THE BIBLE IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE U.S...NOT THE 'CONSTITUTION'
Gehenna00
THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE HELD
AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT TIME
IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC INFIDELS
IN HIS HOLY NAME.
A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
CONTINA, MS
ba...@zotnet.net
By what possible means do you construe that the United States of
America was founded on the KJV (by which I presume you mean the King
James Version of the Bible as originally published)?
The people of european descent who founded this country were not all
of the same religion. They were by no means of all English extraction.
The Puritans fled England because they refused to bow down to the
Church of England (headed by King James). The German speaking people
of upstate New York and Pennsylvania were certainly not required to
hold the KJV as sacred. The desire to make a clean break with England
led to the founders nearly adopting German as the official language.
Think of how different history might have been. The Catholic signers
of the Declaration of Independence most certainly did not hold the KJV
as sacred. They would have called it a work of heresy. In fact, the
Constitution specifically prohibits Congress from establishing a
Religion. This is what would be the case if everyone were required to
hold the KJV as sacred.
Political theory up to the time had held that it was impossible for a
country to be governed effectively without an established state
religion of which everyone was required to be a member or a supporter.
This theory had been weakening; however, it was the American
Revolution and its subsequent constitution that changed forever the
theory. It was now possible to govern without an established religion.
Religion was still to have a place in the public square (it has been
badly treated of late); but, it would compete on an equal playing
field. The founders, who were very much sons of the so called
enlightenment, saw this a great progress in the history of man.
Morpheus
Gehenna00 wrote:
} THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
} 'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
} THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE HELD
} AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
}
} CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT TIME
} IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC INFIDELS
} IN HIS HOLY NAME.
}
} A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
}
} REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
} VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
} CONTINA, MS
The founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. That is the majority of them
were, such as John Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James
Madison, Thomas Paine, and George Washington.
This is why the First Amendment is the First Amendment, not the 2nd, or 3rd...etc.
The first Amendment provides freedom of religion. We can be thankful for this
because if the founding fathers were Christians, generally speaking, they would
never consider that people should be free to practice other religions. Their
belief in Deism is why, and also why they devoted so much effort in trying to
separate the church from the state.
Deists are sometimes considered to be free thinkers and humanitarians, which was
quite popular for intellectuals during the seventeenth century. They even
considered themselves to be people of no religion. Jesus to them was considered
more of a philosopher than a son-of-God.
Thomas Paine summarized Deism fairly well when he said, "God is the Power of the
first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon." That is
about the closest they came to believing in a trinity.
You need to study history a bit more closely. Maybe take a course at a community
college, or divinity school. You might also learn that the KJV is full of errors,
deletions, and inaccuracies.
The self quoting fomentation of your Crusade, "A weapon used in defense of the
faith is a weapon well used," is at best pathetic bullshit, and certainly anti
Christian. By the way you left your caps lock on. Or is that your way of shouting
into the Great Usenet Void? That's kind of funny.
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 16 May 99 5:05:01 GMT,
gehe...@aol.com
(Gehenna00) wrote:
}
}THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD
}CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
}'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
Non-sequitor, and in all caps too.
The "Founding Christian Fathers" **created** the
Constitution as the supreme law. Why would they condemn us
for abiding by it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQCVAwUBNz7hVcyPOTvd59tlAQH7bQP/fqdZahJl6kgFDMPIuvWmCOBJjNkYyiJg
dJZteItHJshZDgmaV90l8JkdloTd53my0DXx5VAQVmmogK1KQ016lqzpINFCwLq0
2ELDQ0maKYUKKJAZNSbyo4j2v9o00zZA5kL6OvLwPOpBcGKmd/BhxT9hz/wP1zlH
OQu/ES7S4ZA=
=NZs0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Stewart Millen
PGP RSA Key ID: DDE7DB65
Marty Lierly
Gehenna00 wrote:
} THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
} 'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
} THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE HELD
} AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
}
} CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT TIME
} IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC INFIDELS
} IN HIS HOLY NAME.
}
} A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
}
} REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
} VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
} CONTINA, MS
Do you think you could use upper and lower case next time? It's the CapsLock key,
over on the left side of the keyboard. What is your source for this statement?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will
have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a
distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
-James Madison
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans."
-Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, March 11, 1993, page 2A)
Marty Lierly
ba...@zotnet.net wrote:
This is an honest and accurate assessment, the best that I've seen here in a long,
long time. And you are right about religion being treated badly as of late. It is
also essential to understand that the Founders knew that these great liberties and
freedom would not be sustained if we ever departed from the moral and ethical roots
of our Christian teachings. This is sadly overlooked today, and just look at the
erosion of our rights.
Mike Kelly
Gehenna00 wrote in message
<926831101$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
}'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
Then why do you suppose they signed the document that stated precisely and
clearly that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land?
Lyan
Mike Kelly
Marty Lierly wrote in message
<926887801$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}"...It is also essential to understand that the Founders knew that these
great liberties and
}freedom would not be sustained if we ever departed from the moral and
ethical roots
}of our Christian teachings. This is sadly overlooked today, and just look
at the
}erosion of our rights."
I agree for the most part. I'm not sure that morality and ethics are unique
to Christianity, but certainly societies that disregard both in favor of
secular self-indulgence are doomed. We are indeed a society with out
purpose, or at least a sense of purpose.
Lyan
King Trent
Your message would be less intolerable were it not ALL UPPERCASE! Very
annoying. BTW, The Founding Fathers were not all Christian; Thomas
Jefferson, for one, was an Atheist. They still state (Sec. 6, Par. 4) that
the Constitution is the "Supreme law of the land".
King Trent
-----------
Gehenna00 wrote in message
<926831101$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
}'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
kbyi...@my-dejanews.com
In article <926897703$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
Serious question: what should be the "purpose" of any society? Should a
society have a purpose? Didn't the FFs do pretty well with defining an
an environment in which each individual, not "society" could find life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Isn't that enough of a purpose?
}
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Joseph Pothier
Gehenna00 wrote:
}
} THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
} 'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
} THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE HELD
} AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Crap! I should think that the good Roman Catholics of Maryland in 1786
would disagree with you on this issue, not to mention the Jews of Rhode
Island. Come to think of it, how about the Quakers of Pennsylvania? If
memory serves me correctly, they objected to the King James Version of
the Bible and that was one of the reasons they got into such trouble in
good ol' England. Given that no small number of the Founders were
deists, and many Freemasons--- who accepted deism as part of their
credo, including George Washington--- your thesis is clearly untenable!
