Irational fear of hell still naggs me from time to time

[Drich]

Wait........wait.  Everytime you see god or angels they come in the form of homeless men?  This has happened more than once? 

Okay.....so, have you ever given any thought to the possibility that these angels, and god..were just homeless men...and that the shit they apparently tell you about the divine universe might be, oh, IDK, the ramblings of homeless men?

Well Jesus at my judgement wore a tattered well worn one piece garment, but knew he was God for what He showed me.

The angel I picked u literally spoke and physically answered questions I asked in my head. So no not a regular homeless guy. (spent some time working with the so I do have an idea of what an average homeless guy is.)

In scripture angels/God shows up as people in need/unassuming.

---

Regarding the religion of the Founders, many of them weren't (and aren't today, in some circles) considered true Christians (Roman Catholics, Unitarians, members of the Church of England, etc.).

Again I provided a definition of Christian which includes a well rounded and working definition that would ring true even today in america.

 Moreover, Franklin and Madison - deists - were two of the key architects of our government.

 that was not your opening statement. you claim the vast majority were non christian. that said I provided proof you were completely wrong. in that only 4 were considered not practing Christian. 3 are Unitarians one franklin was the only true 'deist' meaning he did not subscribe to religion at all. Not that he did not believe in God, He simply formed his own relationship with God. If you go to philly and read his tombtone it is clear he saw himself a man of God. Just in His own way.

Much of what we consider of our classical Federal government comes directly from them.  Even then, the way the Founders (and colonists) viewed their religion was far different than modern Christians.  The Constitution is a secular document for a reason.

what a joke.. you have no idea how badly you have been brain washed. seriously take 8 mins out of your life and just watch the monuments explained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGH-6adzue0

Regarding the Iroquois Confederacy, while our government has acknowledged it as an inspiration for our own Constitution, there's controversy surrounding its actual role in the creation of our document.  Namely that much of what's presented within doesn't actually match up all that well to what our Constitution became.  Our government, and, perhaps, more specifically the way in which we govern is far closer to the British system than anything the Iroquois did.

what are you talking about google Iroquois confederacy.. the thre branches of government, the seperation of powers, that is the back bone of our constitution!!!

Of course, if you have any real questions on this, you could always email my old professor.

or you could just send him the corrections I just made to you. professors are not held responsible for what they teach. yours is a prime example of that if you ever thought that the majority of the founding fathers were not christian. I just showed you evidence documented evidence to the contrary, yet you BY FAITH want to listen and follow your intellectually dishonest professor. You guys are blind sheep.

[KevinM1]

Regarding the Iroquois Confederacy, while our government has acknowledged it as an inspiration for our own Constitution, there's controversy surrounding its actual role in the creation of our document.  Namely that much of what's presented within doesn't actually match up all that well to what our Constitution became.  Our government, and, perhaps, more specifically the way in which we govern is far closer to the British system than anything the Iroquois did.

what are you talking about google Iroquois confederacy.. the thre branches of government, the seperation of powers, that is the back bone of our constitution!!!

Our structure of government is largely a reaction to the flaws the Founders saw in the British system, namely the House of Lords, whose members consist(ed) of the senior bishops of the Church of England, royalty, and those voted in by the Sovereign and their peers (not the common folk).  Moreover, it was the House of Lords that, until 2009, when a separate Supreme Court was established, held a judicial role.  So, the Founders did the following:

Kept a bicameral legislature (our Congress has both a House of Representatives and a Senate)
Kept a member of the executive in the legislature (our Vice President is the President of the Senate, who casts tie-breaking votes)
Changed one part of the legislature from being filled by monarchy or religious leadership to being filled by anyone, with regular elections (no House of Lords)
Created a separate Supreme Court

And while the Iroquois Confederacy may have been an influence of Franklin's Albany Plan, there's no evidence in the mounds of notes and records we have of the Founders and their long road towards forming our government that it was the model for it.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  

But, I'm sure you're not going to listen because you're a blessed by god Google scholar whose shit doesn't stink.  That's how you roll, after all.

[Angrboda]

Much of what we consider of our classical Federal government comes directly from them.  Even then, the way the Founders (and colonists) viewed their religion was far different than modern Christians.  The Constitution is a secular document for a reason.

what a joke.. you have no idea how badly you have been brain washed. seriously take 8 mins out of your life and just watch the monuments explained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGH-6adzue0

So you believe the bullshit of known liar, David Barton?  And you're stupid enough to post his lies as part of an argument.  I thought I might have to watch a minute or two before I came across a lie, but the first words out of his mouth all were lies.  And you believe him?  You are one stupid motherfucker.

http://www.liarsforjesus.com/downloads/LFJ_FINAL.pdf

Myths regarding the printing, financing, distribution, or recommending of Bibles by our early Congresses are among the most popular of all the religious right American history lies. Most are variations of the same three stories – two involving the Continental Congress, and one an act signed by James Madison.

