Evangelicals and Trump

[Andylusion]

The Declaration of Independence says openly "rights endowed by our creator". Th

was Jesus Christ our creator.

We are talking about the specific “founded as a Christian Nation” lie.

why post evidence that has no connection?

Do you still not understand what we are talking about here.

Well I don't know what to say to that, because when the entire basis for forming a new country was that we have rights endowed by our creator, which everyone admits was the Christian G-d.... to me that means our founding core basis for creating this country was the Christian G-d.

So.... I guess we agree to disagree? Because there is no logical answer, to something that sounds illogical. I can't even identify with your thought pattern when people say "We are endowed by our creator" as the basis for independence, and yet say obviously our creator is....... what? The tooth fairy?

What do you think they had in mind, when the smallest number of people were full deists, and most believed in Christianity, and Adams directly says the basis for the country was Christian core principals?

.

Well I don't know what to say to that, because when the entire basis for forming a new country was that we have rights endowed by our creator, which everyone admits was the Christian G-d.... to me that means our founding core basis for creating this country was the Christian G

.
the written document is secular with appeasement for religion without specific references and uses generic creator as the example - you ignore.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

your religion is excluded from the constitution - not your choice of what if any religion you chose to attach yourself to.
.

What do you think they had in mind, when the smallest number of people were full deists, and most believed in Christianity, and Adams directly says the basis for the country was Christian core principals?

.
the document as written is not what any of the politicians may have been "saying" ...

Gouverneur Morris - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Preamble was created at the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787. It was probably written by Governeur Morris, who drafted much of the rest of the Constitution.

At the convention he gave more speeches than any other delegate, a total of 173. As a matter of principle, he often vigorously defended the right of anyone to practice his chosen religion without interference, and he argued to include such language in the Constitution.[13]

Gouverneur Morris - Wikipedia

the written language of the document - is the law. the document - all that matters is everything but an endorsement of any particular religion - and was then and is now a cornerstone of this countries enduring heritage, religious freedom. - - >

- freedom from 4th century christianity recognized at that time and presently as a politically motivated document disguised as a religion without any verifiable evidence for any of its conclusions.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making here. Nothing you said, contradicted anything I said.

In fact, I would agree with all the evidence you cited, just not your conclusion. There is no "freedom from religion" in the constitution, nor did anyone ever make such a statement.

So I'm not sure what point you think you made.

.

There is no "freedom from religion" in the constitution, nor did anyone ever make such a statement.

.
that was morris - the author of the amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...
.
freedom from religion is the very point of the exclusionary clause - the first line of the bill of rights -
.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

.
the second phrase - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - is a statement to allow religion if so desired.

morris deliberately left christianity to its own demise as over time that clearly has been the outcome for those that pretend they were ever in charge of the intent they today simply refuse to comprehend, their exclusion, when confronted with its reality and the clever penmanship of its author.

freedom from religion is the very point of the exclusionary clause

No. Not in the sense that you should be able to stop a pizza shop that doesn't want to cater a gay wedding, because you have 'freedom from religion', no. That's wrong.

I can't force you to pray. Well... that's not a big deal. Jesus himself, never tried to force anyone to do anything.

So, that's a Christian virtue. I consider the lack of trying to force people to abide by a standard of religion, to be part of those core christian values that was used in founding of the country.

But that is not the same at all, to saying you have a freedom from religion.

The idea that you have a right to a freedom from religion, meaning you can demand students not pray in school.... no. There is no such right. You are just wrong. And if that is what Morris meant, then he is wrong as well.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Post #962 reply to # 859

No I think he was specifically referring to Christian Values, because he specifically referred to Christian values.

The question was “Do you agree he said both?”

“And what were these general principles? I answer, the principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence.”

That is a direct quote. I see two distinct and separate General Principles

(1) the principles of Christianity
(2) the general principles of English and American liberty

I see two. How many do you see.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

# reply to #

Honestly, I really don't understand what counter argument you are trying to make. Can you clarify a bit more?