}
} CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT TIME
} IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC INFIDELS
} IN HIS HOLY NAME.
}
Your above statement deserves more than a 'crap!: it deserves a
BULL-SHIT! How right-wing fundamentalist Christians [if any of you are
Christians indeed], and make statements like this is simply beyond me!
What I really find strange about this is that conservatives are
constantly attacking something they call 'liberal the culture of
victimization' and here you people show using the same approach. Whine,
whine, whine.
} A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
}
Whenever you want to start a civil war, please feel free. You do not
have a right to kill or harm anyone in the name of God! If you do, you
will go to jail like any other criminal.
} REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
} VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
} CONTINA, MS
"Rev."????? Self-ordained for sure. Why do I smell Christian Identity
here?
Yours,
JP
Happy Harpy
RGlenCheek
Joseph Pothier wrote in message
<926916601$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}Gehenna00 wrote:
}}
}} THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE
SATANIC
}} 'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
}} THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE
HELD
}} AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
}
}Crap! I should think that the good Roman Catholics of Maryland in 1786
}would disagree with you on this issue, not to mention the Jews of Rhode
}Island. Come to think of it, how about the Quakers of Pennsylvania? If
}memory serves me correctly, they objected to the King James Version of
}the Bible and that was one of the reasons they got into such trouble in
}good ol' England.
Yes, christianity has been so divided against itself; a real shame. Which is
probably why God intends to reunite His followers and the method of this
melding will be a general persecution. When the church is cleansed of its
pretenders, con-men, and dual-minded fools, we will make great stride. When
that day comes, we will once again appreciate the gulf that separates the
sons of Abraham from the sons of Baal, and not divide ourselves over silly
theocratic theories and other twaddle. Good is as Good does should be the
Churches motto then.
}Given that no small number of the Founders were
}deists, and many Freemasons--- who accepted deism as part of their
}credo, including George Washington--- your thesis is clearly untenable!
That is a lie. The Freemasons have long accepted christians and Jews as m
embers, and Muslims too, IIRC. Being a Freemason does not preclude also
being christian, as I believe George Mason was.
}}
}} CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT
TIME
}} IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC
INFIDELS
}} IN HIS HOLY NAME.
}}
}
}Your above statement deserves more than a 'crap!: it deserves a
}BULL-SHIT! How right-wing fundamentalist Christians [if any of you are
}Christians indeed], and make statements like this is simply beyond me!
Because you are a closed-minded, anti-christian bigot? Well, anti-religion
bigot might be more accurate.
}What I really find strange about this is that conservatives are
}constantly attacking something they call 'liberal the culture of
}victimization' and here you people show using the same approach. Whine,
}whine, whine.
You always good for audacity, if not wit. The ongoing slaughter in East
Timor, Afghanistan and India is surely proof of persecution today. But here
in the US, expulsions from school for praying, or reading the Bible, and the
false imprisonment of church members on trumped-up charges as happened in
Wenatchee, WA, is about the worst we now get.
}} A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
}}
}
}Whenever you want to start a civil war, please feel free. You do not
}have a right to kill or harm anyone in the name of God! If you do, you
}will go to jail like any other criminal.
Oh, you ARE preposterous, Uncle Joe! Why dont you give such wonderful advice
to the Serbs so they can quell their little rebellion? I can see it now, the
serb cops just walk up to a KLA controled village and say, 'You are under
arrest!' BBBWWWAAAAAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAH!
}} REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
}} VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
}} CONTINA, MS
}
}"Rev."????? Self-ordained for sure. Why do I smell Christian Identity
}here?
How on Earth can you smell anything beyond your own upper lip, Uncle Joe?
rglencheek
Joseph Pothier
Well, Mr. Cheek, I see you are back up to your old tricks.
RGlenCheek wrote:
}
} Joseph Pothier wrote in message
} <926916601$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
} }
} }Gehenna00 wrote:
} }}
} }} THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE
} SATANIC
} }} 'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
} }} THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE
} HELD
} }} AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
} }
} }Crap! I should think that the good Roman Catholics of Maryland in 1786
} }would disagree with you on this issue, not to mention the Jews of Rhode
} }Island. Come to think of it, how about the Quakers of Pennsylvania? If
} }memory serves me correctly, they objected to the King James Version of
} }the Bible and that was one of the reasons they got into such trouble in
} }good ol' England.
}
} Yes, christianity has been so divided against itself; a real shame. Which is
} probably why God intends to reunite His followers and the method of this
} melding will be a general persecution.
Only in YOUR mindset, Mr. Cheek! Your concept of God is clearly Old
Testament based, and rather perverse in my opinion. Your type of
Christianity--- if it is Christianity at all--- appears based on
self-inflicted victimization and suffering.
} When the church is cleansed of its
} pretenders, con-men, and dual-minded fools, we will make great stride.
Well, there goes Jim and Tammy Baker, Jerry Folwell, Pat Robertson, and
Billy Graham!
} When
} that day comes, we will once again appreciate the gulf that separates the
} sons of Abraham from the sons of Baal, and not divide ourselves over silly
} theocratic theories and other twaddle. Good is as Good does should be the
} Churches motto then.
"... sons of Baal..."??? Mr. Cheek, you have been watching far too many
*Conan* movies!
}
} }Given that no small number of the Founders were
} }deists, and many Freemasons--- who accepted deism as part of their
} }credo, including George Washington--- your thesis is clearly untenable!
}
} That is a lie. The Freemasons have long accepted christians and Jews as m
} embers, and Muslims too, IIRC. Being a Freemason does not preclude also
} being christian, as I believe George Mason was.
}
No it is not! The influence of deism on the Founders has long been
accepted by American historians. Deism has been a fundamental part of
Freemasonry since its beginnings, that is an historical fact. In any
case, they clearly did not intend the KJV to be the basis of the
American polity, as Gehanna00 contended in his post, or they would have
said so. They did not.
} }}
} }} CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT
} TIME
} }} IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC
} INFIDELS
} }} IN HIS HOLY NAME.
} }}
} }
} }Your above statement deserves more than a 'crap!: it deserves a
} }BULL-SHIT! How right-wing fundamentalist Christians [if any of you are
} }Christians indeed], and make statements like this is simply beyond me!
}
} Because you are a closed-minded, anti-christian bigot? Well, anti-religion
} bigot might be more accurate.
