Skip to main content

 
Originally Posted by gbrk:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
My replies in green, GBRK:

So to repeat, for the record for we know accuracy is important with all this lying going on.

1a) Congress looked only at subsidizing material for the Bibles so Print Paper or Bond to print Bibles but certainly NOT Bibles for that would Violate the First Amendment.

There was no First Amendment.  Your documents show below are dated 1777, I believe.  The Constitution wasn't drafted until 1787 and the first ten Amendments weren't added until 1791.

 

 

1b) Crusty says shortage of paper/material was due to Gouging during a time of shortage.

No.  I said that there was a shortage of materials, and that Congress was looking at ways of avoiding gouging because of it.

 

2) Before that Mr. Aiken took the job of printing Bibles but (I assume) he was not connected with the Government so the Government had no Connection to the Bibles themselves (my assumption).

okay.

3) He (Aiken) received NO Money from the Government (Congress).

True.

4) All Congress did was pass a resolution commending Aiken's Printing of the Bible.

True.

 

Note that if the pages don't appear below or the links don't word I have attached all three pages below.

 

Do the FACTS and EVIDENCE back up your accuracy or the Christian lies (as you call them)?

03600733.tif 

pg 733

 

Pg 733, Last paragraph, A Committee Appointed to Consider what?  Rev Dr. Allison and others report.  What was the Report? --> Looks like a shortage of paper for the printing of Bibles alright but why the Shortage? 

There was a war going on.  This was 1777. 

 

Paper cannot be procured but with such difficulties and subject to such causalties as render any dependence on it altogether improper.  Got to remember something was going on during this time, what was that?  Could it be WAR with England?  Where is that gouging issue?  What about casualties, is that from gouging or possibly cause of conflict?  Sounds like the paper could be obtained but with difficulty and potential casualties.  Now I could be wrong I somehow I think that means it would be hard to get because of the threat of death to those obtaining it.  I don't read in there anywhere that has to do about COST which would translate to gouging.  1b) above is looking thin.Exactly. 

03610734.tif

pg 744

 

 pg 734  continued, note the committee seems to recommend Congress appropriate money to obtain enough type paper to print off 30,000 copies with paper binding or the WHOLE BIBLE at a cost of £10,272 10 pounds to be reimbursed by the sale of the books/Bibles.  Then comes the good part, stay tuned.

 

The Committee recommends different .. the reasons for the reconsideration is given but I like this next part . read with me ... "that the use of the Bible is so universal, andits importance so great, that your committee refer the above to the consideration of Congress.  Now the next good part:  your committee recommend that Congress import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland or elsewhere into the different ports of the states in the Union:  Hey Crusty what is that next line????  Oh the resolution that's right.  Whereupon the Congress was moved, to order the Committee of Commerce to import twenty thousand copies of the Bible:  Then comes the VOTE.

 03620735.tif

pg 745

pg 735, Note the DATE:  September 11, 1777

under the vote the outcome:  Lets read together: So it was resolved in the affirmative

 

But this never happened.  It turned out that the cost was prohibitive, and because there was a war going on, they never imported the Bibles.  In Bill's thread, I've posted an excellent article that covers the complete incident, not just the documents you are cherry-picking.

 

Lets see now.  What about our above points again in light of the actual Congressional Journal of September 11, 1777.  

 

1a) Congress looked only at subsidizing material for the Bibles so Print Paper or Bond to print Bibles but certainly NOT Bibles for that would Violate the First Amendment.   Evidence, at least to my eyes, looks like there was discussion to obtain material locally, to print Bibles but I don't see a Mr. Aikens mentioned anywhere and looks like the Government was going to do the printing and the obtaining of material and then go into the Bible Selling business to help out the budget and recover the money.  So for 1a) Crusty (atheist) goes down in flames . . . oops sorry shouldn't have said flames

You are only looking at three documents that don't give a complete picture.  This is typical of people trying to rewrite history.  No you shouldn't have said that, it makes you look foolish, immature, and just plain stupid.  I always thought better of you.  I'm having to reassess my opinion.

