with your letter to him, to Mr. Harvie, my secretary, who departs in a day or two for Paris, & will deliver them himself to Mr. Livingston, whose attention to your matter cannot be doubted. I have also to add my thanks to Mr. Priestley, your son, for the copy of your Harmony, which I have gone through with great satisfaction. It is the first I have been able to meet with, which is clear of those long repetitions of the same transaction, as if it were a different one because related with some different circumstances.

I rejoice that you have undertaken the task of comparing the moral doctrines of Jesus with those of the ancient Philosophers. You are so much in possession of the whole subject, that you will do it easier & better than any other person living. I think you cannot avoid giving, as preliminary to the comparison, a digest of his moral doctrines, extracted in his own words from the Evangelists, and leaving out everything relative to his personal history and character. It would be short and precious. With a view to do this for my own satisfaction, I had sent to Philadelphia to get two testaments Greek of the same edition, & two English, with a design to cut out the morsels of morality, and paste them on the leaves of a book, in the manner you describe as having been pursued in forming your Harmony. But I shall now get the thing done by better hands.




JESUS, LOUISIANA, AND MALTHUS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Jan. 29, 1804





And so endeth the book of Kings, from all of whom the Lord deliver us, and have you, my friend, and all such good men and true, in his holy keeping.




"THE BOOK OF KINGS"
To Governor John Langdon
Monticello, March 5, 1810





It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine.' Enfield, B. 4. chap. 3. It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook. In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to them. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, andwhich is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.The result is an 8 vo. of 46. pages of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered apostles, the Apostolic fathers, and the Christians of the
1st. century. Their Platonising successors indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the corruptions which they had incorporated into the doctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers cotemporary with them. They excommunicated their followers as heretics, branding them with the opprobrious name of Ebionites or Beggars.


For a comparison of the Graecian philosophy with that of Jesus, materials might be largely drawn from the same source. Enfield gives a history, and detailed account of the opinions and principles of the different sects. These relate to


the gods, their natures, grades, places and powers;


the demi-gods and daemons, and their agency with man;


the Universe, it's structure, extent, production and duration;


the origin of things from the elements of fire, water, air and earth;


the human soul, it's essence and derivation;


the summum bonum and finis bonorum; with a thousand idle dreams and fancies on these and other subjects the knowledge of which is withheld from man, leaving but a short chapter for his moral duties, and the principal section of that given to what he owes himself, to precepts for rendering him impassible, and unassailable by the evils of life, and for preserving his mind in a state of constant serenity.


Such a canvas is too broad for the age of seventy, and especially of one whose chief occupations have been in the practical business of life. We must leave therefore to others, younger and more learned than we are, to prepare this euthanasia for Platonic Christianity, and it's restoration to the primitive simplicity of it's founder. I think you give a just outline of the theism of the three religions when you say that the principle of the Hebrew was the fear, of the Gentile the honor, and of the Christian the love of God.

THE CODE OF JESUS
To John Adams
Monticello, Oct. 12, 1813




This is just a small part of Jefferson's take on Christianity, and he wasn't even at the Convention anyway, took no part in it. There or the other 225 or so 'Founders' besides him, and the 5,000 or so other important men of those times whose opinions and influences count for a lot more than those three by far, so you morons can babble about cherry picked stuff from Franklin, Jefferson, and re Paine, who wasn't a 'Founder, he held no offices and wasn't elected to anything, his babbling doesn't mean a thing.
.
This is just a small part of Jefferson's take on Christianity, and he wasn't even at the Convention anyway, took no part in it. There or the other 225 or so 'Founders' besides him, and the 5,000 or so other important men of those times whose opinions and influences count for a lot more than those three by far, so you morons can babble about cherry picked stuff from Franklin, Jefferson, and re Paine, who wasn't a 'Founder, he held no offices and wasn't elected to anything, his babbling doesn't mean a thing.
.
but for the last line it was not clear who had written the paragraph ...

the finished document - u s constitution - is the final arbiter for what transpired during those times and say as you please picaro non of your christian religious zealotry was in the least bit included nor your contrived 4th century religious itinerants name ever mentioned.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,815
Reaction score
1,303
Points
245
I have repeatedly asked you to give ONE example of a current issue, that would be impacted by an admission that this country was founded as a Christian Nation.
First of all, I am not talking about counting Christians in proportion to the entire population during the decade the Constitution was written. I’m talking about the intent on RELIGION of the Actual (1) white Trinitarian Protestant Christian men, (2)white Deist, rational Religion non-Christian men, (3) white Unitarian men (4) white Other men. And (5) That one thru FOUR believed in God both Biblical and natural, and were the men that had direct input into the writing of the Constitution and the forming of America.


So you PoliticalChic Correll ding are telling us that America was founded as a (1) Nation.

I and many others including Christians are saying America was founded as a (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) Nation.

So am I right or are you three (1) only plus ( 2)(3)(4) deniers right?

America was founded as a (1) Nation is a lie.

So my answer is as I told you Over and Over it should not be said because it is a lie. it is not true. Why do you want a massive lie being told about the founding of America?
 
Last edited:

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,070
Reaction score
13,918
Points
2,220
Why does it bother you that the Abolition Movement was led by religious men?
You are mistaking my comment on history for a criticism. ...

Your words

" An amazingly fast growing country became more and more religious, more amoral, more morally troubled, became civically unstuck by slavery, and was under the heavy thumb of religious hypocrites. Even abolitionism was led by religious men. "


The context is clear. YOu are discussing how the country was under the "heavy thumb of religious hypocrites" and in that context, mention that "even abolitionism was led by religious men."


That is a criticism and the rest of your post, which I cut, goes on to complain about those "religious men" some more.

My former question stands. Why does it bother you that the abolition movement was led by religious men?


And more so, why do you want to pretend it does not bother you?
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,070
Reaction score
13,918
Points
2,220
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 -
.
View attachment 393387
.
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.

You made a claim about today, and for proof you posted a picture from one hundred years ago.


Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.