}
Let's try professional historian who is conversant enough with American
history to know that the thesis that Christians have been persecuted in
America is utter tripe! Some Christians have attempted to persecute
other Christian sects at times--- the Mormons come immediately to mind.
} }What I really find strange about this is that conservatives are
} }constantly attacking something they call 'liberal the culture of
} }victimization' and here you people show using the same approach. Whine,
} }whine, whine.
}
} You always good for audacity, if not wit. The ongoing slaughter in East
} Timor, Afghanistan and India is surely proof of persecution today.
What the hell, Mr. Cheek, do these events have to do with the pretended
persecution of Christians in America. Nothing!
} But here
} in the US, expulsions from school for praying, or reading the Bible, and the
} false imprisonment of church members on trumped-up charges as happened in
} Wenatchee, WA, is about the worst we now get.
}
Your interpretation of these events is wholly skewed! You seem to think
that you Christian Fundamentalist radicals should be able to force
people to pray to YOUR God and live by YOUR values, and when you find
out that you can't FORCE other people to do what YOU want you whine that
you are persecuted! My, my.
} }} A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
} }}
} }
} }Whenever you want to start a civil war, please feel free. You do not
} }have a right to kill or harm anyone in the name of God! If you do, you
} }will go to jail like any other criminal.
}
} Oh, you ARE preposterous, Uncle Joe! Why dont you give such wonderful advice
} to the Serbs so they can quell their little rebellion?
An absurd statement, and how like you to say something like this. The
tragedy in Kosova has nothing to do with this discussion.
} I can see it now, the
} serb cops just walk up to a KLA controled village and say, 'You are under
} arrest!' BBBWWWAAAAAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAH!
}
} }} REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
} }} VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
} }} CONTINA, MS
} }
} }"Rev."????? Self-ordained for sure. Why do I smell Christian Identity
} }here?
}
} How on Earth can you smell anything beyond your own upper lip, Uncle Joe?
}
} rglencheek
That's simple. I just turn my nose up at Christian Fundamental bigots
like you.
Yours,
JP
Happy Harpy
Marty Lierly
King Trent wrote:
} Your message would be less intolerable were it not ALL UPPERCASE! Very
} annoying. BTW, The Founding Fathers were not all Christian; Thomas
} Jefferson, for one, was an Atheist. They still state (Sec. 6, Par. 4) that
} the Constitution is the "Supreme law of the land".
}
} King Trent
These lies about Jefferson have to stop. Jefferson is claimed by Unitarians. To
whatever extent he felt the same way, Jefferson also wrote a denominationally
quibble free book on Jesus. He claimed to be a Christian, wrote to churches and
closed the letters with Christian prayer. He declared himself to be a
Christian. Them's the facts, and don't even get me started on the
Jefferson/Hemmings propaganda.
} -----------
} Gehenna00 wrote in message
} <926831101$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
} }
} }THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
} }'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
} }THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE
} HELD
} }AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
} }
} }CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT
} TIME
} }IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC
} INFIDELS
} }IN HIS HOLY NAME.
} }
} }A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
} }
} }REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
} }VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
} }CONTINA, MS
} }
} }
--
TheBigDoke
}Jefferson is claimed by Unitarians.
I'd heard that. I thought Franklin was the atheist in the group.
Mort Sahl once said of the Unitarians, "They believe God handed down the Ten
Suggestions." I don't know if it's true but I thought it was funny.
octigentenary perambulator
Gehenna00 wrote in message <926831101$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT TIME
}IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC INFIDELS
}IN HIS HOLY NAME.
}
}A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
}
}REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
}VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
}CONTINA, MS
I agree with your points Rev. Blake, however the title of your message is a tad
mis-applied. The Constitution is the Supreme (secular) Law of the land, and the
KJV Bible is the Supreme Law for Man. The Constitution and the Bible are
designed to go hand-in-hand, although without the Bible as the Cornerstone in
the hearts
of Men, the power and application of the Constitution quickly begins to fail.
In short, the U.S. Constitution is probably the most unique document ever penned
by Man. Unfortunatly, when one removes the Bible from the Heart of man the
result is the
same as having an electric motor with no electricity to power the same. Our
living
Constitution becomes inert.
America is in decline just as Rome was long before it. The election of Bill
Clinton as president in the 1990's is like having the emperor Nero or Caligula
in Rome of ages ago.
America has a president it deserves.
My best advice to you and anyone else is to prepare your own heart. Short of a
miracle from Christ above, I do not give America much chance past 2010.
E.B.
Plano, Republic of Texas
Mike Kelly
RGlenCheek wrote in message
<926920201$30...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}Yes, christianity has been so divided against itself; a real shame. Which
is
}probably why God intends to reunite His followers and the method of this
}melding will be a general persecution.
According to which scripture?
}When the church is cleansed of its pretenders, con-men, and dual-minded
fools, we will make great stride.
The church will be empty then. We are all fools, pretenders and even
con-men at some time. The church will not be cleansed until the Day.
Surely you aren't presuming to judge in His place?
}When
}that day comes, we will once again appreciate the gulf that separates the
sons of Abraham from the sons of Baal, >and not divide ourselves over silly
theocratic theories and other twaddle. Good is as Good does should be the
}Churches motto then.
While I'm sure I'd love less inter-denominational bickering, I can't believe
the Christian faith will ever be about judgement of deeds alone. Sin is
human; we are saved by our confession, absolution and atonement, not by our
infallibility. To strive to be Christlike is our goal, but the final
judgement is not a scorecard of our sins.
Lyan
Bob
On Sun, 16 May 99 5:05:01 GMT, gehe...@aol.com (Gehenna00) wrote:
}
}THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
}'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
}THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE HELD
}AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
}
}CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT TIME
}IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC INFIDELS
}IN HIS HOLY NAME.
}
}A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
}
}REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
}VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
}CONTINA, MS
}
I'veread some crazy shit in this group, but this takes the cake.
Hey, Rev Chuck, you should really consider moving to a theocratic
state like Iran, you would REALY fit in !
Bob
Stewart Millen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 17 May 99 2:35:01 GMT,
kbyi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snip]
}Serious question: what should be the "purpose"
}of any society? Should a society have a purpose?
}Didn't the FFs do pretty well with defining an
}an environment in which each individual, not "society"
}could find life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
}Isn't that enough of a purpose?
Excellent point. I don't have the exact quote, but a former
British PM (Harold Wilson?), said something like "People who
want a sense of purpose out of life should go see their
archbishops, not their politicians."
