[TheRealThing]

1) - His ways are not my ways, His thoughts are not my thoughts... I remember reading that somewhere, but now I am told that I can be on par with God. Wow! That my friend is a scary thought. We have no concept of God's time, my opinion, how could a mortal understand immortality, we do know that God placed mortality on our hearts... read that somewhere too.

2) - No, I never did serve, tried, but being legally blind was a damper on joining the Air Force. My cousins, uncle, and grandfathers all served each in the Navy, two in the Army. Served in wars of Korea, Vietnam, Iraqi Freedom, and peacetime.

3) - Who has slammed anything, I give thanks to my Lord to live in a land of the free and as for me and my family we will worship Him. He asked "Do you love me?" Peter said yes you know that I do, then how did Jesus reply?
4) - Again, people condemn people by using the law, which in truth, we are all condemned. We are to love God with all of our heart, mind, and spirit. We are to love our neighbor as we are to love ourselves.

Believe me when I tell you that we're rapidly coming to the end of my willingness to play mental hop scotch with you here. Nonetheless I will indulge you once again.

1) - If you can explain to me where I even remotely suggested that you could be on par with God, I will be happy to clarity my statement. We do have the concept of how God views time, I just gave it to you. Within the entirety of the Scriptures the word mortality is used only once;
2 Corinthians 5:4 (KJV)
4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.

Call me whatever, but to me that verse says that death is defeated by the unspeakable gift of 'life,' the same provided ONLY to us who have repented through His finished work on the cross. So wherever you may have read it, it wasn't the Bible.

2) - Sorry to hear that you have a vision limitation. Perhaps then you should be a bit more considerate of those who did serve when you speak of the freedoms provided through the sacrifices of others that you are grateful for, while you seemingly congratulate yourself for an opinion which disagrees with the conservative view.

3) - Admittedly you did not go on and on with criticisms of the Christian right in this thread like you did in the Jill and Hill thread. But your disdain for the historical truths of the conservative right, those you should be proud to claim as brothers in the faith, is disturbing. My apologies for generalizing. On the bolded. I know what you're trying to say here. The Church is the vehicle God chose to reach a lost world, I got that. I'm not saying we are to be vicious and vindictive and in any way judgmental. But we are to speak plainly in drawing attention to unacceptable behavior. You don't walk up to a man who is proudly 'out of the closet' out walking in a parade in San Francisco, wearing a pair of chaps with his rear end sticking out and tell him he's just like everybody else. Let's get real here.

4) - And we are to;
Ephesians 4:26-27 (KJV)
26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
27 Neither give place to the devil.

The believer is under commandment to be angered with certain conditions and certain people everyday. We are not to be sickeningly sweet under all situations. We ought to be mad about abortion everyday. We ought to be mad about the homosexual lifestyle everyday. No true believer can be neutral in the war between good and evil. We do not condemn other people using the law, the law does that on it's own through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. You know, the conscience? However pointing out the law, is the charter of the Church and the practice is done consistently in the Old and New Testaments. The real danger is in not calling out sin in a manner which falsely validates a sinful lifestyle. We are not to be all nicey-nicey, we are to be bold. None of us are better than the rest that is true. But to say that those who are saved, "new creatures in Christ," should not live a Godly lifestyle and denounce the un-Godly lifestyle is ridiculous.

No if it's all the same to you, I'll take it like as follows; Revelation 3:16 (KJV)
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Here is a fact, not subject to the verbal excess and flatuence of TRT:

The four analysis areas of the Brittanica article are objective "x marks the spot" places to dig. And that's all I asked: do your own digging. Legitimate inquiry does not hide from scrutinous analysis. Somehow, the poster has so hyper identified his politics and patriotism with his faith as to seemingly produce a BGR persona that is almost a caricature.

[TheRealThing]

Here is a fact, not subject to the verbal excess and flatuence of TRT:

The four analysis areas of the Brittanica article are objective "x marks the spot" places to dig. And that's all I asked: do your own digging. Legitimate inquiry does not hide from scrutinous analysis. Somehow, the poster has so hyper identified his politics and patriotism with his faith as to seemingly produce a BGR persona that is almost a caricature.

:please: Your sole motivation with having posted the article was to substantiate your claims to support something that exists only in the minds of liberals. That being a mitigating rationale they've hidden within high sounding packaging so as to lend it undue Constitutional flare in using the term essential liberty. In using said rationale BTW liberals are ironically, able to take all kinds of liberties with the original intent of the founders.