 

1b) Crusty says shortage of paper/material was due to Gouging during a time of shortage.  Crusty I may not read and comprehend as well as others but looks like to me the difficulties here was worry about getting the paper and obtaining enough without harm due to getting killed by someone.  I don't see anything about prices being too high or costly here.  Crusty goes down on Gouging also

No, I didn't say that.  Your reading comprehension is deficient in this matter.  Strike two to you.

 

2) Before that Mr. Aiken took the job of printing Bibles but (I assume) he was not connected with the Government so the Government had no Connection to the Bibles themselves (my assumption).

There was a Report by a Rev. Dr. Allison but I see no mention of a Mr. Aiken printing any Bibles here.  There is definite intent on the Government (Congress) to print the Bibles and then sell them to get the money back but the nice, warm and fuzzy thing (at least to me) is that they (Congress/Government felt the Bible was so universal (universal umm I think that is a way of saying it (the Bible) is very popular and desired) AND, I like this part, It's (The Bible) IMPORTANCE SO GREAT.  Why you think they would say such?  Maybe Trust in GOD?  Maybe for the information inside or do you think it was just to shield them from those nasty RedCoat shells?  Either way on point 2 - Crusty pitching some guy Aiken printing Bibles that Congress pays part of the cost (that's what subsidizing means) - TRUTH - Government looks at paying ALL the Cost and doing ALL the Printing then selling Bibles to help get the money back.

You are only looking at three documents, not the whole story.  Please take off the blinders. I've never said that Colonial period citizens were not Christian, nor that the Bible wasn't important to them.  The Aiken Bible and supporting documents are easily found through Google.  Try it.  Better yet read the article I posted in Bill's thread.  "Looking" isn't the same as doing.  Now you are just grasping.  Strike three.  Next inning for you.

 

3) He (Aiken) received NO Money from the Government (Congress).  On this point Crusty is 100% accurate for there is NO mention of any money going to an Aiken for printing Bibles.

Thank you.  And just to point out, everything else I've said is at least 99% true, since I was working from memory.

 

4) All Congress did was pass a resolution commending Aiken's Printing of the Bible.  -  Well you know where this is going by now Crusty,  Care to guess the end of the story?

 

Now about this statement of yours that I copy here:

So GBRK, I'll have to add you to the list of Liar's for Jesus if you wish to continue to spread the misinformation that Congress printed Bibles.  You don't even have your facts straight.  It was not the first congress after the signing of the Constitution that this story is about, which brings the rest of your argument to a screeching halt.

I ask you Crusty ... according to the Evidence, from the Government's website.  WHO IS LYING NOW?  Who is spreading MISINFORMATION NOW?  I will give you in my zest to make a point that the Constitution was finally signed in September 1778 it should be evident that there was no move to isolate God from Government and that in fact Government was all for getting the Bible (God's Word) the Whole Christian Bible into as many people's hands as possible.  In fact if there had of been 50 States then that would have been 400 Bibles per State. 

I won't call you a liar here, you are just misinformed.  The Constitutional Convention wasn't even called until 1787.  You've transposed your numbers and rendered your argument moot. The Constitution was drafted in 1787, the Bill of Rights weren't added until 1791.  Strike one in the second inning goes to you. 

 

Point is BILL WAS CORRECT and you Incorrect. 

Point is YOU ARE WRONG and I'm correct.

 

I doubt an apology or retraction is in the coming for I realize how difficult it is for you atheist to do anything or say anything wrong or put out misinformation. 

I'm not an atheist.  Strike two.  Will you be apologizing to me?

 

In fact it is most likely documents like the above copies and information like this the reason it is so important to limit what History can be taught in Government Schools for we should never let people know our Government and Congress ever distributed or obtained 20,000 copies of a Book that taught and informed people about a Creator called GOD.  No this would be potentially teaching Creationism and about Religion and we all know this violates the First Amendment.