Stewart
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2
iQCVAwUBN0JiKcyPOTvd59tlAQGEwgP/dTYabjh55KP70F3KdRFvqlisDTPjDH9Z
t5RV3mVDCeLNbXqEiHXcd5OA2E1IHxeFxMYwf4PzR8LKfen4oBSXm7CNiAyaCwYD
N1B4CQ79VoBr0OAOrn6ruWrAYE8uoBk0k2lwBwU/cnAxLKIiM2JxYABXqyJ8K65B
vgjG7zrvsMk=
=TnPO
RGlenCheek
Joseph Pothier wrote in message
<926961600$40...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}Well, Mr. Cheek, I see you are back up to your old tricks.
Heh, you're the only fraud here, Uncle Joe.
}RGlenCheek wrote:
}}
}} Joseph Pothier wrote in message
}} <926916601$28...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}} }
}} }Gehenna00 wrote:
}} }}
}} }} THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE
}} SATANIC
}} }} 'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
}} }} THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST
BE
}} HELD
}} }} AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
}} }
}} }Crap! I should think that the good Roman Catholics of Maryland in 1786
}} }would disagree with you on this issue, not to mention the Jews of Rhode
}} }Island. Come to think of it, how about the Quakers of Pennsylvania? If
}} }memory serves me correctly, they objected to the King James Version of
}} }the Bible and that was one of the reasons they got into such trouble in
}} }good ol' England.
}}
}} Yes, christianity has been so divided against itself; a real shame. Which
is
}} probably why God intends to reunite His followers and the method of this
}} melding will be a general persecution.
}
}Only in YOUR mindset, Mr. Cheek!
Wrong, again, Potty mouth! I know of many that agree with me on this point.
} Your concept of God is clearly Old
}Testament based, and rather perverse in my opinion.
You judge the God of the OT? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! The only thing perverse
here is you. God IS who He IS, and your pitiful preferences are stupidly
irrelevant.
}Your type of
}Christianity--- if it is Christianity at all--- appears based on
}self-inflicted victimization and suffering.
Oh, so if a christian gets fired for his job because his boss found out that
he goes to a certain church, that is just self-inflicted? Or if a christian
is passed over for a promotion or tenure at a university due to his faith;
that is also self-inflicted? And what happended at Wenatchee was
self-inflicted too, I guess, in your opinion. The Bible has always said
that there will be evil and corrupt men like yourself who will be enraged
simply at the righteousness of the church and will strive against it. It
also tells of your fate.
}} When the church is cleansed of its
}} pretenders, con-men, and dual-minded fools, we will make great stride.
}
}Well, there goes Jim and Tammy Baker, Jerry Folwell, Pat Robertson, and
}Billy Graham!
You can have J&T, but what evidence do you have on the others? NONE! ONLY
YOUR PREJUDICIAL PRESUMPTION OF THEIR GUILT! Having guys like you around is
too useful, Uncle Joe. You almost make it too easy to prove the vileness of
our opposition.
}} When
}} that day comes, we will once again appreciate the gulf that separates the
}} sons of Abraham from the sons of Baal, and not divide ourselves over
silly
}} theocratic theories and other twaddle. Good is as Good does should be the
}} Churches motto then.
}
}"... sons of Baal..."??? Mr. Cheek, you have been watching far too many
}*Conan* movies!
No, I read the OT where the worshippers of Baal would 'pass their children
through the fire' in worship of Baal, hoping It would reward their
willingness to burn their infants alive for It. This is similar to those who
abort the unborn to avoid the financial drain. In the OT the baby killers
worshipped Baal, in the US they worship money or their carreers.
}}
}} }Given that no small number of the Founders were
}} }deists, and many Freemasons--- who accepted deism as part of their
}} }credo, including George Washington--- your thesis is clearly untenable!
}}
}} That is a lie. The Freemasons have long accepted christians and Jews as m
}} embers, and Muslims too, IIRC. Being a Freemason does not preclude also
}} being christian, as I believe George Mason was.
}}
}
}No it is not!
Yes, IT IS!
}The influence of deism on the Founders has long been
}accepted by American historians.
Oh, bull! Revisionist historians that want to cotinue the secualrization of
our society! Not OBJECTIVE HISTORIANS THOUGH!
}Deism has been a fundamental part of
}Freemasonry since its beginnings, that is an historical fact.
There are many shades of Deism, Uncle Joe, and you would know that if you
werent so determined to deny the Truth! Jefferson deeply respected Christ,
and Washington had himself rebaptised during the American Revolution to
become more in agreement with his understanding of primitive christianity.
Here are some more quotes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
RGC: The FF were overwhelmingly christian, the majority being Scottish
Presbyterians. Washington had some doubts about the nature and efficacy of
many christian rituals such as the Eucharist and infant baptism (there are
records that he was rebaptised in a river during the Revolution), but he was
never shown to have doubted the essentials of the faith. The same is true of
Jefferson, who had many second thoughts on the accuracy of miraculous
accounts in the New Testament, but still revered Jesus Christ himself. But
even these two are not typical of the FF. Men like Patrik Henry and George
Mason, and John Adams were the norm. Some more quotes are provided below to
demostrate what I am talking about.
"He who shall introduce into public affairs the principles of a
primitive Christianity, will change the face of the world" --Benjamin
Franklin
"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build
it." "I firmly believe this."Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional
Convention
"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon
the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each
and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain
ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
President James Madison
"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion
of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to
this we owe our free constitutions of government."Noah Webster
"Whether this [new government] will prove a blessing or a curse
will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a
gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great
and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will
be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation
[Proverbs 14:34].
Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere
practice virtue thyself and encourage it in others." Patrick Henry
"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been
printed." Patrick Henry
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people
that these liberties are the gift of God?
That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble
for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice
cannot sleep forever." President Thomas
Jefferson
"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is
because Christianity is the only religion that changes the
heart."President Thomas Jefferson
"Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come
under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus."
Thomas Jefferson, To William Canby,
1813
"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in
human passions bridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was
made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate
for the government of any other."John Adams,
address to the militia of Massachusetts, 1798.
"If we make religion our business, God will make it our
blessedness." John Adams
"I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the
most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to
man..."President Thomas Jefferson
"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it
connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government
with the principles of Christianity."President
John Adams
"Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society,
he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.