---

The first is the story of the Continental Congress importing Bibles in 1777.  

• According to William Federer, in his book America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations: “Continental Congress September 11, 1777, approved and recommended to the people that 20,000 copies of The Holy Bible be imported from other sources. This was in response to the shortage of Bibles in America caused by the Revolutionary War interrupting trade with England. The Chaplain of Congress, Patrick Allison, brought the matter to the attention of Congress, who assigned it to a special Congressional Committee, which reported:
  • That the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States in the Union. Whereupon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible.” ...

... William Federer’s version of the 1777 Bible story is typical of those found in the majority of religious right American history books. It tells half of the real story, includes a quote from an actual committee report, but ends with a fabricated resolution. The resolution is created to change the outcome of the story from Congress dropping the matter, which is what really happened, to Congress proceeding to import the Bibles …In addition to changing the outcome of the story, none of the religious right American history books fully explain why Congress was considering importing the Bibles in the first place. Most mention that the war with England caused a shortage of Bibles, which is true, but this is only half the story. Congress’s consideration of the matter had to do with the prevention of price gouging…

---

The second of the top three myths about Congress and the Bible involves the edition of the Bible begun by Robert Aitken in 1780, and completed in 1782.

• According to William Federer, in his book America’s God and Country: “Robert Aitken (1734-1802), on January 21, 1781, as publisher of The Pennsylvania Magazine, petitioned Congress for permission to print Bibles, since there was a shortage of Bibles in America due to the Revolutionary War interrupting trade with England. The Continental Congress, September 10, 1782, in response to the shortage of Bibles, approved and recommended to the people that The Holy Bible be printed by Robert Aitken of Philadelphia. This first American Bible was to be ‘a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools’:
  • Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled...recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize [Robert Aitken] to publish this recommendation in any manner he shall think proper.”

Elsewhere in the same book, Federer includes a second version of the story, in which Aitken was “contracted” by Congress to print his Bibles.

• According to Federer: “Congress of the Confederation September 10, 1782, in response to the need for Bibles which again arose, granted approval to print ‘a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.’ The printing was contracted to Robert Aitken of Philadelphia, a bookseller and publisher of The Pennsylvania Magazine, who had previously petitioned Congress on January 21, 1781.”

There are many versions of this story floating around, all worded to mislead that Congress either requested the printing of the Bibles, granted Aitken permission to print them, contracted him to print them, paid for the printing, or had Bibles printed for the use of schools. Congress did none of these things. All they did was grant one of several requests made by Aitken by having their chaplains examine his work, and allowing him to publish their resolution stating that, based on the chaplains’ report, they were satisfied that his edition was accurate …The actual resolution is edited in various ways. The purpose of this editing is to omit that Congress also had a secular reason for recommending Aitken’s Bible, and, in most cases, to turn the resolution into a recommendation of the Bible itself, rather than a recommendation of the accuracy of Aitken’s work.



http://www.liarsforjesus.com/

[Drich]

what a joke.. you have no idea how badly you have been brain washed. seriously take 8 mins out of your life and just watch the monuments explained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGH-6adzue0

So you believe the bullshit of known liar, David Barton?  And you're stupid enough to post his lies as part of an argument.  I thought I might have to watch a minute or two before I came across a lie, but the first words out of his mouth all were lies.  And you believe him?  You are one stupid motherfucker.

http://www.liarsforjesus.com/downloads/LFJ_FINAL.pdf

Myths regarding the printing, financing, distribution, or recommending of Bibles by our early Congresses are among the most popular of all the religious right American history lies. Most are variations of the same three stories – two involving the Continental Congress, and one an act signed by James Madison.

---

The first is the story of the Continental Congress importing Bibles in 1777.  

• According to William Federer, in his book America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations: “Continental Congress September 11, 1777, approved and recommended to the people that 20,000 copies of The Holy Bible be imported from other sources. This was in response to the shortage of Bibles in America caused by the Revolutionary War interrupting trade with England. The Chaplain of Congress, Patrick Allison, brought the matter to the attention of Congress, who assigned it to a special Congressional Committee, which reported:
  • That the use of the Bible is so universal and its importance so great that your committee refers the above to the consideration of Congress, and if Congress shall not think it expedient to order the importation of types and paper, the Committee recommends that Congress will order the Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland, or elsewhere, into the different parts of the States in the Union. Whereupon it was resolved accordingly to direct said Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 copies of the Bible.” ...