I've read this paragraph three times now, and what I get out of it is that you are saying that using historical documents to teach history is NOT the way to go.  This is strike three for you.  You've wiffed it for two innings now, and your statement is exactly what is wrong with religious based education.  When ALL the documents are looked at, the truth comes out.  Your misunderstanding of simple historical dates, cherry-picking of documents and misapplying interpretations of a limited amount of information to form an incomplete, inaccurate, and almost completely false historical explanation is typical of the wacko religious right. 

 

Your Reply????????????????????     as A Rob put it .. The Lesson Continues ...

And you've been schooled my friend.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
 
Originally Posted by gbrk:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
My replies in green, GBRK:        My reply in Red

So to repeat, for the record for we know accuracy is important with all this lying going on.

1a) Congress looked only at subsidizing material for the Bibles so Print Paper or Bond to print Bibles but certainly NOT Bibles for that would Violate the First Amendment.

There was no First Amendment.  Your documents show below are dated 1777, I believe.  The Constitution wasn't drafted until 1787 and the first ten Amendments weren't added until 1791.

 I was aware of the Sept 17, 1778 date of the Constitution and while the statement cannot be made that it was the first Congress after signing which I incorrectly alluded to several times that still does not negate that quite likely many of those responsible for drafting the Constitution had input also in this decision.  I doubt much would change in their desires in two years.

 

1b) Crusty says shortage of paper/material was due to Gouging during a time of shortage.

No.  I said that there was a shortage of materials, and that Congress was looking at ways of avoiding gouging because of it.   As the date of this writing and according to this writing the concern was obviously not money or cost but difficulty in obtaining it without casualties vs getting it elsewhere.

 <Snipped for Space>>

But this never happened.  It turned out that the cost was prohibitive, and because there was a war going on, they never imported the Bibles.  In Bill's thread, I've posted an excellent article that covers the complete incident, not just the documents you are cherry-picking.

Whether it happened or not is splitting hairs.  It was approved and if it didn't happen it was not because of a change in the need they felt or the reasons for the action did not change.  I may have eventually been discovered to be too expensive for that time or other difficulties but the fact they voted for it still shows their resolve and the action of that Congress do you not agree?

 

Lets see now.  What about our above points again in light of the actual Congressional Journal of September 11, 1777.  

 

1a) Congress looked only at subsidizing material for the Bibles so Print Paper or Bond to print Bibles but certainly NOT Bibles for that would Violate the First Amendment.   Evidence, at least to my eyes, looks like there was discussion to obtain material locally, to print Bibles but I don't see a Mr. Aikens mentioned anywhere and looks like the Government was going to do the printing and the obtaining of material and then go into the Bible Selling business to help out the budget and recover the money.  So for 1a) Crusty (atheist) goes down in flames . . . oops sorry shouldn't have said flames

You are only looking at three documents that don't give a complete picture.  This is typical of people trying to rewrite history.  No you shouldn't have said that, it makes you look foolish, immature, and just plain stupid.  I always thought better of you.  I'm having to reassess my opinion.

Let us either agree to disagree or compromise a solution because although, and I am not disputing your statement that later the action was not followed through to completion the desire and action of Congress none the less appropriated funds and approved the accusation of 20,000 Bibles.  IF it was not eventually purchased or carried through then it should not be changed to try and write out that Congress did approve that action.  If what you say is true then it would be fair to indicate that the Bibles never were acquired, this I cannot prove or disprove however as I said above the Congress and those within had the full desire and intent to purchase and acquire them with the exception of the nay voters.  No it was not unanimous but it was a majority.  

 

1b) Crusty says shortage of paper/material was due to Gouging during a time of shotage.  Crusty I may not read and comprehend as well as others but looks like to me the difficulties here was worry about getting the paper and obtaining enough without harm due to getting killed by someone.  I don't see anything about prices being too high or costly here.  Crusty goes down on Gouging also

No, I didn't say that.  Your reading comprehension is deficient in this matter.  Strike two to you.