The major counter arguments are all based on the necessary opposition to present day white Christian nationalist demands that we identify our nation as one that was founded as a Christian Nation based on these points;

• no need or majority demand to identify the founding of the nation by its Perceived dominant religion at the time of its founding. what for?
• “founded as a Christian Nation” fails to endorse and celebrate the amazing cultural significance of the convergence of European Enlightenment philosophy / rational religions/ Christianity / and putting the ideal of self government into action.

So here’s some of the case for recognizing the cultural significance of the other than Christian religious input into the founding of America.

Founded as a multicultural nation - #35 reply to #39

Can you show me a similar example of the so called deism culture?

yes. The Declaration of Independence with ‘ Nature’s God’ referenced.

The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

Allen, Ethan. Reason, the Only Oracle of Man: Or, A Compenduous System of Natural Religion Boston: JP Mendum, 1854. A book by Ethan Allen

“While Christians and Enlightenment philosophers each had faith, the nature of their respective faiths differed. Christians emphasized faith in Scripture while philosophes put their faith in science, nature’s God, and secular progress (natural theologians bridged the gap between them). “
7 Enlightenment & Great Awakening | History Hub

Enlightenment Religion

“But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence), Paine declared in a “profession of faith”:”

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

Thus, Deism inevitably subverted orthodox Christianity. Persons influenced by the movement had little reason to read the Bible, to pray, to attend church, or to participate in such rites as baptism, Holy Communion, and the laying on of hands (confirmation) by bishops. With the notable exceptions of Abigail Adams and Dolley Madison, Deism seems to have had little effect on women. For example, Martha Washington, the daughters of Thomas Jefferson, and Elizabeth Kortright Monroe and her daughters seem to have held orthodox Christian beliefs.

But Deistic thought was immensely popular in colleges from the middle of the 18th into the 19th century. Thus, it influenced many educated (as well as uneducated) males of the Revolutionary generation. Although such men would generally continue their public affiliation with Christianity after college, they might inwardly hold unorthodox religious views. Depending on the extent to which Americans of Christian background were influenced by Deism, their religious beliefs would fall into three categories: non-Christian Deism, Christian Deism, and orthodox Christianity.

I’ll add Honest Abe for good measure:

UPDATED: JUL 8, 2019 | ORIGINAL: JUN 24, 2019

Was Abraham Lincoln an Atheist?

As a young man, Lincoln openly admitted to his lack of faith. As a politician, he spoke about God but refused to say he was a Christian.

Many think President Lincoln was a Deist. I accept that rather than Atheist.
#35 reply to #30

 

[Andylusion]

Honestly, I really don't understand what counter argument you are trying to make. Can you clarify a bit more?

The major counter arguments are all based on the necessary opposition to present day white Christian nationalist demands that we identify our nation as one that was founded as a Christian Nation based on these points;

• no need or majority demand to identify the founding of the nation by its Perceived dominant religion at the time of its founding. what for?
• “founded as a Christian Nation” fails to endorse and celebrate the amazing cultural significance of the convergence of European Enlightenment philosophy / rational religions/ Christianity / and putting the ideal of self government into action.

So here’s some of the case for recognizing the cultural significance of the other than Christian religious input into the founding of America.

Founded as a multicultural nation - #35 reply to #39

Can you show me a similar example of the so called deism culture?

yes. The Declaration of Independence with ‘ Nature’s God’ referenced.

The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

Allen, Ethan. Reason, the Only Oracle of Man: Or, A Compenduous System of Natural Religion Boston: JP Mendum, 1854. A book by Ethan Allen

“While Christians and Enlightenment philosophers each had faith, the nature of their respective faiths differed. Christians emphasized faith in Scripture while philosophes put their faith in science, nature’s God, and secular progress (natural theologians bridged the gap between them). “
7 Enlightenment & Great Awakening | History Hub

Enlightenment Religion

“But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence), Paine declared in a “profession of faith”:”

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

Thus, Deism inevitably subverted orthodox Christianity. Persons influenced by the movement had little reason to read the Bible, to pray, to attend church, or to participate in such rites as baptism, Holy Communion, and the laying on of hands (confirmation) by bishops. With the notable exceptions of Abigail Adams and Dolley Madison, Deism seems to have had little effect on women. For example, Martha Washington, the daughters of Thomas Jefferson, and Elizabeth Kortright Monroe and her daughters seem to have held orthodox Christian beliefs.