Are you running away from that idiocy, since I called you on it, or hoping that if you throw enough shit against the wall, like a retarded monkey, that no one will notice how I made a fool of you?


You people are the bigots today and this is all about you wanting to deny Christians the right to participate in the political process by bullying them from the public square, like the marxist thugs you are.
.
Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.
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 -
.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
View attachment 393678
.
be a while for you to find an example ... christian.

christians have no remorse for their past as they have no remorse - correll

YOu made a claim about Christianity today, and to support it, you posted an ONE HUNDRED YEAR OLD PICTURE.


And you don't see an issue with that?


Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.
.
Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
the maleficence of christianity is rooted in their 4th century christian bible that is what you claim to be your religion it is you who can not abide by your own literature and its recorded history to the present day.
.
View attachment 393775
.
the illustration is a reflection of the christian bible and its aftermath and of those that perpetuate its deception and their use of the crucifixion of an innocent person for their own illicit purposes.

- that this is not a christian nation is directly relevant to the history you deny and do nothing to change.

So, in response to my challenge to back up your complaints about modern day Christians, you first post a phote over a hundred years old, and now, back that up with an even older drawing, from the Dark Ages(?)? What 500 hundred years old? MOre?


You have failed utterly to even TRY to support your claim.

you lose. You know that you are lying when you smear Christianity and yet you do so anyways.


Probably due to being a far lefty ideologue.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,070
Reaction score
13,918
Points
2,220
I have repeatedly asked you to give ONE example of a current issue, that would be impacted by an admission that this country was founded as a Christian Nation.
First of all, I am not talking about counting Christians in proportion to the entire population during the decade the Constitution was written. I’m talking about the intent on RELIGION of the Actual (1) white Trinitarian Protestant Christian men, (2)white Deist, rational Religion non-Christian men, (3) white Unitarian men (4) white Other men. And (5) That one thru FOUR believed in God both Biblical and natural, and were the men that had direct input into the writing of the Constitution and the forming of America.


So you PoliticalChic Correll ding are telling us that America was founded as a (1) Nation.

I and many others including Christians are saying America was founded as a (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) Nation.

So am I right or are you three (1) only plus ( 2)(3)(4) deniers right?

America was founded as a (1) Nation is a lie.

So my answer is as I told you Over and Over it should not be said because it is a lie. it is not true. Why do you want a massive lie being told about the founding of America?

And you dodge again.


Since you will not admit what you are soooo concerned about, I will tell you, (and the readers) why you are so focused on this.



Because you are looking for a way to marginalize your political enemies. If you can gin up some bullshit accusations about different views on history, and pretend that those that say words that you can spin to sound scary, "founded as a Christian Nation", blah, blah, blah, ect. ect. ect.


you can then smear and defame those enemies, so that in political debate you can avoid honestly defending your political positions and policies and instead make the debate about your made up bullshit about "Christian Theologists" and "White Christian Nationalists".


Liberals are all about this, because you have realized that your agenda is BAD for the nation as a whole and the vast majority of it's citizens.


But you still support it, because you are rigid ideologues and don't care about the well being of your fellow citizens but more about ideology.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,815
Reaction score
1,303
Points
245
No idea, just some weird crap about Freemasons or something he thinks invalidates stuff and makes us an atheist country or something.
America is most certainly a majority Christian country. I Never said it was an atheist country.

The Christian majority is mixed and evenly divided between liberal and conservatives. the other worlds religions including American Jews and non-religious people make up the balance with I believe a majority of that group siding Democrats.

Thats the nation I live in. It is in no way a Christian Nation now and it never was - including when it was founded in the year if our Lord 1789.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,294
Reaction score
4,257
Points
290
Location
Texas
Original Intent, the 1st Amendment, and the 'Founding Fathers'

Three Acts signed into law by Thomas Jefferson:

Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventh Congress,
“ An Act in addition to An Act, Entitled, 'An Act in addition to an Act Regulating the Grants of Land for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen' “ This was followed by two supplementary Acts in the Seventh Congress, Second Session[ and the Eighth Congress, with additions. I didn't post page numbers because they will vary according to which edition is used, but there is enough above to go on for the average semi-literate.

See also the Jefferson treaty with the Kaskakia Indians, citing by SCJ Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion on Wallace v. Jafrees 472 U.S. 38, 103 (1985), providing a Federal subsidy for a Roman Catholic priest's support.

For a different spin on the significance of this for those who pee their pants over 'Da Xian Menace!', I'll even post a link to a discussion of that treaty, just for entertainment purposes. I don't buy their pretty weak spin on it, but I think it is an interesting treaty in light of all the horror and doom Bush's 'Faith based Initiatives' in Africa generated in neurotics claiming it was a violation of the Establishment clause, a common falsehood wildly popular with the ACLU, a group mainly concerned with generating zillions of billable hours and big paydays for lawyers despite its obviously ludicrous high minded claims of 'supporting the Constitution', but that's another topic.

Jefferson wrote The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth for the benefit of Indians and their education, as well.

Thomas Jefferson never claimed to be a 'Deist', and in fact always personally identified himself as a Christian, even if he only considered Jesus a great philosopher. Jefferson was a big fan of Jesus, and there is more than enough evidence to prove it.

Re the famous 'Tripoli Treaty' of 1797, wildly popular with the ignorant as 'proof' of the 'Founding Fathers' hatred of religion, always taken out of context, naturally, if selectively citing a phrase in a treaty as 'evidence' of hatred of religion, and more specifically Christianity is valid, then the treaty with Great Britain ending the Revolutionary War can be cited as well. It begins with “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity,”, and was signed by John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. So much for finding stuff in treaties and selectively editing passages. See also the Kakaskia Treaty and a couple of others for Jefferson's views on using Federal funds to promote christianity.

But, historically literate people know the 1st Amendment was referring to preventing the Fed establishing a denomination as the Federal religion, not banning religion altogether, and certainly not christianity, and in fact the 1st Amendment also prevents the Fed from hindering it, quite the opposite of what is falsely claimed these days, i.e. barring religious icons or even religious services from Federal property.