Again with respect to this particular document the reasons they were seeking to bring in the materials and then the Bibles from Europe was not stated, in this document, to be account of price gouging.  If you have a journal document, similar to these, indicating that gouging eventually led to the Bibles not being acquired then your statement can be true with respect to those documents and that future time but as of this time it still is not correct and although it is possible that the 20,000 Bibles are the same as referenced in my references as compared to Bills you still cannot say gouging effected this particular Sept 11, 1777 vote or the committee recommendation.

 

2) Before that Mr. Aiken took the job of printing Bibles but (I assume) he was not connected with the Government so the Government had no Connection to the Bibles themselves (my assumption).

There was a Report by a Rev. Dr. Allison but I see no mention of a Mr. Aiken printing any Bibles here.  There is definite intent on the Government (Congress) to print the Bibles and then sell them to get the money back but the nice, warm and fuzzy thing (at least to me) is that they (Congress/Government felt the Bible was so universal (universal umm I think that is a way of saying it (the Bible) is very popular and desired) AND, I like this part, It's (The Bible) IMPORTANCE SO GREAT.  Why you think they would say such?  Maybe Trust in GOD?  Maybe for the information inside or do you think it was just to shield them from those nasty RedCoat shells?  Either way on point 2 - Crusty pitching some guy Aiken printing Bibles that Congress pays part of the cost (that's what subsidizing means) - TRUTH - Government looks at paying ALL the Cost and doing ALL the Printing then selling Bibles to help get the money back.

You are only looking at three documents, not the whole story.  Please take off the blinders. I've never said that Colonial period citizens were not Christian, nor that the Bible wasn't important to them.  The Aiken Bible and supporting documents are easily found through Google.  Try it.  Better yet read the article I posted in Bill's thread.  "Looking" isn't the same as doing.  Now you are just grasping.  Strike three.  Next inning for you.

Here is where you get to different issues.  What is the question or statement being considered.  IF it is did Congress authorize 20,000 to be acquired .. yes would be the answer.  Was their intent and desire to provide Bibles to the colonist ?  Again I believe yes is the answer.  If in the future, at some future point, it became to difficult to obtain them and an unnamed person (unnamed in these documents I cited) ended up getting them himself getting recognized by Congress then that would make it necessary to re-word the statement saying that congress purchased the 20,000 Bibles ,of that I agree, if that is what happened.  The fact that Congress passed the desire to purchase or acquire them though should be recognized for it goes to the heart of the whole thing that if there was not some unforeseen future difficulty then the Bibles would have been acquired for they were approved to be.

 

3) He (Aiken) received NO Money from the Government (Congress).  On this point Crusty is 100% accurate for there is NO mention of any money going to an Aiken for printing Bibles.

Thank you.  And just to point out, everything else I've said is at least 99% true, since I was working from memory.

 

4) All Congress did was pass a resolution commending Aiken's Printing of the Bible.  -  Well you know where this is going by now Crusty,  Care to guess the end of the story?

 

Now about this statement of yours that I copy here:

So GBRK, I'll have to add you to the list of Liar's for Jesus if you wish to continue to spread the misinformation that Congress printed Bibles.  You don't even have your facts straight.  It was not the first congress after the signing of the Constitution that this story is about, which brings the rest of your argument to a screeching halt.

I ask you Crusty ... according to the Evidence, from the Government's website.  WHO IS LYING NOW?  Who is spreading MISINFORMATION NOW?  I will give you in my zest to make a point that the Constitution was finally signed in September 1778 it should be evident that there was no move to isolate God from Government and that in fact Government was all for getting the Bible (God's Word) the Whole Christian Bible into as many people's hands as possible.  In fact if there had of been 50 States then that would have been 400 Bibles per State. 

I won't call you a liar here, you are just misinformed.  The Constitutional Convention wasn't even called until 1787.  You've transposed your numbers and rendered your argument moot. The Constitution was drafted in 1787, the Bill of Rights weren't added until 1791.  Strike one in the second inning goes to you. 