But Deistic thought was immensely popular in colleges from the middle of the 18th into the 19th century. Thus, it influenced many educated (as well as uneducated) males of the Revolutionary generation. Although such men would generally continue their public affiliation with Christianity after college, they might inwardly hold unorthodox religious views. Depending on the extent to which Americans of Christian background were influenced by Deism, their religious beliefs would fall into three categories: non-Christian Deism, Christian Deism, and orthodox Christianity.

I’ll add Honest Abe for good measure:

UPDATED: JUL 8, 2019 | ORIGINAL: JUN 24, 2019

Was Abraham Lincoln an Atheist?

As a young man, Lincoln openly admitted to his lack of faith. As a politician, he spoke about God but refused to say he was a Christian.

Many think President Lincoln was a Deist. I accept that rather than Atheist.

• #35 reply to #30

[/QUOTE]

So this is helpful, because I thought you were even considering the proofs that I have provided, and now I know that you are not. That's helpful in avoiding wasted time with you.

demand to identify the founding of the nation by its Perceived dominant religion at the time of its founding. what for?
“founded as a Christian Nation” fails to endorse and celebrate the amazing cultural significance of the convergence of European Enlightenment philosophy / rational religions/ Christianity / and putting the ideal of self government into action.

First, "What for?" doesn't matter. You seem to be opposing this for no other logical reason, than you have an issue with white nationalists.

If Stalin said it was raining outside, and it was in fact raining outside, I wouldn't argue against him simply because I don't like Stalin.

This nation simply was founded on Christian ideals and principals. I've outlined this numerous times.

So at this point in the conversation, I'm not going to argue with you about it, because I have posted more than a few clear defining texts to support my position, and I don't need to fight a battle I already won.

You disagree, that's fine. You have the right to be wrong.

Second, as I've already pointed out numerous times, Deism was in fact very compatible with Christian belief, and every single Deist I am aware of, had Christian values. Thomas Jefferson was widely known as the most strident supporter of Deism, and he believed in God, he believed in Jesus, he believed in many of the ideas of Christianity, as I have already posted.

Again... not going to argue with you about this anymore. I've already proven my case, and you haven't made a good counter to it yet. You disagree... that's fine... you have the right to be wrong.

Third, just because you don't know where someone was in their heart, as it relates to Christianity, doesn't mean they were not Christian.

For example Lincoln. I would wager if you traveled the entire world, you would never find a single Christian anywhere, that didn't question their faith.

In fact, if you know anything about the Bible, you should have know the story of the Apostle John
John 18:15-27

Then the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this Man’s disciples, are you?"

He said, “I am not.”

Now Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Therefore they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?”

He denied it and said, “I am not!”

One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” Peter then denied again; and immediately a rooster crowed.

Very famous passage of scripture about how easy it is to deny your own faith.

I've done it. Most people have. And not every Christian goes around saying "I'm a Christian! Look at me!".

So pointing to some example of Lincoln's youth, and then saying well he didn't walk around bashing people over the head with a 30 lbs Bible... so he must have been a Deist or Atheist!

You don't know that. That's your opinion, and it might be right or wrong, I don't know.. but don't sit there like you yourself are 'god' and can know the hearts of men dead in 1865, or any other founder. You can make observations, but you don't know.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#965 reply to #964 AndyAndy has reached the ‘runs away when confronted - declares victory” stage:

This will be fun since AndyAndy has provided so much false and unreasonable material.


Post #962

(1) the principles of Christianity
(2) the general principles of English and American liberty

I see two. How many do you see.

#965 reply to #964

QUOTE]So this is helpful, because I thought you were even considering the proofs that I have provided, and now I know that you are not. That's helpful in avoiding wasted time with you.

It’s on the record that when Andylusion posts PROOFS that are PROVEN lies that are easily challenged like needing to be able to count beyond two.

#965 reply to #964 Andy only reads the first and that “proofs” John Adams was a Christian and meant to found a Christian NATION based upon principles of Christianity that include atheists.