It also doesn't prevent the Federal government from using Federal funds to advance christian education, including schools. It just couldn't favor one denomination over the other.

I'll post some more later, on George Mason, the 'Father of the Bill of Rights', Jefferson, Madison, the Adamses, Witherspoon, Benjamin Rush, Franklin, Patrick Henry, and others on intent and christianity. They considered the Bible the cornerstone of republicanism and freedom. Anybody who thinks they can claim the 'Founders' support in an argument over the 1st Amendement and christianity in general will lose miserably. They in fact supported government funding of education using the Bible and christianity as a basic requirement.

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.

But enough of this: it is more than I have before committed to paper on the subject of all the lies that has been preached and printed against me. I have not seen the work of Sonnoni which you mention, but I have seen another work on Africa, (Parke's,) which I fear will throw cold water on the hopes of the friends of freedom. You will hear an account of an attempt at insurrection in this state. I am looking with anxiety to see what will be it's effect on our state. We are truly to be pitied. I fear we have little chance to see you at the Federal city or in Virginia, and as little at Philadelphia. It would be a great treat to receive you here. But nothing but sickness could effect that; so I do not wish it. For I wish you health and happiness, and think of you with affection. Adieu.

To Dr. Benjamin Rush
Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800


Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, -- the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, -- endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame. But it was the Lilliputians upon Gulliver.

SOMETHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Mar. 21, 1801


But am in hopes their good sense will dictate to them, that since the mountain will not come to them, they had better go to the mountain: that they will find their interest in acquiescing in the liberty and science of their country, and that the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.

WISDOM AND PATRIOTISM
To Moses Robinson
Washington, March 23, 1


Those who have acted well have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me in opinion: those who have done ill, however, have nothing to hope; nor shall I fail to do justice lest it should be ascribed to that difference of opinion. A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers. They, like the clergy, live by the zeal they can kindle, and the schisms they can create. It is contest of opinion in politics as well as religion which makes us take great interest in them, and bestow our money liberally on those who furnish aliment to our appetite. The mild and simple principles of the Christian philosophy would produce too much calm, too much regularity of good, to extract from it's disciples a support for a numerous priesthood, were they not to sophisticate it, ramify it, split it into hairs, and twist it's texts till they cover the divine morality of it's author with mysteries, and require a priesthood to explain them. The Quakers seem to have discovered this. They have no priests, therefore no schisms. They judge of the text by the dictates of common sense & common morality. So the printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful, and would have to go to the plough. In the first moments of quietude which have succeeded the election, they seem to have aroused their lying faculties beyond their ordinary state, to re-agitate the public mind. What appointments to office have they detailed which had never been thought of, merely to found a text for their calumniating commentaries.

RECONCILIATION AND REFORM
To Elbridge Gerry
Washington, Mar. 29, 1801


DEAR SIR, -- While on a short visit lately to Monticello, I received from you a copy of your comparative view of Socrates & Jesus, and I avail myself of the first moment of leisure after my return to acknolege the pleasure had in the perusal of it, and the desire it excited to see you take up the subject on a more extensive scale. In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, say of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, & presented in very paradoxical shapes. Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers. His character & doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions & precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man. This is the outline; but I have not the time, & still less the information which the subject needs. It will therefore rest with me in contemplation only. You are the person who of all others would do it best, and most promptly. You have all the materials at hand, and you put together with ease. I wish you could be induced to extend your late work to the whole subject.

JESUS, SOCRATES, AND OTHERS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Apr. 9, 1803


DEAR SIR, -- In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. At the short intervals since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Doctr Priestley, his little treatise of "Socrates & Jesus compared." This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road, and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus, or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity, as wished to see executed by some one of more leisure and information for the task, than myself. This I now send you, as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behoves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God & himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.
SYLLABUS OF AN ESTIMATE OF THE MERIT OF THE DOCTRINES

OF JESUS, COMPARED WITH THOSE OF OTHERS April, 1803
In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry & superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.

Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy, or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.


I. PHILOSOPHERS. 1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind. In this branch of philosophy they were really great.


2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred & friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: toward our neighbors & countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity & love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.


II. JEWS. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God. But their ideas of him & of his attributes were degrading & injurious.


2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason & morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; & repulsive & anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.


III. JESUS. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, & of the sublimest eloquence.


The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.


1. Like Socrates & Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.


2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life & doctrines fell on the most unlettered & ignorant men; who wrote, too, from memory, & not till long after the transactions had passed.


3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to jealousy & combination of the altar and the throne, at about 33. years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of 3. years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.


4. Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, & often unintelligible.
5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating & perverting the simple doctrines he taught by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, & obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, & to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.


The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merit of his doctrines.


1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred & friends, were more pure & perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, & of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.

4. He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted, or disbelieved by the Jews; and wielded it with efficacy, as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.

THE MORALS OF JESUS
To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus
Washington, Apr. 21, 1803


DEAR SIR, -- Your favor of December 12 came duly to hand, as did the 2^d. letter to Doctor Linn, and the treatise of Phlogiston, for which I pray you to accept my thanks. The copy for Mr. Livingston has been delivered, together with your letter to him, to Mr. Harvie, my secretary, who departs in a day or two for Paris, & will deliver them himself to Mr. Livingston, whose attention to your matter cannot be doubted. I have also to add my thanks to Mr. Priestley, your son, for the copy of your Harmony, which I have gone through with great satisfaction. It is the first I have been able to meet with, which is clear of those long repetitions of the same transaction, as if it were a different one because related with some different circumstances.

I rejoice that you have undertaken the task of comparing the moral doctrines of Jesus with those of the ancient Philosophers. You are so much in possession of the whole subject, that you will do it easier & better than any other person living. I think you cannot avoid giving, as preliminary to the comparison, a digest of his moral doctrines, extracted in his own words from the Evangelists, and leaving out everything relative to his personal history and character. It would be short and precious. With a view to do this for my own satisfaction, I had sent to Philadelphia to get two testaments Greek of the same edition, & two English, with a design to cut out the morsels of morality, and paste them on the leaves of a book, in the manner you describe as having been pursued in forming your Harmony. But I shall now get the thing done by better hands.