It still strikes me as incredible that people like you can go on about what you perceive to be a misapplication of faith and country when the founders spoke of doing just that: IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"


There you have it Sombrero. The first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence mention God and His endowment of men's station, not once but twice. In other words, our government was in the minds of the framers, hammered out on the very authority of God Himself, as it is He Who both defines our rights and grants us the authority to govern ourselves. You'll endeavor to downplay that in your quest to enshrine some phantom phrasing that you've yet to even adequately define, in your preferred interpretive bent of the Constitution. The founders 'hyper identified', whatever that is supposed to mean, in like fashion their faith with their patriotism and politics. Therefore you may feel free to sort of pencil me in among the other caricatures in the signature block below.

In any case, the Author and Finisher of my faith, was the held in the same high regard by the framers. I contend as they did, that a right relationship with Him gives one a better grip on governance, especially that of the United States of America.

[The Urban Sombrero]

:please: Your sole motivation with having posted the article was to substantiate your claims to support something that exists only in the minds of liberals. That being a mitigating rationale they've hidden within high sounding packaging so as to lend it undue Constitutional flare in using the term essential liberty. In using said rationale BTW liberals are ironically, able to take all kinds of liberties with the original intent of the founders.

It still strikes me as incredible that people like you can go on about what you perceive to be a misapplication of faith and country when the founders spoke of doing just that: IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"


There you have it Sombrero. The first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence mention God and His endowment of men's station, not once but twice. In other words, our government was in the minds of the framers, hammered out on the very authority of God Himself, as it is He Who both defines our rights and grants us the authority to govern ourselves. You'll endeavor to downplay that in your quest to enshrine some phantom phrasing that you've yet to even adequately define, in your preferred interpretive bent of the Constitution. The founders 'hyper identified', whatever that is supposed to mean, in like fashion their faith with their patriotism and politics. Therefore you may feel free to sort of pencil me in among the other caricatures in the signature block below.

In any case, the Author and Finisher of my faith, was the held in the same high regard by the framers. I contend as they did, that a right relationship with Him gives one a better grip on governance, especially that of the United States of America.

You blather and blather, cloud without rain, words without knowledge. "Nature's God": pray tell, that phraseology, from whence, in that time, did it spring? Deism. The four "dig here" spots, not just a politician's words spoken as part of the public persona all politician's use, are an objective test. I'm sorry, TRT, but you are wrong. You have wedded your faith and your politics and love of country and an illegitimate child is the result.

[TheRealThing]

You blather and blather, cloud without rain, words without knowledge. "Nature's God": pray tell, that phraseology, from whence, in that time, did it spring? Deism. The four "dig here" spots, not just a politician's words spoken as part of the public persona all politician's use, are an objective test. I'm sorry, TRT, but you are wrong. You have wedded your faith and your politics and love of country and an illegitimate child is the result.

I frankly could not care less that you and I do not agree on this matter, and I can assure you that we do not agree on what constitutes a right relationship with the Almighty. I am not wrong and you cannot mount a meaningful rebuff of my contention that the founders felt as I do. My analysis makes perfect sense while your neo-distortions are ridiculous. But if I understand the nature of your argument, it is that God, the Architect and Creator of this universe and all the life within it, the sum of which BTW man refers to as nature, is somehow separated from the controlling purview of the Creator by a force called Deism. That about right? The clearly worded basis which gave the founders the authority to establish new government, unalienable rights given to them and therefore us, came to us from God Himself. If you want to errantly attribute the founders right understanding of the Lordship and authority of the Godhead to Deism that's unfortunate. But it still doesn't diminish the profound scope of the wording in the first two paragraphs of the Declaration.

Tell you what. I'll spend my life sticking to and proliferating Scripture and a lucid interpretation of the Constitutional documents ala Justice Scalia. And you can spend yours preaching/teaching the gospel as you see it along with a Deistic interpretation of the Constitutional documents, and we'll see who has his head up the highest in the end. In other words, my experiences in life, my relationship with God, the inerrancy of the Scriptures, and the clearly set forth writings which constitute our founding documents are not subject to or mitigated in any way, (in my mind), by an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Now, you want to 'dig' for your truth somewhere other than the record or God's Word, go ahead. But let's not kid ourselves here. Why would a child of God deny His power, or the truth of our own national heritage? You're looking for slack or a compromise of the truth and I don't see any allowance for that in the Bible, or in the documents. But good luck with that. :biggrin:

BTW, after many long months of being subjected to your particular brand of circular logic we still find ourselves waiting for you to adequately define a truly illegitimate though not parentless doctrine, essential liberty.