(1) the principles of Christianity
(2) the general principles of English and American liberty

When in fact, John Adams, In his actual words that AndyAndy quoted, includes his very own expressed determination that Americans who believe there is no God at all (ATHEISTS ATHEISTS .ATHEISTS and more ATHEISTS) Shared what our second President calls (1) the principles of Christianity and (2) the general principles of English and American liberty

#965 reply to #964 Now that AndyAndy has clearly endorsed the concept that all atheists are united with Christians under (1) the principles of Christianity and (2) the general principles of English and American liberty and therefore are welcome and included in the 21st Century sin and salvation Christian Nation that white evangelical Christians seek to impose on atheists then AndyAndy must agree that America was founded as an Atheist and Christian (A comes before C) Nation do there is no issue . President John Adams settee it. Christians and Atheists were united and equally important in founding Athiest/Christian America and all law abiding believers in between.

JOHN ADAMS full list of followers and believers in (1) the principles of Christianity and (2) the general principles of English and American liberty

“There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants “qui ne croyent rien. “

That last one is very interesting when translated as “Protestants who believe in nothing”

 

[Correll]

#951 reply to #948

What do you want TODAY, that you can't have, if we are a Christian Nation?

There is no “if” about it. Your own argument relies on generalizing Christianity to a meaningless impotent ceremonial FLaggy Wavvy term sought by less than one in five Americans who find it necessary to revise history, lie about the founding fathers intent, in order to attach their sectarian religious identity to an entire national identity. For what reason? you tell me.

What do you want TODAY, that you can't have, if we are the ‘freedom to worship’ and ‘freedom of conscience’ Nation that the founders actually created and embedded in our Constitution?

You are the Crusader here. I’m just posting the case that your crusade is based on lies like the one about John Adams that Andylusion just posted last night.

1. YOU are the one that brought this point up and is dogging it like your life depends on it, NOt.

2. You want to ask me ANOTHER question, while you refuse to answer mine, even though I answered your first one without hesitation? SUre.

3. What I want is equality. Specifically in the context of this thread, I want Evangelical Christians to be able to politically support a candidate who is not an Evangelical Christian without people like you ginning it up into a fake scandal and using it as a basis of anti-Christian bigotry.

4. My question to you stands. What do YOU want, that you cannot have, if this is a Christian Nation?

 

[Correll]

.

Well I don't know what to say to that, because when the entire basis for forming a new country was that we have rights endowed by our creator, which everyone admits was the Christian G-d.... to me that means our founding core basis for creating this country was the Christian G

.
the written document is secular with appeasement for religion without specific references and uses generic creator as the example - you ignore.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

your religion is excluded from the constitution - not your choice of what if any religion you chose to attach yourself to.
.
....

An established church is a very specific institution.

A ban on that,, does NOTHING to counter Andy's point about Christian principles being the basis for our country.


That you would claim it does, is you being either incredibly stupid, or incredibly dishonest.


Which is it?

.

An established church is a very specific institution.

A ban on that,, does NOTHING to counter Andy's point about Christian principles being the basis for our country.

That you would claim it does, is you being either incredibly stupid, or incredibly dishonest.


Which is it?

.
that is why -
.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...
.
excludes christianity from the u s constitution - no principles apply to the secular document of any religious orientation.

this was never a 4th century christian nation, christian bible - at best the document reflects the events of the 1st century and liberation theology.


go confess your sins corel - dishonesty also is excluded from the u s constitution.

Your post is structured as though your later words support your conclusion.


But they do not.


The ban of an Established Religion, in no way means that Christian Principles were not "applied" to the Constitution.


YOu are a liar and a retard.

 

[Correll]

The details don't matter.

To you for sure. In your case I see scarce evidence that truth itself matters. Another word for that is Trumpism. LIES TRUMP TRUTH. Want to buy a bumper sticker?

Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand how the concept of General Statements works, is not credible.


You are being dishonest to try to provide an excuse for your anti-Christian bigotry.

 

[ding]

# reply to #

Honestly, I really don't understand what counter argument you are trying to make. Can you clarify a bit more?