JESUS, LOUISIANA, AND MALTHUS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Jan. 29, 1804





And so endeth the book of Kings, from all of whom the Lord deliver us, and have you, my friend, and all such good men and true, in his holy keeping.




"THE BOOK OF KINGS"
To Governor John Langdon
Monticello, March 5, 1810





It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine.' Enfield, B. 4. chap. 3. It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook. In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to them. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, andwhich is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.The result is an 8 vo. of 46. pages of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered apostles, the Apostolic fathers, and the Christians of the
1st. century. Their Platonising successors indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the corruptions which they had incorporated into the doctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers cotemporary with them. They excommunicated their followers as heretics, branding them with the opprobrious name of Ebionites or Beggars.


For a comparison of the Graecian philosophy with that of Jesus, materials might be largely drawn from the same source. Enfield gives a history, and detailed account of the opinions and principles of the different sects. These relate to


the gods, their natures, grades, places and powers;


the demi-gods and daemons, and their agency with man;


the Universe, it's structure, extent, production and duration;


the origin of things from the elements of fire, water, air and earth;


the human soul, it's essence and derivation;


the summum bonum and finis bonorum; with a thousand idle dreams and fancies on these and other subjects the knowledge of which is withheld from man, leaving but a short chapter for his moral duties, and the principal section of that given to what he owes himself, to precepts for rendering him impassible, and unassailable by the evils of life, and for preserving his mind in a state of constant serenity.


Such a canvas is too broad for the age of seventy, and especially of one whose chief occupations have been in the practical business of life. We must leave therefore to others, younger and more learned than we are, to prepare this euthanasia for Platonic Christianity, and it's restoration to the primitive simplicity of it's founder. I think you give a just outline of the theism of the three religions when you say that the principle of the Hebrew was the fear, of the Gentile the honor, and of the Christian the love of God.

THE CODE OF JESUS
To John Adams
Monticello, Oct. 12, 1813




This is just a small part of Jefferson's take on Christianity, and he wasn't even at the Convention anyway, took no part in it. There or the other 225 or so 'Founders' besides him, and the 5,000 or so other important men of those times whose opinions and influences count for a lot more than those three by far, so you morons can babble about cherry picked stuff from Franklin, Jefferson, and re Paine, who wasn't a 'Founder, he held no offices and wasn't elected to anything, his babbling doesn't mean a thing.
.
This is just a small part of Jefferson's take on Christianity, and he wasn't even at the Convention anyway, took no part in it. There or the other 225 or so 'Founders' besides him, and the 5,000 or so other important men of those times whose opinions and influences count for a lot more than those three by far, so you morons can babble about cherry picked stuff from Franklin, Jefferson, and re Paine, who wasn't a 'Founder, he held no offices and wasn't elected to anything, his babbling doesn't mean a thing.
.
but for the last line it was not clear who had written the paragraph ...

the finished document - u s constitution - is the final arbiter for what transpired during those times and say as you please picaro non of your christian religious zealotry was in the least bit included nor your contrived 4th century religious itinerants name ever mentioned.
Yes, we know you've been left with nothing but leg humping snivels for the last few years. Thanks for reminding us.
 

Picaro

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
19,294
Reaction score
4,257
Points
290
Location
Texas
No idea, just some weird crap about Freemasons or something he thinks invalidates stuff and makes us an atheist country or something.
America is most certainly a majority Christian country. I Never said it was an atheist country.

The Christian majority is mixed and evenly divided between liberal and conservatives. the other worlds religions including American Jews and non-religious people make up the balance with I believe a majority of that group siding Democrats.

Thats the nation I live in. It is in no way a Christian Nation now and it never was - including when it was founded in the year if our Lord 1789.
See my last post re Breezewood; you're in the same boat with him now, left with nothing but 'posting last' and leg humping.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,815
Reaction score
1,303
Points
245
If you can gin up some bullshit accusations about different views on history,
it has nothing to do with different views on history.. When you say that America was founded as a Christian Nation you are saying it was founded by Christians and Christians only. Its a lie. It is not true unless you can prove that every single framer of the Constitution was, Protestant with a belief in original sin, the Divinity of Christ, blood salvation, virgin birth, resurrection Etc etc etc.

And if telling the truth is scary I don’t know who you think it’s scaring.

I brought you Reverend Darby who believes all those Jesus things but for some reason he has no need to tell me he believes that America was founded as a Christian nation as you Correll and ding PoliticalChic Picaro do.
 
Last edited:

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,229
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 -
.
View attachment 393387
.
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.

You made a claim about today, and for proof you posted a picture from one hundred years ago.


Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.


Are you running away from that idiocy, since I called you on it, or hoping that if you throw enough shit against the wall, like a retarded monkey, that no one will notice how I made a fool of you?


You people are the bigots today and this is all about you wanting to deny Christians the right to participate in the political process by bullying them from the public square, like the marxist thugs you are.
.
Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.
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 -
.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
View attachment 393678
.
be a while for you to find an example ... christian.

christians have no remorse for their past as they have no remorse - correll

YOu made a claim about Christianity today, and to support it, you posted an ONE HUNDRED YEAR OLD PICTURE.


And you don't see an issue with that?


Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.
.
Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
the maleficence of christianity is rooted in their 4th century christian bible that is what you claim to be your religion it is you who can not abide by your own literature and its recorded history to the present day.
.
View attachment 393775
.
the illustration is a reflection of the christian bible and its aftermath and of those that perpetuate its deception and their use of the crucifixion of an innocent person for their own illicit purposes.

- that this is not a christian nation is directly relevant to the history you deny and do nothing to change.

So, in response to my challenge to back up your complaints about modern day Christians, you first post a phote over a hundred years old, and now, back that up with an even older drawing, from the Dark Ages(?)? What 500 hundred years old? MOre?