[The Urban Sombrero]

⬆️⬆️

Of course, you can't take the four tools of the article and apply them.

Essential liberty and freedom of conscience suggest that if two grown men seek to be in relationship with each other the civil government ought to grant them equal protection in the eyes of the law. I am perfectly willing to stand before "Nature's God" and agree that the human conscience should not be compelled, but should remain essentially free in such matters.

Freedom of action is not the same as rightness of action.

You have wed your faith to politics and a certain kind of patriotism. If you are suggesting that the inerrancy of Scripture is somehow tied to the founding of this nation, that's a fool's errand. The truth is that among the Founders, quite a few were more Deist than Christian. Deists, of course, were not atheists, but more religious rationalists. It is, again, surprising to me that you would even argue this point. Did you attend Bob Jones?

[TheRealThing]

⬆️⬆️

Of course, you can't take the four tools of the article and apply them.

Essential liberty and freedom of conscience suggest that if two grown men seek to be in relationship with each other the civil government ought to grant them equal protection in the eyes of the law. I am perfectly willing to stand before "Nature's God" and agree that the human conscience should not be compelled, but should remain essentially free in such matters.

Freedom of action is not the same as rightness of action.

You have wed your faith to politics and a certain kind of patriotism. If you are suggesting that the inerrancy of Scripture is somehow tied to the founding of this nation, that's a fool's errand. The truth is that among the Founders, quite a few were more Deist than Christian. Deists, of course, were not atheists, but more religious rationalists. It is, again, surprising to me that you would even argue this point. Did you attend Bob Jones?

Nope. Didn't say anything like that. I said that you are uncomfortable with the truth, and are therefore seeking out a form with which you are more comfortable.

The fools' errand is in the attempt to ascribe Deism to an appreciable number of the founders. We have in many cases the diaries of many of them, but as fate would have it the actual breakdown of each founder's faith is a matter of public record. "Among the delegates (the 55 recognized founders) were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith." [John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43.] And I might add, Franklin's flirtation with Deism was not at all long lived.

Your assertion that my faith is wed to my politics is a charge by which I would be honored, especially if that impression were the opinion of many. As I have mentioned, one cannot compartmentalize truth and remain objective. I prefer to see all truth as relevant. Thus, I am not blindly bound to separate Church and State. You have an ax to grind, and like the bozo who was supposedly successful in his quest to make a significant evidentiary contribution to the cause of Evolutionism, and who jumped up and battled off to Java to find the bones of ancient man. And wouldn't you just know it? Up jumped Java Man, what a miracle!

Digging for truth ala the fashion of Jefferson takes one on a journey to a destination of which he is unaware, and leads him to accept what he finds, not what he wants to find. Liberals and Evolutionists, the same thing really, already know what they hope to find and have retro-engineered a series of forgeries. And here is where they finally find common ground, those forgeries involve American history, heritage, science, religion, law and even politics. As the so-called party of Lincoln supposedly and magically switched to the Democrats. A stand which the record does not support. Do yourself a favor and watch D'Souza's work, "Hillary's America" if you'd like to see what honest digging looks like.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Nope. Didn't say anything like that. I said that you are uncomfortable with the truth, and are therefore seeking out a form with which you are more comfortable.

The fools' errand is in the attempt to ascribe Deism to an appreciable number of the founders. We have in many cases the diaries of many of them, but as fate would have it the actual breakdown of each founder's faith is a matter of public record. "Among the delegates (the 55 recognized founders) were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith." [John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43.] And I might add, Franklin's flirtation with Deism was not at all long lived.

Your assertion that my faith is wed to my politics is a charge by which I would be honored, especially if that impression were the opinion of many. As I have mentioned, one cannot compartmentalize truth and remain objective. I prefer to see all truth as relevant. Thus, I am not blindly bound to separate Church and State. You have an ax to grind, and like the bozo who was supposedly successful in his quest to make a significant evidentiary contribution to the cause of Evolutionism, and who jumped up and battled off to Java to find the bones of ancient man. And wouldn't you just know it? Up jumped Java Man, what a miracle!