The major counter arguments are all based on the necessary opposition to present day white Christian nationalist demands that we identify our nation as one that was founded as a Christian Nation based on these points;

• no need or majority demand to identify the founding of the nation by its Perceived dominant religion at the time of its founding. what for?
• “founded as a Christian Nation” fails to endorse and celebrate the amazing cultural significance of the convergence of European Enlightenment philosophy / rational religions/ Christianity / and putting the ideal of self government into action.

So here’s some of the case for recognizing the cultural significance of the other than Christian religious input into the founding of America.

Founded as a multicultural nation - #35 reply to #39

Can you show me a similar example of the so called deism culture?

yes. The Declaration of Independence with ‘ Nature’s God’ referenced.

The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.

Allen, Ethan. Reason, the Only Oracle of Man: Or, A Compenduous System of Natural Religion Boston: JP Mendum, 1854. A book by Ethan Allen

“While Christians and Enlightenment philosophers each had faith, the nature of their respective faiths differed. Christians emphasized faith in Scripture while philosophes put their faith in science, nature’s God, and secular progress (natural theologians bridged the gap between them). “
7 Enlightenment & Great Awakening | History Hub

Enlightenment Religion

“But the widespread existence in 18th-century America of a school of religious thought called Deism complicates the actual beliefs of the Founders. Drawing from the scientific and philosophical work of such figures as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Isaac Newton, and John Locke, Deists argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. In his widely read The Age of Reason, Thomas Paine, the principal American exponent of Deism, called Christianity “a fable.” Paine, the protégé of Benjamin Franklin, denied “that the Almighty ever did communicate anything to man, by…speech,…language, or…vision.” Postulating a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence), Paine declared in a “profession of faith”:”

“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and in endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

Thus, Deism inevitably subverted orthodox Christianity. Persons influenced by the movement had little reason to read the Bible, to pray, to attend church, or to participate in such rites as baptism, Holy Communion, and the laying on of hands (confirmation) by bishops. With the notable exceptions of Abigail Adams and Dolley Madison, Deism seems to have had little effect on women. For example, Martha Washington, the daughters of Thomas Jefferson, and Elizabeth Kortright Monroe and her daughters seem to have held orthodox Christian beliefs.

But Deistic thought was immensely popular in colleges from the middle of the 18th into the 19th century. Thus, it influenced many educated (as well as uneducated) males of the Revolutionary generation. Although such men would generally continue their public affiliation with Christianity after college, they might inwardly hold unorthodox religious views. Depending on the extent to which Americans of Christian background were influenced by Deism, their religious beliefs would fall into three categories: non-Christian Deism, Christian Deism, and orthodox Christianity.

I’ll add Honest Abe for good measure:

UPDATED: JUL 8, 2019 | ORIGINAL: JUN 24, 2019

Was Abraham Lincoln an Atheist?

As a young man, Lincoln openly admitted to his lack of faith. As a politician, he spoke about God but refused to say he was a Christian.

Many think President Lincoln was a Deist. I accept that rather than Atheist.
#35 reply to #30

You can't define the rule by exception. America was overwhelmingly Christian.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand how the concept of General Statements works, is not credible.

I understand that you are a devout white Christian nationalist crusader and cannot rely on hard precise facts and reason to spread religious propaganda so you must speak in the tongue of vapid generalization.

The only Christians I have issues with are lie spreaders like you. All the rest are wonderful Americans doing their part in making America great and inclusive regardless of belief as guaranteed in our Constitution. Where there is no asterisk in the language adding “Founded as a Christian Nation” to the religious freedom that Americans were the first to enjoy..

You can’t force your desire for Christian dominance on anyone outside of Christian belief and I realize that keeos you frustrated and Angry.. And now that your cult master is unraveling before your eyes and white evangelical Christian nationalists are in insufficient numbers to save him you are angry as hell and probably can’t take it anymore.

so take it out on me and my rational religion all you want. Hope it makes you feel better with your upcoming loss.

 

[Correll]

Your pretense that you are too stupid to understand how the concept of General Statements works, is not credible.

I understand that you are a devout white Christian nationalist crusader and cannot rely on hard precise facts and reason to spread religious propaganda so you must speak in the tongue of vapid generalization.