You have failed utterly to even TRY to support your claim.

you lose. You know that you are lying when you smear Christianity and yet you do so anyways.


Probably due to being a far lefty ideologue.
.
you lose. You know that you are lying when you smear Christianity and yet you do so anyways.
.
how is recorded history lying, correll -
.
1601253044974.png

.
christianity throughout history has been a religion of persecution and victimization of the innocent to this day - you have provided no rebuttal than your fear of seeing your past or showing any alternative your religion has accomplished.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,349
Reaction score
5,649
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
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 -
.
View attachment 393387
.
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.

You made a claim about today, and for proof you posted a picture from one hundred years ago.


Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.


Are you running away from that idiocy, since I called you on it, or hoping that if you throw enough shit against the wall, like a retarded monkey, that no one will notice how I made a fool of you?


You people are the bigots today and this is all about you wanting to deny Christians the right to participate in the political process by bullying them from the public square, like the marxist thugs you are.
.
Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.
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 -
.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
View attachment 393678
.
be a while for you to find an example ... christian.

christians have no remorse for their past as they have no remorse - correll

YOu made a claim about Christianity today, and to support it, you posted an ONE HUNDRED YEAR OLD PICTURE.


And you don't see an issue with that?


Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.
.
Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
the maleficence of christianity is rooted in their 4th century christian bible that is what you claim to be your religion it is you who can not abide by your own literature and its recorded history to the present day.
.
View attachment 393775
.
the illustration is a reflection of the christian bible and its aftermath and of those that perpetuate its deception and their use of the crucifixion of an innocent person for their own illicit purposes.

- that this is not a christian nation is directly relevant to the history you deny and do nothing to change.

So, in response to my challenge to back up your complaints about modern day Christians, you first post a phote over a hundred years old, and now, back that up with an even older drawing, from the Dark Ages(?)? What 500 hundred years old? MOre?


You have failed utterly to even TRY to support your claim.

you lose. You know that you are lying when you smear Christianity and yet you do so anyways.


Probably due to being a far lefty ideologue.
.
you lose. You know that you are lying when you smear Christianity and yet you do so anyways.
.
how is recorded history lying, correll -
.
View attachment 393850
.
christianity throughout history has been a religion of persecution and victimization of the innocent to this day - you have provided no rebuttal than your fear of seeing your past or showing any alternative your religion has accomplished.
And that means that Jesus isn't God how?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
10,815
Reaction score
1,303
Points
245
Thomas Jefferson never claimed to be a 'Deist', and in fact always personally identified himself as a Christian, even if he only considered Jesus a great philosopher. Jefferson was a big fan of Jesus, and there is more than enough evidence to prove it.
Yes. Jefferson identified as a Christian all the while explaining that he was VERY DIFFERENT FROM the HOCUS POCUS Holy Ghost, Son of God, Original Sin believers who called him an infidel.


Charles Thomson Monticello, January 9, 1816. I am a real Christian,
that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen is mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man,



 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,229
Reaction score
577
Points
85
Original Intent, the 1st Amendment, and the 'Founding Fathers'

Three Acts signed into law by Thomas Jefferson:

Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Seventh Congress,
“ An Act in addition to An Act, Entitled, 'An Act in addition to an Act Regulating the Grants of Land for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for Propagating the Gospel Among the Heathen' “ This was followed by two supplementary Acts in the Seventh Congress, Second Session[ and the Eighth Congress, with additions. I didn't post page numbers because they will vary according to which edition is used, but there is enough above to go on for the average semi-literate.

See also the Jefferson treaty with the Kaskakia Indians, citing by SCJ Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion on Wallace v. Jafrees 472 U.S. 38, 103 (1985), providing a Federal subsidy for a Roman Catholic priest's support.

For a different spin on the significance of this for those who pee their pants over 'Da Xian Menace!', I'll even post a link to a discussion of that treaty, just for entertainment purposes. I don't buy their pretty weak spin on it, but I think it is an interesting treaty in light of all the horror and doom Bush's 'Faith based Initiatives' in Africa generated in neurotics claiming it was a violation of the Establishment clause, a common falsehood wildly popular with the ACLU, a group mainly concerned with generating zillions of billable hours and big paydays for lawyers despite its obviously ludicrous high minded claims of 'supporting the Constitution', but that's another topic.

Jefferson wrote The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth for the benefit of Indians and their education, as well.

Thomas Jefferson never claimed to be a 'Deist', and in fact always personally identified himself as a Christian, even if he only considered Jesus a great philosopher. Jefferson was a big fan of Jesus, and there is more than enough evidence to prove it.

Re the famous 'Tripoli Treaty' of 1797, wildly popular with the ignorant as 'proof' of the 'Founding Fathers' hatred of religion, always taken out of context, naturally, if selectively citing a phrase in a treaty as 'evidence' of hatred of religion, and more specifically Christianity is valid, then the treaty with Great Britain ending the Revolutionary War can be cited as well. It begins with “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity,”, and was signed by John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams. So much for finding stuff in treaties and selectively editing passages. See also the Kakaskia Treaty and a couple of others for Jefferson's views on using Federal funds to promote christianity.

But, historically literate people know the 1st Amendment was referring to preventing the Fed establishing a denomination as the Federal religion, not banning religion altogether, and certainly not christianity, and in fact the 1st Amendment also prevents the Fed from hindering it, quite the opposite of what is falsely claimed these days, i.e. barring religious icons or even religious services from Federal property.

It also doesn't prevent the Federal government from using Federal funds to advance christian education, including schools. It just couldn't favor one denomination over the other.

I'll post some more later, on George Mason, the 'Father of the Bill of Rights', Jefferson, Madison, the Adamses, Witherspoon, Benjamin Rush, Franklin, Patrick Henry, and others on intent and christianity. They considered the Bible the cornerstone of republicanism and freedom. Anybody who thinks they can claim the 'Founders' support in an argument over the 1st Amendement and christianity in general will lose miserably. They in fact supported government funding of education using the Bible and christianity as a basic requirement.