Digging for truth ala the fashion of Jefferson takes one on a journey to a destination of which he is unaware, and leads him to accept what he finds, not what he wants to find. Liberals and Evolutionists, the same thing really, already know what they hope to find and have retro-engineered a series of forgeries. And here is where they finally find common ground, those forgeries involve American history, heritage, science, religion, law and even politics. As the so-called party of Lincoln supposedly and magically switched to the Democrats. A stand which the record does not support. Do yourself a favor and watch D'Souza's work, "Hillary's America" if you'd like to see what honest digging looks like.

Honest digging requires no certain outcome. The four "digging points" send one on a journey into primary source material, not commentary or secondary source material.

The very use of the phrase "Nature's God" is straight from Deistical thought and writings of the time. Read for youself what Christian pastors close to Jefferson, even Washington, thought of the Deistical influence on those highly influential men. You're wrong, TRT, not because traditional Christianity indeed influenced the Framers (it did), but because you shut your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and say loudly "La La La" in the face of clear and present evidence that Deism was also a major philosophical underpinning of our Constitutional Framers.

[TheRealThing]

Honest digging requires no certain outcome. The four "digging points" send one on a journey into primary source material, not commentary or secondary source material.

The very use of the phrase "Nature's God" is straight from Deistical thought and writings of the time. Read for youself what Christian pastors close to Jefferson, even Washington, thought of the Deistical influence on those highly influential men. You're wrong, TRT, not because traditional Christianity indeed influenced the Framers (it did), but because you shut your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and say loudly "La La La" in the face of clear and present evidence that Deism was also a major philosophical underpinning of our Constitutional Framers.

No you just want me to be wrong, desperately. That certainly does not make me wrong. Fully 93 percent of the framers were Christians and that is a matter of public record. As I just showed you, it was the practice of the day to declare one's faith. But you keep trying, sooner or later you're bound to come up with something.

Jefferson wrote the words Nature's God, in fact the whole Declaration was his work. Jefferson was not an evangelical, he was however, very conscious and respectful of the sovereignty of God. Gary Amos said of him the following; "Jefferson is a notable example of how a man can be influenced by biblical ideas and Christian principles even though he never confessed Jesus Christ as Lord in the evangelical sense." One thing Jefferson certainly was not however, was an Enlightenment deist. So wherever your digging has resulted in dredging up that moldered old bone, it is 100% bull. In short, your contention is both ill conceived and baseless; the machinations of men desperate to salve their scared consciences.

Further Jefferson and the other founding fathers understood that fear of God, moral leadership and a moral people, were pivotal to any sort of American longevity. I have pointed out that very fact several times this election season. It is the voter who must demand integrity and accountability from their political leaders. In order for that to happen the voter must exercise moral discernment, and the only way to do that is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

It was interesting to read your attempt define the non sequitur on which you have staked your entire reputation, essential liberty. According to you, the founders implied provision was that one day the SCOTUS would evolve to the point where they would see a glorious light from on high and would be inspired to legalize homosexuality. Seriously? That's the best you got for the definition of, drum roll please, essential liberty? :biglmao:
When it all boils down you are defined by your rabid defense of the morally indefensible and in so doing, you try and drag the founding fathers into the argument? Somehow I just cannot accept that as being high up on the agenda for the notables of the Continental Congress.

The sexually deviant have always had society's leave to exercise their abominable behavior. But that was not good enough was it? No, they wanted social validation which, owing to the nature of it's distaste, was not to be had through normal channels. Referendums on the matter of gay marriage often ran north of 70% against. So, the uber left turned their sights on foisting that evil on the public through judicial activism. The American public were then legislated into submission. Accosted by that which they would never have accepted willingly. There's your essential liberty in action and as I said, The Church should be disgusted by it.

[The Urban Sombrero]

No you just want me to be wrong, desperately. That certainly does not make me wrong. Fully 93 percent of the framers were Christians and that is a matter of public record. As I just showed you, it was the practice of the day to declare one's faith. But you keep trying, sooner or later you're bound to come up with something.

Jefferson wrote the words Nature's God, in fact the whole Declaration was his work. Jefferson was not an evangelical, he was however, very conscious and respectful of the sovereignty of God. Gary Amos said of him the following; "Jefferson is a notable example of how a man can be influenced by biblical ideas and Christian principles even though he never confessed Jesus Christ as Lord in the evangelical sense." One thing Jefferson certainly was not however, was an Enlightenment deist. So wherever your digging has resulted in dredging up that moldered old bone, it is 100% bull. In short, your contention is both ill conceived and baseless; the machinations of men desperate to salve their scared consciences.