The only Christians I have issues with are lie spreaders like you. All the rest are wonderful Americans doing their part in making America great and inclusive regardless of belief as guaranteed in our Constitution. Where there is no asterisk in the language adding “Founded as a Christian Nation” to the religious freedom that Americans were the first to enjoy..

You can’t force your desire for Christian dominance on anyone outside of Christian belief and I realize that keeos you frustrated and Angry.. And now that your cult master is unraveling before your eyes and white evangelical Christian nationalists are in insufficient numbers to save him you are angry as hell and probably can’t take it anymore.

so take it out on me and my rational religion all you want. Hope it makes you feel better with your upcoming loss.

Christian dominance? LOL!! What bullshit.

I ask again, what do you want today, that you cannot have, if we are a Christian Nation?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The ban of an Established Religion, in no way means that Christian Principles were not "applied" to the Constitution.

Do you beleve with John Adams that atheists are included In his concept of those holding Christian principles that identify America as a Christian NATION?

 

[Correll]

The ban of an Established Religion, in no way means that Christian Principles were not "applied" to the Constitution.

Do you beleve with John Adams that atheists are included In his concept of those holding Christian principles that identify America as a Christian NATION?

I haven't given it much thought.

That is his take on it, and I can see and respect his argument.

MY position, as you well know, because I have repeatedly explained it to you, is not based on that.


Both actually are strong arguments to the idea that this nation was Founded as a Christian Nation and remains so.


Are you going to pretend to not know what my argument is, after a solid month in this thread, discussing it?

 

[ding]

The ban of an Established Religion, in no way means that Christian Principles were not "applied" to the Constitution.

Do you beleve with John Adams that atheists are included In his concept of those holding Christian principles that identify America as a Christian NATION?

I haven't given it much thought.

That is his take on it, and I can see and respect his argument.

MY position, as you well know, because I have repeatedly explained it to you, is not based on that.


Both actually are strong arguments to the idea that this nation was Founded as a Christian Nation and remains so.


Are you going to pretend to not know what my argument is, after a solid month in this thread, discussing it?

Yes, and W will make a ridiculous thread to boot.

 

[BreezeWood]

The Declaration of Independence says openly "rights endowed by our creator". Th

was Jesus Christ our creator.

We are talking about the specific “founded as a Christian Nation” lie.

why post evidence that has no connection?

Do you still not understand what we are talking about here.

Well I don't know what to say to that, because when the entire basis for forming a new country was that we have rights endowed by our creator, which everyone admits was the Christian G-d.... to me that means our founding core basis for creating this country was the Christian G-d.

So.... I guess we agree to disagree? Because there is no logical answer, to something that sounds illogical. I can't even identify with your thought pattern when people say "We are endowed by our creator" as the basis for independence, and yet say obviously our creator is....... what? The tooth fairy?

What do you think they had in mind, when the smallest number of people were full deists, and most believed in Christianity, and Adams directly says the basis for the country was Christian core principals?

.

Well I don't know what to say to that, because when the entire basis for forming a new country was that we have rights endowed by our creator, which everyone admits was the Christian G-d.... to me that means our founding core basis for creating this country was the Christian G

.
the written document is secular with appeasement for religion without specific references and uses generic creator as the example - you ignore.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

your religion is excluded from the constitution - not your choice of what if any religion you chose to attach yourself to.
.

What do you think they had in mind, when the smallest number of people were full deists, and most believed in Christianity, and Adams directly says the basis for the country was Christian core principals?

.
the document as written is not what any of the politicians may have been "saying" ...

Gouverneur Morris - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Preamble was created at the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787. It was probably written by Governeur Morris, who drafted much of the rest of the Constitution.

At the convention he gave more speeches than any other delegate, a total of 173. As a matter of principle, he often vigorously defended the right of anyone to practice his chosen religion without interference, and he argued to include such language in the Constitution.[13]

Gouverneur Morris - Wikipedia

the written language of the document - is the law. the document - all that matters is everything but an endorsement of any particular religion - and was then and is now a cornerstone of this countries enduring heritage, religious freedom. - - >

- freedom from 4th century christianity recognized at that time and presently as a politically motivated document disguised as a religion without any verifiable evidence for any of its conclusions.

