YES, America CERTAINLY WAS FOUNDED as a CHRISTIAN NATION...

[Hollie]

your insistence that "lord", a simple closing salutation, had some relevance to the founding principle of the constitution which of course is not the case.

You were humiliated at being scolded for such a nonsensical claim and you have been trying to cover your tracks ever since.

Seriously, Ragged Crutch? Please go back and find a specific post where I made this or anything close to this claim.

Ah. A name-caller. That adds the bit of credibility your posts, up to now, have been missing.

 

[UltimateReality]

your insistence that "lord", a simple closing salutation, had some relevance to the founding principle of the constitution which of course is not the case.

You were humiliated at being scolded for such a nonsensical claim and you have been trying to cover your tracks ever since.

Seriously, Ragged Crutch? Please go back and find a specific post where I made this or anything close to this claim.

Ah. A name-caller. That adds the bit of credibility your posts, up to now, have been missing.

And so it begins for the 100th time. You will continue to ignore my request to prove I said what you are claiming until everyone forgets your lie and moves on to something else. So typical of you.

 

[Hollie]

Seriously, Ragged Crutch? Please go back and find a specific post where I made this or anything close to this claim.

Ah. A name-caller. That adds the bit of credibility your posts, up to now, have been missing.

And so it begins for the 100th time. You will continue to ignore my request to prove I said what you are claiming until everyone forgets your lie and moves on to something else. So typical of you.

Oh you poor dear. You're upset that "lord" appearing as salutation is not what you hoped it meant.

Stop whining... for the 100th time.

 

[UltimateReality]

Ah. A name-caller. That adds the bit of credibility your posts, up to now, have been missing.

And so it begins for the 100th time. You will continue to ignore my request to prove I said what you are claiming until everyone forgets your lie and moves on to something else. So typical of you.

Oh you poor dear. You're upset that "lord" appearing as salutation is not what you hoped it meant.

Stop whining... for the 100th time.

101st dodge and counting.

 

[Hollie]

And so it begins for the 100th time. You will continue to ignore my request to prove I said what you are claiming until everyone forgets your lie and moves on to something else. So typical of you.

Oh you poor dear. You're upset that "lord" appearing as salutation is not what you hoped it meant.

Stop whining... for the 100th time.

101st dodge and counting.

Keep counting. In the context of the posts, I maintained that there was no reference to a Christian deity in the constitution. That context surrounded the intent of the FF's and their purpose in maintaining a framework of governance free of religious test.

If you take issue with the intent of the constitution, go whine somewhere else.

 

[bodecea]

Is it just me, or has anyone noticed that JakeStarkey, super soldier and wealthy business man extraordinaire, isn't allowed to play on the internet at his 9 to 5 job at Home Depot?

What is YOUR problem? Seriously.

Seriously? Seriously. I don't have a problem. I thought getting together with a bunch of strangers whom you have no relationship with, and arguing about super sensitive topics like politics and religion, all the while saying things you would never say in person due to your internet anonymity, was supposed to be a form of entertainment.

It's not like anyone here is going to change their viewpoint, regardless of what truths are presented. What's your take?

Ah...so it's all entertainment to you. "Regardless of what truths". Ok, so now I know what area of the stratosphere you are coming from. Carry on.

 

[UltimateReality]

oh you poor dear. You're upset that "lord" appearing as salutation is not what you hoped it meant.

Stop whining... For the 100th time.

101st dodge and counting.

keep counting. In the context of the posts, i maintained that there was no reference to a christian deity in the constitution. That context surrounded the intent of the ff's and their purpose in maintaining a framework of governance free of religious test.

If you take issue with the intent of the constitution, go whine somewhere else.

102.

 

[UltimateReality]

What is YOUR problem? Seriously.

Seriously? Seriously. I don't have a problem. I thought getting together with a bunch of strangers whom you have no relationship with, and arguing about super sensitive topics like politics and religion, all the while saying things you would never say in person due to your internet anonymity, was supposed to be a form of entertainment.

It's not like anyone here is going to change their viewpoint, regardless of what truths are presented. What's your take?

Ah...so it's all entertainment to you. "Regardless of what truths". Ok, so now I know what area of the stratosphere you are coming from. Carry on.

Did you catch that subtlety? I was referring to all the truth I'm laying down.

By the way, what is it for you? Have you changed your mind about anything since you have been frequenting here??

 

[Hollie]

101st dodge and counting.

keep counting. In the context of the posts, i maintained that there was no reference to a christian deity in the constitution. That context surrounded the intent of the ff's and their purpose in maintaining a framework of governance free of religious test.

If you take issue with the intent of the constitution, go whine somewhere else.

102.

I thought the above would send you scurrying for the exits.

 

[UltimateReality]

keep counting. In the context of the posts, i maintained that there was no reference to a christian deity in the constitution. That context surrounded the intent of the ff's and their purpose in maintaining a framework of governance free of religious test.