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.

But enough of this: it is more than I have before committed to paper on the subject of all the lies that has been preached and printed against me. I have not seen the work of Sonnoni which you mention, but I have seen another work on Africa, (Parke's,) which I fear will throw cold water on the hopes of the friends of freedom. You will hear an account of an attempt at insurrection in this state. I am looking with anxiety to see what will be it's effect on our state. We are truly to be pitied. I fear we have little chance to see you at the Federal city or in Virginia, and as little at Philadelphia. It would be a great treat to receive you here. But nothing but sickness could effect that; so I do not wish it. For I wish you health and happiness, and think of you with affection. Adieu.

To Dr. Benjamin Rush
Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800


Those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, -- the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, -- endeavored to crush your well-earnt & well-deserved fame. But it was the Lilliputians upon Gulliver.

SOMETHING NEW UNDER THE SUN
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Mar. 21, 1801


But am in hopes their good sense will dictate to them, that since the mountain will not come to them, they had better go to the mountain: that they will find their interest in acquiescing in the liberty and science of their country, and that the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind.

WISDOM AND PATRIOTISM
To Moses Robinson
Washington, March 23, 1


Those who have acted well have nothing to fear, however they may have differed from me in opinion: those who have done ill, however, have nothing to hope; nor shall I fail to do justice lest it should be ascribed to that difference of opinion. A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers. They, like the clergy, live by the zeal they can kindle, and the schisms they can create. It is contest of opinion in politics as well as religion which makes us take great interest in them, and bestow our money liberally on those who furnish aliment to our appetite. The mild and simple principles of the Christian philosophy would produce too much calm, too much regularity of good, to extract from it's disciples a support for a numerous priesthood, were they not to sophisticate it, ramify it, split it into hairs, and twist it's texts till they cover the divine morality of it's author with mysteries, and require a priesthood to explain them. The Quakers seem to have discovered this. They have no priests, therefore no schisms. They judge of the text by the dictates of common sense & common morality. So the printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful, and would have to go to the plough. In the first moments of quietude which have succeeded the election, they seem to have aroused their lying faculties beyond their ordinary state, to re-agitate the public mind. What appointments to office have they detailed which had never been thought of, merely to found a text for their calumniating commentaries.

RECONCILIATION AND REFORM
To Elbridge Gerry
Washington, Mar. 29, 1801


DEAR SIR, -- While on a short visit lately to Monticello, I received from you a copy of your comparative view of Socrates & Jesus, and I avail myself of the first moment of leisure after my return to acknolege the pleasure had in the perusal of it, and the desire it excited to see you take up the subject on a more extensive scale. In consequence of some conversation with Dr. Rush, in the year 1798-99, I had promised some day to write him a letter giving him my view of the Christian system. I have reflected often on it since, & even sketched the outlines in my own mind. I should first take a general view of the moral doctrines of the most remarkable of the antient philosophers, of whose ethics we have sufficient information to make an estimate, say of Pythagoras, Epicurus, Epictetus, Socrates, Cicero, Seneca, Antoninus. I should do justice to the branches of morality they have treated well; but point out the importance of those in which they are deficient. should then take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, & doctrines of Jesus, who sensible of incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state. This view would purposely omit the question of his divinity, & even his inspiration. To do him justice, it would be necessary to remark the disadvantages his doctrines have to encounter, not having been committed to writing by himself, but by the most unlettered of men, by memory, long after they had heard them from him; when much was forgotten, much misunderstood, & presented in very paradoxical shapes. Yet such are the fragments remaining as to show a master workman, and that his system of morality was the most benevolent & sublime probably that has been ever taught, and consequently more perfect than those of any of the antient philosophers. His character & doctrines have received still greater injury from those who pretend to be his special disciples, and who have disfigured and sophisticated his actions & precepts, from views of personal interest, so as to induce the unthinking part of mankind to throw off the whole system in disgust, and to pass sentence as an impostor on the most innocent, the most benevolent, the most eloquent and sublime character that ever has been exhibited to man. This is the outline; but I have not the time, & still less the information which the subject needs. It will therefore rest with me in contemplation only. You are the person who of all others would do it best, and most promptly. You have all the materials at hand, and you put together with ease. I wish you could be induced to extend your late work to the whole subject.

JESUS, SOCRATES, AND OTHERS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Apr. 9, 1803


DEAR SIR, -- In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other. At the short intervals since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Doctr Priestley, his little treatise of "Socrates & Jesus compared." This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road, and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus, or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity, as wished to see executed by some one of more leisure and information for the task, than myself. This I now send you, as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations & calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public; because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience, which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behoves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behoves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith, which the laws have left between God & himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.
SYLLABUS OF AN ESTIMATE OF THE MERIT OF THE DOCTRINES

OF JESUS, COMPARED WITH THOSE OF OTHERS April, 1803
In a comparative view of the Ethics of the enlightened nations of antiquity, of the Jews and of Jesus, no notice should be taken of the corruptions of reason among the ancients, to wit, the idolatry & superstition of the vulgar, nor of the corruptions of Christianity by the learned among its professors.

Let a just view be taken of the moral principles inculcated by the most esteemed of the sects of ancient philosophy, or of their individuals; particularly Pythagoras, Socrates, Epicurus, Cicero, Epictetus, Seneca, Antoninus.


I. PHILOSOPHERS. 1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves, and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquillity of mind. In this branch of philosophy they were really great.


2. In developing our duties to others, they were short and defective. They embraced, indeed, the circles of kindred & friends, and inculcated patriotism, or the love of our country in the aggregate, as a primary obligation: toward our neighbors & countrymen they taught justice, but scarcely viewed them as within the circle of benevolence. Still less have they inculcated peace, charity & love to our fellow men, or embraced with benevolence the whole family of mankind.


II. JEWS. 1. Their system was Deism; that is, the belief of one only God. But their ideas of him & of his attributes were degrading & injurious.