... William Federer’s version of the 1777 Bible story is typical of those found in the majority of religious right American history books. It tells half of the real story, includes a quote from an actual committee report, but ends with a fabricated resolution. The resolution is created to change the outcome of the story from Congress dropping the matter, which is what really happened, to Congress proceeding to import the Bibles …In addition to changing the outcome of the story, none of the religious right American history books fully explain why Congress was considering importing the Bibles in the first place. Most mention that the war with England caused a shortage of Bibles, which is true, but this is only half the story. Congress’s consideration of the matter had to do with the prevention of price gouging…

---

The second of the top three myths about Congress and the Bible involves the edition of the Bible begun by Robert Aitken in 1780, and completed in 1782.

• According to William Federer, in his book America’s God and Country: “Robert Aitken (1734-1802), on January 21, 1781, as publisher of The Pennsylvania Magazine, petitioned Congress for permission to print Bibles, since there was a shortage of Bibles in America due to the Revolutionary War interrupting trade with England. The Continental Congress, September 10, 1782, in response to the shortage of Bibles, approved and recommended to the people that The Holy Bible be printed by Robert Aitken of Philadelphia. This first American Bible was to be ‘a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools’:
  • Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled...recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorize [Robert Aitken] to publish this recommendation in any manner he shall think proper.”

Elsewhere in the same book, Federer includes a second version of the story, in which Aitken was “contracted” by Congress to print his Bibles.

• According to Federer: “Congress of the Confederation September 10, 1782, in response to the need for Bibles which again arose, granted approval to print ‘a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools.’ The printing was contracted to Robert Aitken of Philadelphia, a bookseller and publisher of The Pennsylvania Magazine, who had previously petitioned Congress on January 21, 1781.”

There are many versions of this story floating around, all worded to mislead that Congress either requested the printing of the Bibles, granted Aitken permission to print them, contracted him to print them, paid for the printing, or had Bibles printed for the use of schools. Congress did none of these things. All they did was grant one of several requests made by Aitken by having their chaplains examine his work, and allowing him to publish their resolution stating that, based on the chaplains’ report, they were satisfied that his edition was accurate …The actual resolution is edited in various ways. The purpose of this editing is to omit that Congress also had a secular reason for recommending Aitken’s Bible, and, in most cases, to turn the resolution into a recommendation of the Bible itself, rather than a recommendation of the accuracy of Aitken’s work.



http://www.liarsforjesus.com/

Sorry just don't get what you are saying today.. I don't get your objection.. are you saying the bible does not exist? or that it was not commissioned or the bible do not say what say what david barton said it says?

Claim 1; the bible he held up was a copy of what the first bible printed in english in america looked like. which dismisses all the other conjecture you posted about where america sourced it's bibles... because bottom line all that is being claim is this is what the firt english copy of the bible look like that was printed here. made no assertions as to why it was printed.
what is posted below supports that assertion:
http://www.philadelphiafaithandfreedom.c...ntingpress
from that link we get the term "The congress bible"

claim2 it was commissioned by the congress.it was. despite what else happened it was indeed comissioned by the congress. which is enough to end the conversation as no other interpretation of congress would allow such a printing. which leads us to 'proof' 2


https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
about 2/3 the way down on the page we get to see and read the words out of the bible this website identifies as an original copy of the congress bible.



claim 3 he said it is printed in the bible certifying congress approves it's use to the US citizenry.
on the above link you can read from a picture of the original book those very words/or you can read a modern transcript.

So everything David barton was true. That is why I do not get you objection... that is you are so stupid to attribute the rest of your clip from the liars website to be something David barton said... Again I gave you three point in what barton said and I verified them, nothing else you seem to be objection pertains to what he said in the video.

If that's the case then you do know you are half assing/phoning in a strawman objection right?

---

what are you talking about google Iroquois confederacy.. the thre branches of government, the seperation of powers, that is the back bone of our constitution!!!

Our structure of government is largely a reaction to the flaws the Founders saw in the British system, namely the House of Lords, whose members consist(ed) of the senior bishops of the Church of England, royalty, and those voted in by the Sovereign and their peers (not the common folk).  Moreover, it was the House of Lords that, until 2009, when a separate Supreme Court was established, held a judicial role.  So, the Founders did the following:

Kept a bicameral legislature (our Congress has both a House of Representatives and a Senate)
Kept a member of the executive in the legislature (our Vice President is the President of the Senate, who casts tie-breaking votes)
Changed one part of the legislature from being filled by monarchy or religious leadership to being filled by anyone, with regular elections (no House of Lords)
Created a separate Supreme Court

And while the Iroquois Confederacy may have been an influence of Franklin's Albany Plan, there's no evidence in the mounds of notes and records we have of the Founders and their long road towards forming our government that it was the model for it.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  

But, I'm sure you're not going to listen because you're a blessed by god Google scholar whose shit doesn't stink.  That's how you roll, after all.