Further Jefferson and the other founding fathers understood that fear of God, moral leadership and a moral people, were pivotal to any sort of American longevity. I have pointed out that very fact several times this election season. It is the voter who must demand integrity and accountability from their political leaders. In order for that to happen the voter must exercise moral discernment, and the only way to do that is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

It was interesting to read your attempt define the non sequitur on which you have staked your entire reputation, essential liberty. According to you, the founders implied provision was that one day the SCOTUS would evolve to the point where they would see a glorious light from on high and would be inspired to legalize homosexuality. Seriously? That's the best you got for the definition of, drum roll please, essential liberty? :biglmao:
When it all boils down you are defined by your rabid defense of the morally indefensible and in so doing, you try and drag the founding fathers into the argument? Somehow I just cannot accept that as being high up on the agenda for the notables of the Continental Congress.

The sexually deviant have always had society's leave to exercise their abominable behavior. But that was not good enough was it? No, they wanted social validation which, owing to the nature of it's distaste, was not to be had through normal channels. Referendums on the matter of gay marriage often ran north of 70% against. So, the uber left turned their sights on foisting that evil on the public through judicial activism. The American public were then legislated into submission. Accosted by that which they would never have accepted willingly. There's your essential liberty in action and as I said, The Church should be disgusted by it.

Thomas Jefferson excised all things from the Gospels that could not be explained by reason. This was his "Bible." This is Deistic, if one grasps Deism. Your analysis of Jefferson is stunted, and in error. One need only look around Monticello for a few minutes to see that the man was deeply influenced by the Enlightenment.

Essential liberty, freedom of conscience, these concepts do not invalidate that a man must stand before God to give an account. They suggest, that inasmuch as possible, a man is to be left alone from governmental and church intrusion in the exercise of free moral agency. It is, in fact, to recognize in humankind that which God ordained: choice unhindered. Nowhere have I suggested that the choices themselves are equal in goodness or rightness before God.

[TheRealThing]

Thomas Jefferson excised all things from the Gospels that could not be explained by reason. This was his "Bible." This is Deistic, if one grasps Deism. Your analysis of Jefferson is stunted, and in error. One need only look around Monticello for a few minutes to see that the man was deeply influenced by the Enlightenment.

Essential liberty, freedom of conscience, these concepts do not invalidate that a man must stand before God to give an account. They suggest, that inasmuch as possible, a man is to be left alone from governmental and church intrusion in the exercise of free moral agency. It is, in fact, to recognize in humankind that which God ordained: choice unhindered. Nowhere have I suggested that the choices themselves are equal in goodness or rightness before God.

Read up a little bit huh? Jefferson was as I suspect you are, suffering somewhat of a shortfall in his spiritual acumen. Such matters as I have pointed out in the past are unattainable to the secular mind. He nonetheless bowed in deference to the sovereignty of God as his writings clearly demonstrate. I've already pointed out he was not an evangelical, but thanks for restating the obvious. He was not deist. One thing he didn't do was argue against the Godly tenets of Christianity, though that is the nature of the argument you have continually put forth. Denying His influence on the minds of the founders is a form of heresy in my view, and serves no purpose other than easing the minds of those who like Jefferson, cannot seem to make themselves surrender to the Lordship of Christ. But by all means, feel free to push on with it.

In fact let's cut to the chase on this rabbit hunt. Here is the full revelation of the religious affiliations of every one of the signers of The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and The Constitutional Convention of 1787. http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fa...igion.html

As I said, such information was and is a matter of public record, read it and weep. It's a bit harder to make your case when you can't just pick on the shortfalls of only one man, and that as seen through the biased prism of the liberal, is it not? Shoot the messenger, never fails for the liberal.

[Motley]

For such smart Christians, the founders sure did a hell of a job making sure Christianity wasn't mentioned in any of those founding documents.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Read up a little bit huh? Jefferson was as I suspect you are, suffering somewhat of a shortfall in his spiritual acumen. Such matters as I have pointed out in the past are unattainable to the secular mind. He nonetheless bowed in deference to the sovereignty of God as his writings clearly demonstrate. I've already pointed out he was not an evangelical, but thanks for restating the obvious. He was not deist. One thing he didn't do was argue against the Godly tenets of Christianity, though that is the nature of the argument you have continually put forth. Denying His influence on the minds of the founders is a form of heresy in my view, and serves no purpose other than easing the minds of those who like Jefferson, cannot seem to make themselves surrender to the Lordship of Christ. But by all means, feel free to push on with it.