If you take issue with the intent of the constitution, go whine somewhere else.

102.

I thought the above would send you scurrying for the exits.

103. Still waiting for you to provide the post number where I said the things you claim I said.

 

[Hollie]

102.

I thought the above would send you scurrying for the exits.

103. Still waiting for you to provide the post number where I said the things you claim I said.

Why don't you provide a summary of your complaints.

 

[UltimateReality]

I thought the above would send you scurrying for the exits.

103. Still waiting for you to provide the post number where I said the things you claim I said.

Why don't you provide a summary of your complaints.

Dodge 104. Don't look now, but your Strawman is growing ragged. Perhaps he needs a crutch.

 

[Hollie]

103. Still waiting for you to provide the post number where I said the things you claim I said.

Why don't you provide a summary of your complaints.

Dodge 104. Don't look now, but your Strawman is growing ragged. Perhaps he needs a crutch.

That's typical. When your argument comes crumbling down, your tactic of last resort is name-calling.

 

[UltimateReality]

why don't you provide a summary of your complaints.

dodge 104. Don't look now, but your strawman is growing ragged. Perhaps he needs a crutch.

that's typical. When your argument comes crumbling down, your tactic of last resort is name-calling.

105

 

[Uncensored2008]

Boring thread is boring.

 

[logical4u]

A list was already posted in thid thread.

You mean all two of them?

No, dear. I mean all those signers of the constitution who rejected religious (christian) totalitarianism as a part of the formulation of the constitution.

It was these gods fearing Christians with enough wisdom to understand that religion and totalitarianism are inseparable. The framers of the constitution had direct experience with the conditions in the original 13 colonies wherein the various sects, subsects and subdivisions of Christianity were at odds with one-another. In many respects, the original colonialists were models of Christian hate, intolerance and religious divisions.

For that matter, to broadly define the signers of the constitution as Christian is a rather sweeping generalization. They would be better served by defining their specific version of Christianity as the sects, subsects and subdivisions of that religion are still at odds with one-another.

The framers of the constitution knew all too well the totalitarian nature of Christianity (and of all religions), which is why they specifically designed a constitution that forbid the government from endorsing or favoring any one religion and more importantly, required the government to be removed from decision making in ones personal choice of religion or no religion.

You guys are sounding like your "dear leader": "you didn't build that" (the Christians), "someone else built that for you" (yet there were not people around that were not Christians).

 

[Hollie]

Boring thread is boring.

You do get to see ultimate reality stutter and mumble his way into oblivion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I see UR is ad homming again, after condeming others for supposedly doing it.

He is fail on the OP, and he condemns what he himself does.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hollie pins logical4u's ears back, so logical whines.

Grow up, logical. You are not a 4th grade girl in a playground fight.

You mean all two of them?

No, dear. I mean all those signers of the constitution who rejected religious (christian) totalitarianism as a part of the formulation of the constitution.

It was these gods fearing Christians with enough wisdom to understand that religion and totalitarianism are inseparable. The framers of the constitution had direct experience with the conditions in the original 13 colonies wherein the various sects, subsects and subdivisions of Christianity were at odds with one-another. In many respects, the original colonialists were models of Christian hate, intolerance and religious divisions.

For that matter, to broadly define the signers of the constitution as Christian is a rather sweeping generalization. They would be better served by defining their specific version of Christianity as the sects, subsects and subdivisions of that religion are still at odds with one-another.

The framers of the constitution knew all too well the totalitarian nature of Christianity (and of all religions), which is why they specifically designed a constitution that forbid the government from endorsing or favoring any one religion and more importantly, required the government to be removed from decision making in ones personal choice of religion or no religion.

You guys are sounding like your "dear leader": "you didn't build that" (the Christians), "someone else built that for you" (yet there were not people around that were not Christians).

 

[Hollie]

You mean all two of them?

No, dear. I mean all those signers of the constitution who rejected religious (christian) totalitarianism as a part of the formulation of the constitution.

It was these gods fearing Christians with enough wisdom to understand that religion and totalitarianism are inseparable. The framers of the constitution had direct experience with the conditions in the original 13 colonies wherein the various sects, subsects and subdivisions of Christianity were at odds with one-another. In many respects, the original colonialists were models of Christian hate, intolerance and religious divisions.

For that matter, to broadly define the signers of the constitution as Christian is a rather sweeping generalization. They would be better served by defining their specific version of Christianity as the sects, subsects and subdivisions of that religion are still at odds with one-another.

The framers of the constitution knew all too well the totalitarian nature of Christianity (and of all religions), which is why they specifically designed a constitution that forbid the government from endorsing or favoring any one religion and more importantly, required the government to be removed from decision making in ones personal choice of religion or no religion.

You guys are sounding like your "dear leader": "you didn't build that" (the Christians), "someone else built that for you" (yet there were not people around that were not Christians).

"...yet there were not people around that were not Christians)."

How about a coherent sentence?