And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift [James
1:17] we are indebted for all those
privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are
so richly enjoyed in this
favored land."James Madison
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence
were.... the general principles of Christianity."President John Quincy
Adams
"a true American Patriot must be a religious man...He who
neglects his duty to his maker, may well be expected to be deficient
and insincere in his duty towards the
public" First Lady Abigail Adams
"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests."President
Andrew Jackson
"If there is anything in my thoughts or style to commend, the
credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the
Scriptures. If we abide by the principles taught in
the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but
if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man
can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our
glory in profound obscurity." Daniel Webster
More quotes ommitted from the history books by socialist, commy
mule-boys:
"We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on
the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all
our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us . .
. to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future
and success of America is not in this Constitution,
but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."
President James
Madison
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers.
And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a
Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their
rulers." First Chief Justice of Supreme Court John Jay
" ...It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be ,
that except the Bible there is not
a true history in the world..." John Jay, January 1, 1813
" Accept my thanks for your friendly letter of the 17th ult., and
for the sermon and report which accopmanied it. Whether the religion
permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers, is a question which
merits more consideration than it seems to have generally
received... Although the mere expediency of public measures may
not be a proper subject for the pulpit, yet , in my opinion, it is the
right and duty of our pastors to press for the observance of all moral
and religious duties, and to animadvert on every course
of conduct that may be repugnant to them..." John Jay in a letter
to John bristed,
april 23, 1811
"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority
of that law which is divine....Far from being rivals or enemies,
religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and
mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each
other."James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original
Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court
"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and
obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part
of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion,
never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing]
Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was
improper to read the Bible at schools."Benjamin Rush
"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of
Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass
of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and
integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as
the Son of the living God."President John Quincy Adams
"...so great is my veneration for the Bible, and so strong my
belief, that when duly read and meditated on, it is of all books in
the world, that which contributes most to make men good, wise, and
happy---that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more
steadily they pursue the practice of reading it throughout their
lives, the more lively and confident will be my hopes that they wil
prove useful citizens to their country,
respectable members of society, and a real blessing to their
parents." President John
Quincy Adams
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable
supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world
without God and the Bible."
- George Washington
"Our ancestors established their system of government
on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they
believed, cannot safely be entrusted on any other
foundation than religious principle, not any government
secure which is not supported by moral habits....
Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good
citizens."
- Daniel Webster
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this;
it connected, in one indissoluble bond the principles of
civil government with the principles of Christianity."
- John Quincy Adams
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that
this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by
Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus
Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have
been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of
worship here."
- Patrick Henry
"We have staked the future of all of our political
institutions upon the capacity of mankind for
self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us
to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain
ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
- James Madison,
chief architect of the Constitution
George Washington: "it is impossible to rightly govern the world
without GOD and the Bible."
Thomas Jefferson: "The Bible is the
cornerstone of all liberty!" "The Christian religion ...is a religion of
all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expression
of the human mind." "...I am a real Christian; that is to say, a
disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
Patrick Henry: "The Bible is worth
all other books which have ever been printed" "It cannot be emphasized
too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by
religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of
Jesus Christ. For this very reason people of other faiths have been
afforded asylum, and freedom of worship here."
James Madison, "Father of
the U.S. Constitution" and original author of the Bill Of Rights:
"Religion (is) the basis and Foundation of Government."
James Madison
made into a motion for the Constitutional Convention the recommendation
of Benjamin Franklin that this nation could not be successful without
addressing prayer to God the father. This motion was passed and every
session thereafterwas begun with a prayer to God on behalf of America.
This practice was continued with the U.S. Congress since that time, that
this nation would always legally honor God by prayer before all
legislative sessions would begin. "We have staked the whole future of
American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We
have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the
capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and
all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves
according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Benjamin Franklin identified
himself as a follower of Jesus Christ and in his personal letter in 1790
to the President of Yale University wrote: "Here is my Creed. I believe
in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His
Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable
service we render to Him is in doing good to His other children. That
the soul of man is immortal...."
Professor George Tucker of Virginia in
1846 wrote the law textbook on natural law where he quotes from the
Founding Fathers that our national law was derived from the Bible! When
President of America Thomas Jefferson set up a pilot school program for
all schools in America. He picked the Bible as one of the two most
important textbooks to be used in all schools in America!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your arrogant pride is pathetic, Uncle Joe!
}In any
}case, they clearly did not intend the KJV to be the basis of the
}American polity, as Gehanna00 contended in his post, or they would have
}said so. They did not.
I took Gehanna's reference to the KJV to be synecdoche; plainly it was the
Bible that they knew at the time. And it was the preferred version of the
Bible untill about the middle of the 20th century.
}} }}
}} }} CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS
RIGHT
}} TIME
}} }} IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC
}} INFIDELS
}} }} IN HIS HOLY NAME.
}} }}
}} }
}} }Your above statement deserves more than a 'crap!: it deserves a
}} }BULL-SHIT! How right-wing fundamentalist Christians [if any of you are
}} }Christians indeed], and make statements like this is simply beyond me!
}}
}} Because you are a closed-minded, anti-christian bigot? Well,
anti-religion
}} bigot might be more accurate.
}}
}
}Let's try professional historian who is conversant enough with American
}history to know that the thesis that Christians have been persecuted in
}America is utter tripe! Some Christians have attempted to persecute
}other Christian sects at times--- the Mormons come immediately to mind.
No, duh, Uncle Joe, and his meaning was obviously a reference to those
mainline churches that have always served the interests of the elite, and
whom many today question in regard to their claims of being christian at
all! Like the Episcopalians and Unitarians,; now THERE is a laugh!
}} }What I really find strange about this is that conservatives are
}} }constantly attacking something they call 'liberal the culture of
}} }victimization' and here you people show using the same approach. Whine,
}} }whine, whine.
}}
}} You always good for audacity, if not wit. The ongoing slaughter in East
}} Timor, Afghanistan and India is surely proof of persecution today.
}
}What the hell, Mr. Cheek, do these events have to do with the pretended
}persecution of Christians in America. Nothing!
I am speaking of the persecution of christians in the world, though the
thread began as a discusion of conditions in America today. The relative
silence of the Media, especially compared to all the eco-nut crap they run
all the time, is astounding and indicates a deep disregard for christian
life.
}} But here
}} in the US, expulsions from school for praying, or reading the Bible, and
the
}} false imprisonment of church members on trumped-up charges as happened in
}} Wenatchee, WA, is about the worst we now get.
}}
}
}Your interpretation of these events is wholly skewed!
No it is NOT! (I love refuting your gratuitous assertions! It is SO easy!)
Tell me why you think they are skewered; especially Wenatchee.