In fact let's cut to the chase on this rabbit hunt. Here is the full revelation of the religious affiliations of every one of the signers of The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and The Constitutional Convention of 1787. http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fa...igion.html

As I said, such information was and is a matter of public record, read it and weep. It's a bit harder to make your case when you can't just pick on the shortfalls of only one man, and that as seen through the biased prism of the liberal, is it not? Shoot the messenger, never fails for the liberal.

I am surprised that the public profession of Christianity by a politician would so move you, TRT. Having investigated the four tests, or "dig points," FOR MYSELF, I am unmoved by your shenanigans.

In fact, Barack Obama professes Christianity, as does HRC, yet, if I recall correctly, you have questioned that. You certainly move the hurdles to suit your ability to jump.

[TheRealThing]

I am surprised that the public profession of Christianity by a politician would so move you, TRT. Having investigated the four tests, or "dig points," FOR MYSELF, I am unmoved by your shenanigans.

In fact, Barack Obama professes Christianity, as does HRC, yet, if I recall correctly, you have questioned that. You certainly move the hurdles to suit your ability to jump.

People used to tell the truth. Back in the founder's day politically correct maneuvering was not in vogue, so getting up and declaring a faith one did not in fact possess would not have been politically expedient. And yeah, I really do question people who spend all their time in activist pursuits in the name of abortion and homosexuality while at the same time professing the Christian faith.

However I'll let the Lord deal with all that. Your claim about the deist deal is as dubious as is the liberal's evidence in support of same. I have the historical documents on my side, all you got is a feeling, I guess.

[The Urban Sombrero]

People used to tell the truth. Back in the founder's day politically correct maneuvering was not in vogue, so getting up and declaring a faith one did not in fact possess would not have been politically expedient. And yeah, I really do question people who spend all their time in activist pursuits in the name of abortion and homosexuality while at the same time professing the Christian faith.

However I'll let the Lord deal with all that. Your claim about the deist deal is as dubious as is the liberal's evidence in support of same. I have the historical documents on my side, all you got is a feeling, I guess.

Again, you surprise me. So well versed as a Scribe in the Scriptures, yet here claiming that human nature in 1770's was so different than today.

The historical documents? A "full faith and credit" examination establishes beyond dispute that Judaeo-Christianity influenced our Founders, as did Deism and the Enlightenment. Period.

Again, I invite anyone interested to take those four "dig points" and examine primary source material relating to the "top ten and honorable mention" Founding Fathers. No wayfaring man need err therein.

[TheRealThing]

Again, you surprise me. So well versed as a Scribe in the Scriptures, yet here claiming that human nature in 1770's was so different than today.

The historical documents? A "full faith and credit" examination establishes beyond dispute that Judaeo-Christianity influenced our Founders, as did Deism and the Enlightenment. Period.

Again, I invite anyone interested to take those four "dig points" and examine primary source material relating to the "top ten and honorable mention" Founding Fathers. No wayfaring man need err therein.

Oh I have little doubt that you sort of stay surprised. Actually my claim was that society as it existed in the founder's day, would have rejected the lies and scandal folks of your ilk are so cozy with in our own. Human nature is the same, depraved. And yet though fear of being judged by one's peers for bad behavior, at one time did have the effect of keeping most folks in line, we have seen that as personal standards have eroded a marked change has occurred in what is considered acceptable and unacceptable even within my own lifetime.

For example, back when I was a teen if one was overtaken in a fault, particularly if his girlfriend turned up pregnant, certain things automatically happened. Society in that day would not have expected the State to take the love child in question to raise as we do in our day. Such an event usually meant dropping out of college and getting a job in an all out effort to immediately begin to provide for the care of Mom and baby. But of course, only after the formality of what was at that time referred to as a shotgun wedding. Back in that day actions had consequences, not so today.

No, today hardly an eyebrow is arched when little so and so turns up pregnant, the father being free in the vast majority of the cases to ignore the whole affair if he so chooses. Life in America is on it's head as compared to the time of Eisenhower and JFK, then only a few men took the low road and shirked their responsibilities. The reverse of which is more true now, as most often the parents stop seeing each other and the taxpayer is left to subsidize the sexual excesses of the nation either in the form of cradle to grave entitlements or in shouldering the cost of an abortion.