I'm not sure what point you think you are making here. Nothing you said, contradicted anything I said.

In fact, I would agree with all the evidence you cited, just not your conclusion. There is no "freedom from religion" in the constitution, nor did anyone ever make such a statement.

So I'm not sure what point you think you made.

.

There is no "freedom from religion" in the constitution, nor did anyone ever make such a statement.

.
that was morris - the author of the amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...
.
freedom from religion is the very point of the exclusionary clause - the first line of the bill of rights -
.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

.
the second phrase - "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - is a statement to allow religion if so desired.

morris deliberately left christianity to its own demise as over time that clearly has been the outcome for those that pretend they were ever in charge of the intent they today simply refuse to comprehend, their exclusion, when confronted with its reality and the clever penmanship of its author.

freedom from religion is the very point of the exclusionary clause

No. Not in the sense that you should be able to stop a pizza shop that doesn't want to cater a gay wedding, because you have 'freedom from religion', no. That's wrong.

I can't force you to pray. Well... that's not a big deal. Jesus himself, never tried to force anyone to do anything.

So, that's a Christian virtue. I consider the lack of trying to force people to abide by a standard of religion, to be part of those core christian values that was used in founding of the country.

But that is not the same at all, to saying you have a freedom from religion.

The idea that you have a right to a freedom from religion, meaning you can demand students not pray in school.... no. There is no such right. You are just wrong. And if that is what Morris meant, then he is wrong as well.

.

The idea that you have a right to a freedom from religion, meaning you can demand students not pray in school.... no. There is no such right. You are just wrong. And if that is what Morris meant, then he is wrong as well.

.
everything in your post that I have made any such conclusions in this thread is nefarious at best.

they can pray if that is what they want to do it just can not be instructed by the public institution is the bedrock law of the land per the exclusionary rule of the 1st amendment. that is the law.

yes, that is what morris meant - you were left out of the u s constitution for a purpose whether you like it or not. and for good reason.

- the secularist prevailed. this is not a christian nation nor any other sectarian entity is the very bedrock foundation the constitution was finalized in writing as the law of the land.

 

[Andylusion]

#965 reply to #964 AndyAndy has reached the ‘runs away when confronted - declares victory” stage:

This will be fun since AndyAndy has provided so much false and unreasonable material.


Post #962

(1) the principles of Christianity
(2) the general principles of English and American liberty

I see two. How many do you see.

#965 reply to #964

QUOTE]So this is helpful, because I thought you were even considering the proofs that I have provided, and now I know that you are not. That's helpful in avoiding wasted time with you.

It’s on the record that when Andylusion posts PROOFS that are PROVEN lies that are easily challenged like needing to be able to count beyond two.

#965 reply to #964 Andy only reads the first and that “proofs” John Adams was a Christian and meant to found a Christian NATION based upon principles of Christianity that include atheists.

(1) the principles of Christianity
(2) the general principles of English and American liberty

When in fact, John Adams, In his actual words that AndyAndy quoted, includes his very own expressed determination that Americans who believe there is no God at all (ATHEISTS ATHEISTS .ATHEISTS and more ATHEISTS) Shared what our second President calls (1) the principles of Christianity and (2) the general principles of English and American liberty

#965 reply to #964 Now that AndyAndy has clearly endorsed the concept that all atheists are united with Christians under (1) the principles of Christianity and (2) the general principles of English and American liberty and therefore are welcome and included in the 21st Century sin and salvation Christian Nation that white evangelical Christians seek to impose on atheists then AndyAndy must agree that America was founded as an Atheist and Christian (A comes before C) Nation do there is no issue . President John Adams settee it. Christians and Atheists were united and equally important in founding Athiest/Christian America and all law abiding believers in between.

JOHN ADAMS full list of followers and believers in (1) the principles of Christianity and (2) the general principles of English and American liberty

“There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants “qui ne croyent rien. “

That last one is very interesting when translated as “Protestants who believe in nothing”

Yeah, ok so you are done here. Thanks, but I don't need to prove claims I already proved. You have nothing new to add to the conversation, so I'll be moving on.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

#977 reply to #976

You have nothing new to add to the conversation, so I'll be moving on.