}You seem to think
}that you Christian Fundamentalist radicals should be able to force
}people to pray to YOUR God and live by YOUR values, and when you find
}out that you can't FORCE other people to do what YOU want you whine that
}you are persecuted! My, my.
No, but YOU like to claim things for me I have never claimed. Show me ONE
TIME I HAVE EVER POSTED a desire to FORCE anyone to pray to God? I support
voluntary prayer in schools, not coerced prayer. And any claim that my
praying offends you is JUST TOO BAD! THAT IS MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH TOO!
You are a bald faced liar, Uncle Joe.
}
}} }} A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
}} }}
}} }
}} }Whenever you want to start a civil war, please feel free. You do not
}} }have a right to kill or harm anyone in the name of God! If you do, you
}} }will go to jail like any other criminal.
}}
}} Oh, you ARE preposterous, Uncle Joe! Why dont you give such wonderful
advice
}} to the Serbs so they can quell their little rebellion?
}
}An absurd statement, and how like you to say something like this. The
}tragedy in Kosova has nothing to do with this discussion.
If we have a civil war in this country, it will be very much like Bosnia or
Kosovo. And the absurdity is in your claim that you can end the mess by
simply going up and arresting the combatants! 'Any other criminal'! LOL!
}} I can see it now, the
}} serb cops just walk up to a KLA controled village and say, 'You are under
}} arrest!' BBBWWWAAAAAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAH!
}}
}} }} REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
}} }} VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
}} }} CONTINA, MS
}} }
}} }"Rev."????? Self-ordained for sure. Why do I smell Christian Identity
}} }here?
}}
}} How on Earth can you smell anything beyond your own upper lip, Uncle Joe?
}}
}} rglencheek
}
}That's simple. I just turn my nose up at Christian Fundamental bigots
}like you.
}
Then you shouldnt be smelling CI, you should be smelling the secular-fascism
that oozes from your own hide.
rglencheek
John D.
RGlenCheek <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:927205501$14...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com...
Thanks RGlen.
John
Marty Lierly
John D. wrote:
Same here, RGlen, the quotes of the Founders on Christianity and the
Bible should finally put this subject to rest. One of the lefties even
suggested they weren't really Christians, just culturally (because they
didn't know anything else, at that), whatever the heck that's supposed
to mean. Three cheers and a double mega-ditto, RGlen!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will
have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a
distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
-James Madison
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let
us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution
was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of
the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable
one in which it was passed."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wm. Johnson, June 12, 1823,
The Complete Jefferson, P 322
Marty Lierly
Morpheus wrote:
} Gehenna00 wrote:
}
} } THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
} } 'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
} } THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE HELD
} } AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
} }
} } CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT TIME
} } IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC INFIDELS
} } IN HIS HOLY NAME.
} }
} } A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
} }
} } REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
} } VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
} } CONTINA, MS
}
} The founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. That is the majority of them
} were, such as John Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James
} Madison, Thomas Paine, and George Washington.
While I don't agree with the original post, your response is nothing but a load of
crap.
} This is why the First Amendment is the First Amendment, not the 2nd, or 3rd...etc.
} The first Amendment provides freedom of religion. We can be thankful for this
} because if the founding fathers were Christians, generally speaking, they would
} never consider that people should be free to practice other religions. Their
} belief in Deism is why, and also why they devoted so much effort in trying to
} separate the church from the state.
The First Amendment was so important it was placed third, the Second was fourth, the
first two amendments were not ratified, that's why we have ten Amendments in the Bill
of Rights, not twelve. There was no ordering in preference of importance that I am
aware of. There was no concept of 'separation of church and state' expressed, they did
not wish a state-church, like the Church of England. You are a knucklehead, spouting
leftist lies.
} Deists are sometimes considered to be free thinkers and humanitarians, which was
} quite popular for intellectuals during the seventeenth century. They even
} considered themselves to be people of no religion. Jesus to them was considered
} more of a philosopher than a son-of-God.
Total nonsense.
} Thomas Paine summarized Deism fairly well when he said, "God is the Power of the
} first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon." That is
} about the closest they came to believing in a trinity.
See the post by RGlenCheek listing copious amounts of quotes by the Founders, not you,
on this subject. And may you never trot this crap out again.
} You need to study history a bit more closely. Maybe take a course at a community
} college, or divinity school. You might also learn that the KJV is full of errors,
} deletions, and inaccuracies.
'You need to study history a bit more closely', this statement might well be the laugh
of the month. You suggesting it to someone else, hardy-har-har!!!
} The self quoting fomentation of your Crusade, "A weapon used in defense of the
} faith is a weapon well used," is at best pathetic bullshit, and certainly anti
} Christian. By the way you left your caps lock on. Or is that your way of shouting
} into the Great Usenet Void? That's kind of funny.
Bullshit, maybe, anti-Christian, not necessarily. We agree on the CapsLock.
Marty Lierly
Joseph Pothier
Marty Lierly wrote:
Mr. Lierly,
You really should read more American history--- and by that I mean real
history written be real historians like Eric Foner, Richard Hofstadter,
etc.--- and not right-wing revisionists. [More below.]
}
} Morpheus wrote:
}
} } Gehenna00 wrote:
} }
} } } THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
} } } 'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
} } } THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE HELD
} } } AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
} } }
} } } CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT TIME
} } } IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC INFIDELS
} } } IN HIS HOLY NAME.
} } }
} } } A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
} } }
} } } REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
} } } VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
} } } CONTINA, MS
} }
} } The founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. That is the majority of them
} } were, such as John Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James
} } Madison, Thomas Paine, and George Washington.
}
} While I don't agree with the original post, your response is nothing but a load of
} crap.
}
Actually Gehenna is correct, albeit I think he over stated his point. He
would have been more correct to say that many of the Founders were
deists. For an examination of the intellectual influences on the
Founders, including Deism, see Gordon S. Woods' now classic *The
Creation of the American Republic*.
} } This is why the First Amendment is the First Amendment, not the 2nd, or 3rd...etc.
} } The first Amendment provides freedom of religion. We can be thankful for this
} } because if the founding fathers were Christians, generally speaking, they would
} } never consider that people should be free to practice other religions. Their
} } belief in Deism is why, and also why they devoted so much effort in trying to
} } separate the church from the state.
}
} The First Amendment was so important it was placed third, the Second was fourth, the
} first two amendments were not ratified, that's why we have ten Amendments in the Bill
} of Rights, not twelve.
You may be technically correct here, but what is your point?