We are a much degraded people as compared to the days of the founders. We just keep slipping and the libs just keep rationalizing about it. Hillary is the perfect poster child for a society which excuses every lapse of personal integrity. I can see why her name would have been on the tip of your tongue.

And I might ask. How many so far have availed themselves of your oft proffered gracious invitation to plumb the depths of liberal distortion, be it by shovel or by gleeful immersion? :biggrin:

[The Urban Sombrero]

Oh I have little doubt that you sort of stay surprised. Actually my claim was that society as it existed in the founder's day, would have rejected the lies and scandal folks of your ilk are so cozy with in our own. Human nature is the same, depraved. And yet though fear of being judged by one's peers for bad behavior, at one time did have the effect of keeping most folks in line, we have seen that as personal standards have eroded, a marked change has occurred in what is considered acceptable and unacceptable even within my own lifetime.

For example, back when I was a teen if one was overtaken in a fault, particularly if his girlfriend turned up pregnant, certain things automatically happened. Society in that day would not have expected the State to take the love child in question to raise as we do in our day. Such an event usually meant dropping out of college and getting a job in an all out effort to immediately begin to provide for the care of Mom and baby. But of course, only after the formality of what was at that time referred to as a shotgun wedding. Back in that day actions had consequences, not so today.

No, today hardly an eyebrow is arched when little so and so turns up pregnant, the father being free in the vast majority of the cases to ignore the whole affair if he so chooses. Life in America is on it's head as compared to the time of Eisenhower and JFK, then only a few men took the low road and shirked their responsibilities. The reverse of which is more true now, as most often the parents stop seeing each other and the taxpayer is left to subsidize the sexual excesses of the nation either in the form of cradle to grave entitlements or in shouldering the cost of an abortion.

We are a much degraded people as compared to the days of the founders. We just keep slipping and the libs just keep rationalizing about it. Hillary is the perfect poster child for a society which excuses every lapse of personal integrity. I can see why her name would have been on the tip of your tongue.

And I might ask. How many so far have availed themselves of your oft proffered gracious invitation to plumb the depths of liberal distortion, be it by shovel or by gleeful immersion? :biggrin:

"We are a much degraded people" though human nature be the same? The spirit which orchestrated the Salem witch trials is not gone. The spirit which sold children away from mothers at auction is not gone. The spirit which denied women the right to vote or hold property is not gone. The spirit which blames the stranger, the immigrant, the different and makes them a scapegoat is not gone. The spirit which got into mobs and led them to lynch is not gone. The spirit which threw rocks at buses and blocked the school door is not gone.

Being a biblical scribe, you know the worth of an invitation cannot be measured by the number of affirmative responses.

I would guess that 300 million human natures will generate a lot more degradation than less than a million.

[TheRealThing]

"We are a much degraded people" though human nature be the same? The spirit which orchestrated the Salem witch trials is not gone. The spirit which sold children away from mothers at auction is not gone. The spirit which denied women the right to vote or hold property is not gone. The spirit which blames the stranger, the immigrant, the different and makes them a scapegoat is not gone. The spirit which got into mobs and led them to lynch is not gone. The spirit which threw rocks at buses and blocked the school door is not gone.

Being a biblical scribe, you know the worth of an invitation cannot be measured by the number of affirmative responses.

I would guess that 300 million human natures will generate a lot more degradation than less than a million.

And therein lies the mitigating root of confusion for you about all tings traditionally conservative.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And therein lies the mitigating root of confusion for you about all tings traditionally conservative.

And therein lies your weakness as a debater: you seek to be cute and clever, with minimal insight.

Since you either have a deaf ear to turn of phrase or purposely distort because what really matters to you is feeling like you are winning in the barnyard, I'll be more bland: 300 million human natures produce tons more degradation than less than a million.

[TheRealThing]

And therein lies your weakness as a debater: you seek to be cute and clever, with minimal insight.

Since you either have a deaf ear to turn of phrase or purposely distort because what really matters to you is feeling like you are winning in the barnyard, I'll be more bland: 300 million human natures produce tons more degradation than less than a million.

What a crock. Society is what society is, population figures not withstanding. You haven't backed up a single thing you've said. And frankly, if I didn't know better I might think you're actually a girl. You can't stay focused and you routinely dodge evidence which overwhelmingly disprove your untenable liberal arguments. Take the deal with Ali's record of draft dodging. Arguing a SC case which came about subsequent to a veritable avalanche of negative reporting on the matter means nada, heck, even the justices themselves file dissentions to nearly every case. You hide behind BB's when the steely missiles of reality come crashing in every time. Thus in my view, the debater has no clothes.