 I will accept that however not misinformed but IF what you are saying is correct then I was not completely informed but again the whole picture still reveals a Congress that most likely contained some of those responsible for the Constitution and/or First Amendment took action to acquire 20,000 Bibles.  IF what you say is factual and I have no reason to distrust it, then wording should be added or included to show that the Bibles were not eventually purchased. 

 

Point is BILL WAS CORRECT and you Incorrect. 

Point is YOU ARE WRONG and I'm correct.

 

I doubt an apology or retraction is in the coming for I realize how difficult it is for you atheist to do anything or say anything wrong or put out misinformation. 

I'm not an atheist.  Strike two.  Will you be apologizing to me?

My Sincere Apologies to you for I did misrepresent you as an atheist for I fully thought you were.  I realize that there are just non-believers and Agnostics as well as Atheist and others and it is easy to lump all together.  It wasn't right and I do hear, do as I say I will, and publicly apologize for that classification of you as an Atheist.  I shall endevour not to make that mistake again, thank you for the correction..  or the short version I'm Sorry.

 

In fact it is most likely documents like the above copies and information like this the reason it is so important to limit what History can be taught in Government Schools for we should never let people know our Government and Congress ever distributed or obtained 20,000 copies of a Book that taught and informed people about a Creator called GOD.  No this would be potentially teaching Creationism and about Religion and we all know this violates the First Amendment.

I've read this paragraph three times now, and what I get out of it is that you are saying that using historical documents to teach history is NOT the way to go.  This is strike three for you.  You've wiffed it for two innings now, and your statement is exactly what is wrong with religious based education.  When ALL the documents are looked at, the truth comes out.  Your misunderstanding of simple historical dates, cherry-picking of documents and misapplying interpretations of a limited amount of information to form an incomplete, inaccurate, and almost completely false historical explanation is typical of the wacko religious right. 


Well the last part that you read three times was an unannounced deliberate deviation from an attempt to be serious and attempt to state something in reasoning that I would think an atheist would use as a reason not to include teaching the three documents that I attached with my post.  The point was just saying that I felt atheist would say (today) no you cannot include these three pages and teach about the 20,000 Bibles because Bibles contain the story of Creation with God the Creator and because we can ONLY teach Evolution then we cannot teach this as a part of the curriculum for that would violate the First Amendment. Just saying that even if it was proper to teach as a part of History that they would most likely want to exclude it because it applied to a Book that taught Creation and that we could not even allow that into school.  Although the indication wasn't there it was not to be taken serious as the other part of the post was.


 

Your Reply????????????????????     as A Rob put it .. The Lesson Continues ...

And you've been schooled my friend.   

Note the "Lesson" comments are included only due to A Rob's short post as a jab to say don't assume that we don't want to respond or are afraid to and therefore premature to speak as if it was.

 

Your response was a fair one and I'll certainly attempt to research the future of this action by Congress.  If you are correct I would have, had I the copies, included them and revised my answer to include them, if I had obtained them at that time.  I would have still kept my information and still made the same assertion that I fully believe that the intent of the First Amendment would not be violated if the actions that happened on Sept 17, 1777 had of happened in 1780 and that the action would have been approved of by those who wrote and passed the First Amendment.  Reading the whole story, regardless of your personal opinions about religion or the Bible from a Historical perspective do you honestly not agree that the Accusation of the Bibles would not be seen by those as a violation of the Constitution and the First Amendment?   I suggest that it would not be considered, by those who drafted the Constitution as a violation.  Do you feel that is a fair statement?

Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Originally Posted by Jennifer:

The bibles were not ordered by, funded by, nor paid for by congress. Now again, do they know where the bibles ended up?

----------------

Books-a-Billion.

.

*********************************************************************************************************

 

Could be invic. If you find one of them snap it up.

GBRK:

 

I'm going to point you once again to the article that I posted in Bill's thread. It is quite good, and exposes many of the ways that the wacko Christian right distorts this story to promote their agenda. 