The truth is you had to move on when it was proven that you apparently cannot count past one or read contextually any material that you and I post in any objective, honest and reasonable manner.

E&T#962.1

That is a direct quote. I see two distinct and separate General Principles

(1) the principles of Christianity
(2) the general principles of English and American liberty

I see two. How many do you see.

Your repeated reply was “one”. because you need to distort John Adam’s into an example for your argument (proofs) having converted a Unitarian/Deist, and absolute unbeliever in the divinity of Christ, and one who openly rejected sin and salvation, into something akin to a typical 21st Century sin & salvation Christian who wants America’s religious identity to be Christian and only Christian.

It is obvious that as a 21st Century sin & salvation Christian nationalist crusader you are too biased to objectively read the full context and meaning of the John Adams letter that you chose to post as “proof” that Adams was an active participant of the a 18th Century sin & salvation white Christian dominant majority that founded America “to be and recognized for the ages as a Christian Nation.

 

[Andylusion]

#977 reply to #

You have nothing new to add to the conversation, so I'll be moving on.

The truth is you had to move on when it was proven that you apparently cannot count past one or read contextually any material that you and I post in any objective, honest and reasonable manner.

E&T#962.1

That is a direct quote. I see two distinct and separate General Principles

(1) the principles of Christianity
(2) the general principles of English and American liberty

I see two. How many do you see.

Your repeated reply was “one”. because you need to distort John Adam’s into a solid argument having converted a Unitarian/Deist, and absolute unbeliever in the divinity of Christ, and one who openly rejected sin and salvation Christianity, into a Christian something akin to a typical 21st Century sin & salvation Christian who wants America’s religious identity to be Christian and only Christian.

It is obvious that as a 21st Century sin & salvation Christian nationalist crusader you are too biased to objectively read the full context and meaning of the John Adams letter that you chose to post as “proof” that Adams was an active participant of the a 18th Century sin & salvation white Christian dominant majority that founded America “to be and as a Christian Nation.

Thanks, we've talked about this. I made my case multiple times with clear evidence, and you did not.

So, thanks for stopping by. You are in fact finished here, whether you realize it or not.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Trump has shown some amazing things about religion in America and particularly Evangelicals when it comes to political power. You would think Trump Christ-like. But I fail to remember Christ being in favor of caging children or breaking up families. Did I miss that? Two pieces below help, it isn't about being religious, is it? What then of religion? Has it lost its holiness, its goodness.

'How the evangelical movement became Trump's "bitch" — and yes, I know what that word signifies'

'As an evangelical myself, I can see how far the movement has sunk — even to betraying its own ideal of masculinity'

How evangelicals became Trump's b**ch â in the ugliest sense

As an evangelical myself, I can see how far the movement has sunk — even to betraying its own ideal of masculinity

www.salon.com

"His most notable advice for interacting with half the human population is "grab 'em by the pussy". Who could have predicted such an alliance?"

Climate too. Why not pray away hurricanes floods and fires, poverty too while they are at it. Interesting how the mixture of politics and religion accomplishes so little good.

'Faith and politics mix to drive evangelical Christians’ climate change denial'

Faith and politics mix to drive evangelical Christians’ climate change denial

Few white evangelicals in the U.S. say they believe in human-made climate change. This strand of science denial seems to have as much to do with conservative politics as the Bible’s teachings.

theconversation.com

'Climate science denial may stem more from politics than religion'

'Social scientist Dan Kahan rejects the idea of an automatic link between religiosity and any anti-science bias. He argues that religiosity only incidentally tracks science denial because some scientific findings have become “culturally antagonistic” to some identity groups.'


"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24

Christ was the God of the Old Testament.

Seems to me I recall hearing about how he wiped almost the entire earth, men, women, children.

You were saying ?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

E&T#980 reply to #969 overwhelmingly Christian

America was overwhelmingly Christian.

Were Colonial “Christians” tolerant or intolerant at that time?

Can you make a case that prior to The United States coming into being the differing sects of Christianity populating the colonies at that time were tolerant and charitable to each other and equally tolerant to all other non/Christian religions, atheists and native Americans also being counted in the population?