[The Urban Sombrero]

What a crock. Society is what society is, population figures not withstanding. You haven't backed up a single thing you've said. And frankly, if I didn't know better I might think you're actually a girl. You can't stay focused and you routinely dodge evidence which overwhelmingly disprove your untenable liberal arguments. Take the deal with Ali's record of draft dodging. Arguing a SC case which came about subsequent to a veritable avalanche of negative reporting on the matter means nada, heck, even the justices themselves file dissentions to nearly every case. You hide behind BB's when the steely missiles of reality come crashing in every time. Thus in my view, the debater has no clothes.

Look at Clay v. United States. No dissenters.

I repeat: the four "dig points," if used objectively, only refute your contention that Deism and Enlightenment ideas did not influence our Founders.

I realize you define reality a certain way, and shape the entirety of how you filter news in that direction. It is possible to be sincere, and sincerely in error.

You equate Jefferson and Penn, then, apparently, grow frustrated when that falls flat. Your inability to see freedom of conscience and essential liberty as a dominant spirit in our Constitution boils down to "where are the exact words"?

The debater has clothes, Sir. Men's clothes.

[TheRealThing]

Look at Clay v. United States. No dissenters.

I repeat: the four "dig points," if used objectively, only refute your contention that Deism and Enlightenment ideas did not influence our Founders.

I realize you define reality a certain way, and shape the entirety of how you filter news in that direction. It is possible to be sincere, and sincerely in error.

You equate Jefferson and Penn, then, apparently, grow frustrated when that falls flat. Your inability to see freedom of conscience and essential liberty as a dominant spirit in our Constitution boils down to "where are the exact words"?

The debater has clothes, Sir. Men's clothes.

Au contraire. The illusion was not one of gender but of perception.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Au contraire. The illusion was not one of gender but of perception.

Yes, it was an illusion.

[TheRealThing]

Yes, it was an illusion.

I made two drive-bys (initially in the Jill and Hill thread) giving you two opportunities including this one, to latch on to the analogy but you missed it. Are you not familiar with the Hans Christian Anderson short story entitled "The Emperor's New Clothes?"

I said this; And so class in summation, what did we learn today? First there is no such thing as Black Islam. Second we learned that there is no such thing as essential liberty, at least in a form that can be aptly defined. It would be therefore foolhardy, to undertake building a defense of an idea which does not exist, using an interpretative tool of the law which does not exist, in order to give birth to social doctrine. Nonetheless ladies and gentlemen, I give you the liberal, whose rationales are based on the science of nothing. And who are so proud these days to expose themselves before the masses, resplendently clad in the "new clothes' of their delusion.

This was your response; "Look at the reference: "I know your game" went back to the "turn the tables" approach, which Bob uses a lot, per a quick perusal of his postings. Your inference is that I am somehow claiming Bob is an easy puzzle which I have figured out. That is not what is being said. You take a limited scope meaning and suggest it is universal. Dismissed.

Essential liberty and freedom of conscience have been defined in many ways in our discussions, and, again, for all your excessive verbal flatuence, you have settled the issue for yourself, which was not hard because you mistake sincerity and faithfulness to an OPINION for some sort of knightish defense of truth.

So, yet again you parade around the ring, arms thrown skyward, declaring yourself Head Rooster in Charge, your politics wagging your faith."




Did you per chance hear a buzzing noise going past that noggin?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Allusion vs. illusion

[TheRealThing]

Delusion versus confusion more like it.

[mr.fundamental]

Wow... I just want everyone to look at the Jefferson Bible that is presented to Congress to this very day. If the Founders share TRT vision, how could they allow this to continue in their day?

Second point, there is nothing new under the sun, people are always needing a Savior.

Third point, I am sorry that I could not serve like TRT, but am thankful for his/her service. The freedom to choose to believe or not to believe, to render unto Caesar, to understand others have a different point of view then my own, what a great freedom.

Fourth point, the only kingdom of God that actually took form was destroyed over 2,500 ago, according to the book of Kings, for those that believe in another version of the old testament 1 and 2 Kings. Religion and politics do not mix.

Fifth point, I wish we had a religious kingdom, people would sell all they own, everyone would have equal, we would all have healthcare, we would all take care of the environment, people would work, we would take care of seniors and our children. Man, what a thought. I would love to be part of a group like this!