2. Their Ethics were not only imperfect, but often irreconcilable with the sound dictates of reason & morality, as they respect intercourse with those around us; & repulsive & anti-social, as respecting other nations. They needed reformation, therefore, in an eminent degree.


III. JESUS. In this state of things among the Jews, Jesus appeared. His parentage was obscure; his condition poor; his education null; his natural endowments great; his life correct and innocent: he was meek, benevolent, patient, firm, disinterested, & of the sublimest eloquence.


The disadvantages under which his doctrines appear are remarkable.


1. Like Socrates & Epictetus, he wrote nothing himself.


2. But he had not, like them, a Xenophon or an Arrian to write for him. On the contrary, all the learned of his country, entrenched in its power and riches, were opposed to him, lest his labors should undermine their advantages; and the committing to writing his life & doctrines fell on the most unlettered & ignorant men; who wrote, too, from memory, & not till long after the transactions had passed.


3. According to the ordinary fate of those who attempt to enlighten and reform mankind, he fell an early victim to jealousy & combination of the altar and the throne, at about 33. years of age, his reason having not yet attained the maximum of its energy, nor the course of his preaching, which was but of 3. years at most, presented occasions for developing a complete system of morals.


4. Hence the doctrines which he really delivered were defective as a whole, and fragments only of what he did deliver have come to us mutilated, misstated, & often unintelligible.
5. They have been still more disfigured by the corruptions of schismatising followers, who have found an interest in sophisticating & perverting the simple doctrines he taught by engrafting on them the mysticisms of a Grecian sophist, frittering them into subtleties, & obscuring them with jargon, until they have caused good men to reject the whole in disgust, & to view Jesus himself as an impostor.
Notwithstanding these disadvantages, a system of morals is presented to us, which, if filled up in the true style and spirit of the rich fragments he left us, would be the most perfect and sublime that has ever been taught by man.


The question of his being a member of the Godhead, or in direct communication with it, claimed for him by some of his followers, and denied by others, is foreign to the present view, which is merely an estimate of the intrinsic merit of his doctrines.


1. He corrected the Deism of the Jews, confirming them in their belief of one only God, and giving them juster notions of his attributes and government.
2. His moral doctrines, relating to kindred & friends, were more pure & perfect than those of the most correct of the philosophers, and greatly more so than those of the Jews; and they went far beyond both in inculcating universal philanthropy, not only to kindred and friends, to neighbors and countrymen, but to all mankind, gathering all into one family, under the bonds of love, charity, peace, common wants and common aids. A development of this head will evince the peculiar superiority of the system of Jesus over all others.
3. The precepts of philosophy, & of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions only. He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.

4. He taught, emphatically, the doctrines of a future state, which was either doubted, or disbelieved by the Jews; and wielded it with efficacy, as an important incentive, supplementary to the other motives to moral conduct.

THE MORALS OF JESUS
To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus
Washington, Apr. 21, 1803


DEAR SIR, -- Your favor of December 12 came duly to hand, as did the 2^d. letter to Doctor Linn, and the treatise of Phlogiston, for which I pray you to accept my thanks. The copy for Mr. Livingston has been delivered, together with your letter to him, to Mr. Harvie, my secretary, who departs in a day or two for Paris, & will deliver them himself to Mr. Livingston, whose attention to your matter cannot be doubted. I have also to add my thanks to Mr. Priestley, your son, for the copy of your Harmony, which I have gone through with great satisfaction. It is the first I have been able to meet with, which is clear of those long repetitions of the same transaction, as if it were a different one because related with some different circumstances.

I rejoice that you have undertaken the task of comparing the moral doctrines of Jesus with those of the ancient Philosophers. You are so much in possession of the whole subject, that you will do it easier & better than any other person living. I think you cannot avoid giving, as preliminary to the comparison, a digest of his moral doctrines, extracted in his own words from the Evangelists, and leaving out everything relative to his personal history and character. It would be short and precious. With a view to do this for my own satisfaction, I had sent to Philadelphia to get two testaments Greek of the same edition, & two English, with a design to cut out the morsels of morality, and paste them on the leaves of a book, in the manner you describe as having been pursued in forming your Harmony. But I shall now get the thing done by better hands.




JESUS, LOUISIANA, AND MALTHUS
To Dr. Joseph Priestley
Washington, Jan. 29, 1804





And so endeth the book of Kings, from all of whom the Lord deliver us, and have you, my friend, and all such good men and true, in his holy keeping.




"THE BOOK OF KINGS"
To Governor John Langdon
Monticello, March 5, 1810





It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine.' Enfield, B. 4. chap. 3. It was the reformation of this `wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook. In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to them. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their Logos and Demi-urgos, Aeons and Daemons male and female, with a long train of Etc. Etc. Etc. or, shall I say at once, of Nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the Amphibologisms into which they have been led by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging, the matter which is evidently his, andwhich is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.The result is an 8 vo. of 46. pages of pure and unsophisticated doctrines, such as were professed and acted on by the unlettered apostles, the Apostolic fathers, and the Christians of the
1st. century. Their Platonising successors indeed, in after times, in order to legitimate the corruptions which they had incorporated into the doctrines of Jesus, found it necessary to disavow the primitive Christians, who had taken their principles from the mouth of Jesus himself, of his Apostles, and the Fathers cotemporary with them. They excommunicated their followers as heretics, branding them with the opprobrious name of Ebionites or Beggars.


For a comparison of the Graecian philosophy with that of Jesus, materials might be largely drawn from the same source. Enfield gives a history, and detailed account of the opinions and principles of the different sects. These relate to


the gods, their natures, grades, places and powers;


the demi-gods and daemons, and their agency with man;


the Universe, it's structure, extent, production and duration;


the origin of things from the elements of fire, water, air and earth;


the human soul, it's essence and derivation;


the summum bonum and finis bonorum; with a thousand idle dreams and fancies on these and other subjects the knowledge of which is withheld from man, leaving but a short chapter for his moral duties, and the principal section of that given to what he owes himself, to precepts for rendering him impassible, and unassailable by the evils of life, and for preserving his mind in a state of constant serenity.