 

Says the douche that claim our fore fathers were not Christian... what happened to that lie sport? why are you waving that flag anymore? could it be that no matter how your professor sold you that lie one guy out of 50 can't even in this day and age of fake news be sold as a MAJORITY???

Who give a sh*t what a fail professor thinks how our country's government was founded when he doesn't even fact check a known lie??? when he stretches the faith on one man to cover 50 others.. maybe just maybe this douche is wrong about how the orgins of the government was started as well.

Also did I fail to mention I sourced my observation that the government was founded on the principles of the Iroquois confederacy on the words of Thomas Jefferson... Hmm.. maybe ask your professor who that man was, and why his opinion on what shaped the constitution trumps what your professor has to say about the constitution, any day of the week..

[Angrboda]

claim2 it was commissioned by the congress.it was. despite what else happened it was indeed comissioned by the congress. which is enough to end the conversation as no other interpretation of congress would allow such a printing. which leads us to 'proof' 2


https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
about 2/3 the way down on the page we get to see and read the words out of the bible this website identifies as an original copy of the congress bible.

No, it most definitely was not commissioned by congress.

Aitken actually asked Congress for quite a bit more than they gave
him. In addition to his work being examined by the chaplains, Aitken
requested  that  his  Bible  “be  published  under  the  Authority  of
Congress,” 10 and that he “be commissioned or otherwise appointed
& Authorized to print and vend Editions of the Sacred Scriptures.” 11
He also asked Congress to purchase some of his Bibles and distribute
them to the states. Congress did not grant any of these other requests.

http://www.liarsforjesus.com/downloads/LFJ_FINAL.pdf, pg. 14

claim 3 he said it is printed in the bible certifying congress approves it's use to the US citizenry.
on the above link you can read from a picture of the original book those very words/or you can read a modern transcript.

Here's what Barton actually said.


"This is a copy of the first bible printed in English in America."
True.

"This bible was printed by congress in 1782."
False.   Aitken paid for the printing of his bibles.

"In the record it says this bible was "A neat addition of the holy scriptures for the use of our schools.""

There are many versions of this story floating around, all worded
to mislead that Congress either requested the printing of the Bibles,
granted  Aitken  permission  to  print  them,  contracted  him  to  print
them,  paid  for  the  printing,  or  had  Bibles  printed  for  the  use  of
schools. Congress did none of these things. All they did was grant one
of several requests made by Aitken by having their chaplains exam-
ine his work, and allowing him to publish their resolution stating that,
based on the chaplains’ report, they were satisfied that his edition was
accurate. The words “a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use
of schools” are taken from a letter written by Aitken, 8 not the resolu-
tion of Congress.

So it was Aitken who claimed that it was for our schools, not congress. Barton is misleading his audience into thinking that congress recommended the Aitken bible for use in schools, as he flat out says next.

"So the first bible printed in America in English was printed by congress for the use of our schools, It's worse than that."
False. It's not worse than that, because that's not even true.

So everything David barton was true.

Not even close to being true.

[Angrboda]

Robert Aitken made a poor business decision. He printed a bunch of Bible and was unable to sell them – and he wanted the government to bail him out.

Tomorrow several conservative members of the U.S. House of Representatives plan to hold a public reading of the Aitken Bible on the East Front Lawn of the Capitol. Among the participants will be U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), who once famously quizzed AU Executive Director Barry W. Lynn about hell during a congressional hearing.

So what is the Aitken Bible, and what are people reading from it? As it turns out, this Bible has been the subject of much bad history from the Religious Right. It's important to set the record straight.

According to various Religious Right groups and several right-wing pseudo-historians (like Glenn Beck), the Aitken Bible was printed by Congress during the Revolution and inspired American troops to fight the British. It is proof, they assert, that America was founded to be a “Christian nation.”

Warren Throckmorton and Chris Rodda have done in-depth work debunking this myth. Their research is penetrating, and I recommend it to you. Here’s the short version:

Robert Aitken was a printer who decided in 1781 to produce a version of the Bible and offer it for sale. During the years when the United States was a colony of Great Britain, colonial printers weren’t permitted to print Bibles. Other American merchants suffered similar restrictions on what they could produce and sell. Remember, the British wanted a ready-made market for their imported goods and didn’t tolerate much competition from the colonists.