} There was no ordering in preference of importance that I am
} aware of. There was no concept of 'separation of church and state' expressed, they did
} not wish a state-church, like the Church of England. You are a knucklehead, spouting
} leftist lies.
}
Actually, he is not. See Eric Foner's new work *The Story of Freedom.*
} } Deists are sometimes considered to be free thinkers and humanitarians, which was
} } quite popular for intellectuals during the seventeenth century. They even
} } considered themselves to be people of no religion. Jesus to them was considered
} } more of a philosopher than a son-of-God.
}
} Total nonsense.
}
Here you are dead wrong. Thomas Jefferson went so far as to issue his
own edition of the New Testament in which he removed any mention of
Christ being divine or the son of God. I sure you will be able to find a
copy of Jefferson's Bible [as it is called], at any good university
library.
I also suggest that you look at the collected works [some 35 volumes,
and growing] of George Washington. In true Deist fashion, Washington
almost always refers to God as the great designer or to Divine
Providence. Rarely does he ever even mention Christ. This is an
historical fact which you may verify for yourself, and which neither you
nor I can change.
} } Thomas Paine summarized Deism fairly well when he said, "God is the Power of the
} } first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon." That is
} } about the closest they came to believing in a trinity.
}
} See the post by RGlenCheek listing copious amounts of quotes by the Founders, not you,
} on this subject. And may you never trot this crap out again.
}
Copious amounts of quotes taken out of context, many of them not even by
the Founders I might add, do not constitute proof. If this is the same
list Mr. Cheek has posted previously in this NG, it includes many, many,
people which are not Founders. The term Founding Fathers refers
SPECIFICALLY and ONLY to those at the Constitutional Convention. Mr.
Cheek is trying to make his point by redefining who the Founders were---
an utterly intellectually dishonest approach.
} } You need to study history a bit more closely. Maybe take a course at a community
} } college, or divinity school. You might also learn that the KJV is full of errors,
} } deletions, and inaccuracies.
}
} 'You need to study history a bit more closely', this statement might well be the laugh
} of the month. You suggesting it to someone else, hardy-har-har!!!
}
No, Mr. Lierly, that won't do at all. In point of fact, you display both
a markedly ignorance of this country's past and a politically prejudiced
one.
<snip>
Yours,
Happy Harpy
RGlenCheek
Stewart Millen wrote in message
<927135283$11...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
}
}On Mon, 17 May 99 2:35:01 GMT,
}kbyi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
}
}[snip]
}
}}Serious question: what should be the "purpose"
}}of any society? Should a society have a purpose?
}}Didn't the FFs do pretty well with defining an
}}an environment in which each individual, not "society"
}}could find life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
}}Isn't that enough of a purpose?
}
}Excellent point. I don't have the exact quote, but a former
}British PM (Harold Wilson?), said something like "People who
}want a sense of purpose out of life should go see their
}archbishops, not their politicians."
}
}Stewart
I dont think politicians should define anything other than what they have
to, especially if it has any ethics attached to the subject. But I think
that as a society, ALL of us, we should have as our goal to provide the
greatest opportunity and freedom for each person to pursue his dreams, meet
her needs, and fullfill their potential as human beings. Other than that,
lets just try to stay out of each others way, ok?
rglencheek
RGlenCheek
Joseph Pothier wrote in message
<927264001$9...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}Marty Lierly wrote:
}
}Mr. Lierly,
}
}You really should read more American history--- and by that I mean real
}history written be real historians like Eric Foner, Richard Hofstadter,
}etc.--- and not right-wing revisionists. [More below.]
No, you mean historians that are leftist ideologues like yourself.
}Actually Gehenna is correct, albeit I think he over stated his point. He
}would have been more correct to say that many of the Founders were
}deists. For an examination of the intellectual influences on the
}Founders, including Deism, see Gordon S. Woods' now classic *The
}Creation of the American Republic*.
John Locke was one of the strongest influences on the FF, and he based much
of his political ideas on christian values, and quite openly. what you
continue to ignore is the simple facts that:
a) the phrase 'wall of separation between church and state' appears no where
in the Constitution;
b) it was in one of Jeffersons letters to a supporter, and not meant in the
sense most Leftists today intend it used as a proscription to bleach all
christianity from the public institutions. Jefferson was simply reassuring a
supporter that there would be no entanglement betweent he Fedearl government
and any denominational leadership.
c) Christianity was practiced by most of the FF's and my quotes demonstrate
this amply. They did quibble over less of it than I do today, but they would
describe themselves as christian, and DID!
d) to be a diest is not to be taken as anti- or non-christian. Many
christians today belive in the essence of Diesm, that God created the
universe and let it go on its own, with His design built inot it in such a
fashion that His events naturally unfold as time goes on.
You are so fraudulent; we have covered this many times.
}} } This is why the First Amendment is the First Amendment, not the 2nd, or
3rd...etc.
}} } The first Amendment provides freedom of religion. We can be thankful
for this
}} } because if the founding fathers were Christians, generally speaking,
they would
}} } never consider that people should be free to practice other religions.
Their
}} } belief in Deism is why, and also why they devoted so much effort in
trying to
}} } separate the church from the state.
}}
}} The First Amendment was so important it was placed third, the Second was
fourth, the
}} first two amendments were not ratified, that's why we have ten Amendments
in the Bill
}} of Rights, not twelve.
}
}You may be technically correct here, but what is your point?
}
}} There was no ordering in preference of importance that I am
}} aware of. There was no concept of 'separation of church and state'
expressed, they did
}} not wish a state-church, like the Church of England. You are a
knucklehead, spouting
}} leftist lies.
}}
}
}Actually, he is not. See Eric Foner's new work *The Story of Freedom.*
No, Marty IS right. Another of your gratuitious assertions, suitably
rebuffed.
}} } Deists are sometimes considered to be free thinkers and humanitarians,
which was
}} } quite popular for intellectuals during the seventeenth century. They
even
}} } considered themselves to be people of no religion. Jesus to them was
considered
}} } more of a philosopher than a son-of-God.
}}
}} Total nonsense.
}}
}
}Here you are dead wrong. Thomas Jefferson went so far as to issue his
}own edition of the New Testament in which he removed any mention of
}Christ being divine or the son of God.
Because he was trying to boil the gospels down to what were the physical
facts, not because Jefferson couldnt accept anything wonderful or astounding
about the man. Jefferson had many doubts about miracles, and also snipped
most of those.
} I sure you will be able to find a
}copy of Jefferson's Bible [as it is called], at any good university
}library.