Such a canvas is too broad for the age of seventy, and especially of one whose chief occupations have been in the practical business of life. We must leave therefore to others, younger and more learned than we are, to prepare this euthanasia for Platonic Christianity, and it's restoration to the primitive simplicity of it's founder. I think you give a just outline of the theism of the three religions when you say that the principle of the Hebrew was the fear, of the Gentile the honor, and of the Christian the love of God.

THE CODE OF JESUS
To John Adams
Monticello, Oct. 12, 1813




This is just a small part of Jefferson's take on Christianity, and he wasn't even at the Convention anyway, took no part in it. There or the other 225 or so 'Founders' besides him, and the 5,000 or so other important men of those times whose opinions and influences count for a lot more than those three by far, so you morons can babble about cherry picked stuff from Franklin, Jefferson, and re Paine, who wasn't a 'Founder, he held no offices and wasn't elected to anything, his babbling doesn't mean a thing.
.
This is just a small part of Jefferson's take on Christianity, and he wasn't even at the Convention anyway, took no part in it. There or the other 225 or so 'Founders' besides him, and the 5,000 or so other important men of those times whose opinions and influences count for a lot more than those three by far, so you morons can babble about cherry picked stuff from Franklin, Jefferson, and re Paine, who wasn't a 'Founder, he held no offices and wasn't elected to anything, his babbling doesn't mean a thing.
.
but for the last line it was not clear who had written the paragraph ...

the finished document - u s constitution - is the final arbiter for what transpired during those times and say as you please picaro non of your christian religious zealotry was in the least bit included nor your contrived 4th century religious itinerants name ever mentioned.
Yes, we know you've been left with nothing but leg humping snivels for the last few years. Thanks for reminding us.
.
See my last post re Breezewood; you're in the same boat with him now, left with nothing but 'posting last' and leg humping.
.
last what sicko, the last supper they knew better the company they were keeping. slim pickings in the 1st century. worse yet in the 4th.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,229
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 -
.
View attachment 393387
.
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.

You made a claim about today, and for proof you posted a picture from one hundred years ago.


Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.


Are you running away from that idiocy, since I called you on it, or hoping that if you throw enough shit against the wall, like a retarded monkey, that no one will notice how I made a fool of you?


You people are the bigots today and this is all about you wanting to deny Christians the right to participate in the political process by bullying them from the public square, like the marxist thugs you are.
.
Now you just posted a lot of shit there, but in no way did you address the absurdity of your previous supporting evidence, ie the one hundred year old picture, to prove Christians today are bad people.
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 -
.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
View attachment 393678
.
be a while for you to find an example ... christian.

christians have no remorse for their past as they have no remorse - correll

YOu made a claim about Christianity today, and to support it, you posted an ONE HUNDRED YEAR OLD PICTURE.


And you don't see an issue with that?


Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.
.
Support your bullshit complaints about Christianity TODAY, with something from TODAY, you freaking moronic bigot.
there is no reason to believe from your comments you are any different than what has been posted as a reflection of christanity - you fail to respond too. which century has christianity not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent -
.
the maleficence of christianity is rooted in their 4th century christian bible that is what you claim to be your religion it is you who can not abide by your own literature and its recorded history to the present day.
.
View attachment 393775
.
the illustration is a reflection of the christian bible and its aftermath and of those that perpetuate its deception and their use of the crucifixion of an innocent person for their own illicit purposes.

- that this is not a christian nation is directly relevant to the history you deny and do nothing to change.

So, in response to my challenge to back up your complaints about modern day Christians, you first post a phote over a hundred years old, and now, back that up with an even older drawing, from the Dark Ages(?)? What 500 hundred years old? MOre?


You have failed utterly to even TRY to support your claim.

you lose. You know that you are lying when you smear Christianity and yet you do so anyways.


Probably due to being a far lefty ideologue.
.
you lose. You know that you are lying when you smear Christianity and yet you do so anyways.
.
how is recorded history lying, correll -
.
View attachment 393850
.
christianity throughout history has been a religion of persecution and victimization of the innocent to this day - you have provided no rebuttal than your fear of seeing your past or showing any alternative your religion has accomplished.
And that means that Jesus isn't God how?
.
And that means that Jesus isn't God how?
.
they never claimed to be nor were they unfortunately for you being a good person is all that is required.
 

Dale Smith

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages
23,425
Reaction score
8,263
Points
910
Location
Dallas, Texas
If you can gin up some bullshit accusations about different views on history,
it has nothing to do with different views on history.. When you say that America was founded as a Christian Nation you are saying it was founded by Christians and Christians only. Its a lie. It is not true unless you can prove that every single framer of the Constitution was, Protestant with a belief in original sin, the Divinity of Christ, blood salvation, virgin birth, resurrection Etc etc etc.

And if telling the truth is scary I don’t know who you think it’s scaring.

I brought you Reverend Darby who believes all those Jesus things but for some reason he has no need to tell me he believes that America was founded as a Christian nation as you Correll and ding PoliticalChic Picaro do.
The first settlers in America came here to get away from the military arm of the catholic church known as the jesuits. They were certainly Christians that were seeking religious freedom. John Adams and Abraham Lincoln had no use for the pagan religion of catholicism and the jesuits in particular.......you are aware of jesuit influence in this country, no? If not, then you need to STFU.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
70,070
Reaction score
13,918
Points
2,220
No idea, just some weird crap about Freemasons or something he thinks invalidates stuff and makes us an atheist country or something.
America is most certainly a majority Christian country. I Never said it was an atheist country.

The Christian majority is mixed and evenly divided between liberal and conservatives. the other worlds religions including American Jews and non-religious people make up the balance with I believe a majority of that group siding Democrats.

Thats the nation I live in. It is in no way a Christian Nation now and it never was - including when it was founded in the year if our Lord 1789.

So, why so bent out of shape over questions of historical semantics?

That has no impact on modern issues.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List