 

Just for your information and future use, I'm a Christian.  I also believe in evolution as much as I believe in Jesus.  I also believe in the Constitution, the sole purpose of which is to establish a government and how it works, placing restrictions on that government.  Nowhere does it establish the US as a "Christian Nation".  Quite the contrary, it allows for freedom of religion - regardless of the religion.  For those people that would try and turn the US into a "Christian Nation", they are at complete odds with the Founding Fathers who had no desire for a theocracy.

 

Read the article, understand it, then I'll be happy to discuss the rest of your points.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

GBRK:

 

I'm going to point you once again to the article that I posted in Bill's thread. It is quite good, and exposes many of the ways that the wacko Christian right distorts this story to promote their agenda. 

 

Just for your information and future use, I'm a Christian.  I also believe in evolution as much as I believe in Jesus.  I also believe in the Constitution, the sole purpose of which is to establish a government and how it works, placing restrictions on that government.  Nowhere does it establish the US as a "Christian Nation".  Quite the contrary, it allows for freedom of religion - regardless of the religion.  For those people that would try and turn the US into a "Christian Nation", they are at complete odds with the Founding Fathers who had no desire for a theocracy.

 

Read the article, understand it, then I'll be happy to discuss the rest of your points.

Crusty, 

 

I think I have remained consistent all along on this subject and that is taking the position that the Constitution was not a religious document and created with deliberate effort not to reflect Christianity or Religion into the document.  Therefore it is correct to say America is not set up as a Christian Nation because the founders just like the initial settlers did not want this country to become a Theocracy and took efforts to prevent that even by accident.  That said I do believe American was a Nation of Christians and by that I mean that the founders (most of them) were devout men of God, Christians, who felt it of prime importance to protect the citizen's right to worship within their religion as they wanted.  Freedom to worship in their own ways.  Therefore it should not surprise anyone that the Constitution was not a religious document.  The First Amendment was necessary as was the others in order to get the whole passed as many various states felt that certain issues did not receive proper treatment and coverage in the Constitution as written. 

 

The documents I copied and attached I believe reveal though a clue to how they would have interpreted the First Amendment.  I do not believe it was considered a violation of the Constitution if Government purchased or acquired those Bibles even if they would be reimbursed for all of them once they were distributed or sold.  They deemed the Bible to be extremely important and wanted to facilitate getting it into the hands of the American people. And therefore on this point I do not believe we disagree on America being a Christian Nation for it wasn't and that was purposeful in keeping with protection of America becoming another Church of England so no Denomination was even promoted.

 

Where we may differ but what I believe very much is that today the contemporary interpretation of the First Amendment is NOT what the Founders intended it to be used for.  Specifically, at certain places, in America, I have heard that if a student (valedictorian or salutatorian) wanted to read a Bible passage in their speech that it was stopped by the principal because of First Amendment concerns.  Any student, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever should have the freedom to read what they wrote or say a personal prayer of thanks so I believe her rights were not  protected.  If though they said lets all pray or if the School dictated the prayer and text of it or dictated that they must read a Bible or Koran then that would exceed the First Amendment and they would be in violation.  Today I believe that instead of keeping with the intent of the Framers of the Constitution our Judicial system has accomplished legislation from the bench.  Today those Bibles would never be approved to be appropriated because there would be revolt saying it was a violation of the First Amendment. 

 

America was not established to be a Christian Nation but America was a Nation of Christians who worshiped the Christian Godhead and accepted the Holy Bible as God's word considering it extremely Important.  I believe well meaning people on both sides of the issue have misrepresented their positions and the other sides.  I have stated my position and stance and believe I have stayed uniform to that statement.  I do feel that there are some who wish to write God out of our Countries History and would be content to remove God from all teaching in School even though Religion played an important part in our countries founding and History that there should be no conflict in recognizing.  Furthermore the Teaching about Creation as a competing Theory for how Life became should be able to be done without it being a violation of the First Amendment.  Teaching that our early settlers left England for religious freedom is also not teaching religion.  If though you get into doctrinal differences and start taking denominational stands then you began to get into the First Amendment.  I have no doubt, at least in my mind, that the Founders would not see teaching Creation a competing theory would not be endorsing Religion or a denomination.  Creation says life was created by some undefined process by a deity or by some Intelligent Design.  To be legal, since Government controls the school curriculum, that is just how Creation would have to be handled but to exclude it all together or any mention of it as well as to Remove the Bible from school as a historical source or source of poetry, I believe, would be against the original intent of the First Amendment and the framers of that document would not agree with that being done.  That is my opinion.