Aitken printed the Bible at his own expense as the war was winding down. He then began bombarding Congress with petitions and letters asking that he be made the official printer of Bibles in America.

It’s unclear why Aitken thought the newly liberated United States would have an official printer of Bibles. He may have assumed that the new country would operate along the lines of the European powers, many of which had established churches and did maintain offices that examined Bibles for doctrinal purity.

Congress had no interest in taking on that role. In September of 1782, members did pass a resolution lauding Aitken’s Bible, but they authorized no taxpayer funds for its printing. Aitken was on his own there.


Scripture Stories: Religious Right Claims About The ‘Aitken Bible’ Don’t Hold Up

[Angrboda]

More lies from the David Barton video: (Read more at: David Barton on Thomas Jefferson – Did Jefferson approve church in the Capitol?)

David Barton claims that Thomas Jefferson approved the use of the Capitol building as a church in 1800. On his April 11 podcast, Barton claimed that Jefferson was so religious that he would look like a “Bible thumping  evangelical” with the following example given as evidence:

   And I’ll give you a great example. We moved into the US Capitol in 1800, November of 1800. And when we moved in, one of the first acts of Congress was to approve the use of the Capitol as a church building. You can find that in the records of Congress, Dec 4 1800. Now, who did that? You had the head of the Senate and the head of the House, the speaker of the House was John Trumbull, the president of the Senate who approved that was Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson approves church in the Capitol? Yep, he went there as Vice President, he went to the church at the Capitol for 8 years as President, and as President of the US, he’s going to church, and this is recorded in all sorts of members of Congress, their records, their diaries, because they went to church at the Capitol too. And so, Thomas Jefferson, President of the United States, thinks, you know I think I can help the worship services at this new church at the Capitol, they met in the Hall of the House of Representatives, so Jefferson ordered the Marine Corp band to come play for the worship services, in the church services at the US Capitol. The worship band is the Marine Corp Band? Pretty good worship band. Thomas Jefferson did that. I thought he wanted separation of church and state. If you read his letter on separation of church and state, he said separation of church and state, he makes it very clear, separation of church and state will keep the government from stopping a public religious activity.

In fact, the records of Congress do note the request for use of the House of Representatives for church services. Here is the entry marking the occasion:



Note that the Speaker informed the assembled representatives that the Chaplains proposed to hold services in the Chamber.  Apparently, it was agreeable to the House of Representatives since there is no recorded objection or vote on the matter. The Senate chaplain was Dr. Thomas John Claggett, an Episcopalian, and the House chaplain was Rev. Thomas Lyell, a Methodist. Both had begun their appointments in November, 1800.

Barton said that John Trumbull was the Speaker of the House but it was Theodore Sedgwick who raised the matter to the House on December 4, 1800. Jefferson was indeed President pro tempore of the Senate. However, according to the records of the Senate that same day (general business and the executive committee), nothing was mentioned about use of the Capitol building as a church.

In fact, the Senate did not need to approve the matter since the request came to the House for their Chamber. I can find no vote, affirmation or acknowledgement by the Senate. Unless Barton can demonstrate otherwise, it is incorrect to say that Thomas Jefferson approved, in some official manner, church services in the Capitol.

Barton also claims that Jefferson ordered the Marine Band to play in order to aid the worship. I can find no proof of that. If Mr. Barton has documentation of that claim, he should offer it. According to the record of the House and Bryan’s observations, the Chaplains were in charge.

[Angrboda]

Even more lies from the David Barton video!

On the tour at [approximately] 6:45, Barton says:

   "Most people have no clue that Thomas Jefferson in 1803 negotiated a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians in which Jefferson put federal funds to pay for missionaries to go evangelize the Indians and gave federal funds so that after they were converted we’d build them a church in which they could worship."

One reason people have no clue about this story is that it didn’t happen that way.

Read more at David Barton’s Capitol Tour: Did Thomas Jefferson Spend Federal Funds to Evangelize the Kaskaskia Indians?

[snowtracks]

You just told us, in your own quoted statement above..that free will without sin was a possibility.  Obviously god doesn't have to make any middling choice between having free will and evil.  Are you really going to insist that your god prefers this earths fallen state to his own kingdom in heaven?

The New Creation* will be a sin-free zone. People who claim salvation by Jesus Christ will have the propensity to choose but will be unable to sin just as God can't do sin, accept sin, or overlook sin. This current universe will be spoken out of existence after it serves God's purposes.

*Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God,

[Astreja]

The New Creation* will be a sin-free zone. People who claim salvation by Jesus Christ will have the propensity to choose but will be unable to sin...

So much for that "free will" shit.