 

How do you see that?


 

<-- Cat Chasing Mouse

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jimi you really ought to use your brain to THINK sometimes.  I'd actually give you a hint at how to really score big in your attempts to strike a snide remark at us but if you actually posted something of substance instead of Kindergarten playground insults then quite possibly one of us would be so shocked that it might cause a medical emergency from shear shock.  Okay that said just take a moment, one moment and have a look at your post today at 12:50AM above my reply.

 

Jimi it actually  appears you are commenting on yourself.   Note your avatar, supposedly the actual photo of what you look like with your name below.   I know what you want to do and you attempt to do and say but it looks like you are advertising to the forum that you are what you type in next to your name.  Above I demonstrated placing one item you left out which was the arrow  (  <-- ) along with my comment looks as if it is describing my avatar.  Jimi, your post really looks like you are calling yourself an Idiot.   Actually I got to thank you for a change.  I really got a great laugh out of it when my wife saw it.  She doesn't get on here but looked over and actually got upset and said .... "Look, someone called that young man an Idiot!    I had to show her the forum format and how the person's avatar and name appears to the left of their comment and that it was your comment and not someone else saying it about you.   I told her naw that's his own post and his own doing.  She got a laugh also.  So thanks cause I haven't had that good a chuckle in a while.

 

In case you still don't get it I did a little crop of your post and attached it below so you could see what I mean.  Again thanks Jimi even we Christians couldn't have slammed you any better than you did to yourself

 

 

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Screen shot 2011-07-30 at 1.42.10 AM
Last edited by gbrk
Originally Posted by gbrk:
I think I have remained consistent all along on this subject and that is taking the position that the Constitution was not a religious document and created with deliberate effort not to reflect Christianity or Religion into the document.  Therefore it is correct to say America is not set up as a Christian Nation because the founders just like the initial settlers did not want this country to become a Theocracy and took efforts to prevent that even by accident.  That said I do believe American was a Nation of Christians and by that I mean that the founders (most of them) were devout men of God, Christians, who felt it of prime importance to protect the citizen's right to worship within their religion as they wanted.  Freedom to worship in their own ways.  Therefore it should not surprise anyone that the Constitution was not a religious document.  



I applaud you, GB.  How is it that others of your ilk cannot grasp the simple fact that this nation is predominantly Christian but not a Christian nation and was not founded as such?

Originally Posted by Jennifer:

The bibles were not ordered by, funded by, paid for, received by, or given out by congress. Aiken tried to SELL them to congress a couple of times and was refused. Very odd indeed that had congress funded them Aiken's would try to sell them their own bibles.

==============================

Jenn dear, you are going to worry about these Bibles for another day?

Perhaps some good will come of it.

You will at least become more familiar with your own ignorance.

Originally Posted by rum_mama:
Originally Posted by Jennifer:

RP sind sie sicher gb ist ein Mann? Ich schwöre, ich eine Frau sein will, wie ein Mann. Wenn es ein Mann, es ist eines der am meisten femininen Männern habe ich je gesehen habe.

 

 

 

Oh Lordy! Old atheist Gal wants to be a woman whos like a

dainty feminine man to RP?

Does rp want to be a feminine man whos like a woman

======================================

 

Yo Cage......Bite me.

 

 

@ Jennifer:

 

German sentence structure doesn't work like it does in English.

 

For example-

 

"Throw the horse over the fence [some hay.]"

 

"Throw your father down the stairs [his hat.]"

 

C'n ya dig it?

 

LOL 

 

Last edited by Road Puppy

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×