But where does poor Marty go to find you a good book on christian
apologetics? Not in any public library; the librarians would burn them!
Porno-yes!, christian advocacy, NO! That is the guiding light of the
librarians in America today.
}I also suggest that you look at the collected works [some 35 volumes,
}and growing] of George Washington. In true Deist fashion, Washington
}almost always refers to God as the great designer or to Divine
}Providence.
Because Washington was a Diest and a Freemason. So what? One can be both,
Uncle Joe. The faith isnt as narrow as you would prefer.
}Rarely does he ever even mention Christ. This is an
}historical fact which you may verify for yourself, and which neither you
}nor I can change.
Which means nothing. That Washington may or may not have spoken on Christ
publicly means absolutely nothing since he was well known as an intensely
private man.
}} } Thomas Paine summarized Deism fairly well when he said, "God is the
Power of the
}} } first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."
That is
}} } about the closest they came to believing in a trinity.
}}
}} See the post by RGlenCheek listing copious amounts of quotes by the
Founders, not you,
}} on this subject. And may you never trot this crap out again.
}}
}
}Copious amounts of quotes taken out of context, many of them not even by
}the Founders I might add, do not constitute proof.
Oh PISHAWWW! You are so closed minded! I list dozens of quotes from the FF,
with a few extra thrown in to boot, like Jackson, and you claim that it
'isnt even the FF's. You are a joke! That I quote ppl other than ONLY the
FF's takes nothing at all away from the quotes that ARE attributable to the
FF's! As to CONTEXT, they are so STRIDENTLY FOR CHRISTIANTIY THAT IT IS A
NO BRAINER TO SEE THEIR FEELINGS ON THE MATTER!
}If this is the same
}list Mr. Cheek has posted previously in this NG, it includes many, many,
}people which are not Founders.
No duh! So what?
}The term Founding Fathers refers
}SPECIFICALLY and ONLY to those at the Constitutional Convention. Mr.
}Cheek is trying to make his point by redefining who the Founders were---
}an utterly intellectually dishonest approach.
No, I am simply going beyond the FF's and quoting some of their immediate
heirs. You are cracked!
}} } You need to study history a bit more closely. Maybe take a course at a
community
}} } college, or divinity school. You might also learn that the KJV is full
of errors,
}} } deletions, and inaccuracies.
}}
}} 'You need to study history a bit more closely', this statement might well
be the laugh
}} of the month. You suggesting it to someone else, hardy-har-har!!!
}}
}
}No, Mr. Lierly, that won't do at all. In point of fact, you display both
}a markedly ignorance of this country's past and a politically prejudiced
}one.
Marty, forgive him, for he knows not what he spews from his lower orifice,
or is there a difference?
rglencheek
PGISSource
"RGlenCheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}Joseph Pothier wrote in message
}<926961600$40...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}
}}Well, Mr. Cheek, I see you are back up to
}}your old tricks.
}
}Heh, you're the only fraud here, Uncle Joe.
As we'll see momentarily, R.G. is quite correct about "Pothier" being a fraud
... a fraud who, like most neo-nazis and despite assorted laws admonishing
against such bigotry, apparently believes anti-religious and other forms of
hate are proper tools to use to attempt to incite his beloved violence.
Consider, for instance, "Pothier's" current comment:
}}Some Christians have attempted to
}}persecute other Christian sects at times--- the
}}Mormons come immediately to mind.
Now let's review "Pothier's" own neo-nazi inspired posts on just that topic.
For instance, back in August 1996 (See: Re: OUTLAW the MILITIA! and numerous
other threads), nazi-Joe "Pothier" spewed:
}> ***ARE YOU A MORMON, BOY?****
}> TELL ME ***BOY*** WHAT IS THIS I
}>HEAR ABOUT YOUNG MORMON
}>WOMEN BEING INTERESTED IN
}>SOME SORT OF UNDERWARE YOU
}>***BOYS*** ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP
}>ON ALL THE TIME. AND WHILE WE
}>ARE AT IT ***BOY*** JUST HOW
}>MANY WIVES DO YOUINS' PLAN ON
}>HAVIN'.
A bit demeaning both to Mormons -and- women. And elsewhere:
}>By the way, has anyone added water to you
}>yet? And, on this underware thing, do they
}>only come in white, or can you get them
}>in colors? Just courious.
and in yet another post:
}>TELL ME MORMON **BOY** ABOUT
}>THAT UNDERWARE YOU WARE.
and in another:
}>Oh, so he did not want to discuss the
}>underware thing either. *INTERSETING.*
yet another:
}>If you join the CLDS, do you get to pick
}>your own underware design? And, is there
}>a relationship between the underware and
}>the honor thing?
I could go on, but as we can see nazi-Joe "Pothier" isn't being exactly
truthful about his pretensions. Though not directly lying in the current post,
he attempts to project an image of his views about Mormons and their
persecution that DejaNews shows is clearly false. The provable reality is that
"Pothier" himself is a major purveyor of anti-Mormon hate.
This is not surprising, though. Neo-nazis like "Pothier" are often known for
trying to attibute their own hate solely to others. Like impersonating
membership in other factions (consider "Pothier's" claim of being part of the
"anti-militia" faction) it's a common part of the agenda that nuts like Louis
Beam put out a few years back. An agenda which was echoed quite a lot by other
of "Pothier's" cohorts like the now defunct "Cyber Nazi Group."
None of which means I agree with R.G. on many things. However, when it comes to
religious bigotry, it's amply clear that nazi-Joe "Pothier" is a major
perpetrator in THIS forum, not R.G. or even for that matter most
Fundamentalists here.
So for "Pothier" to even obliquely imply otherwise is really nothing more than
the typical neo-nazi redirection of attention that he, Willie Pierce, Davey
Duke, Markie Thomas (his nuts also were involved in "Pothier's" neck of the
woods), little Tommy Metzger, and the rest of their childish ilk try so
nauseatingly often in their efforts to hide their true affinities and dupe
juvenile idiots into following them. After all, neo-nazi ideals are not exactly
appealing to folks without some lying. Something that nazi recruiters like
"Pothier" so often appears to be are well aware of.
So in reality is that kind of hate inherently religiously based? Not
necessarily. There are a number of neo-nazi groups that show "Pothier's" type
of generalized hate toward -all- beliefs. Groups like the World Church of the
Creator. A group that much like "Pothier" hates nearly if not all faiths.
Elements are also found in the Beaver Dam, WI group with much of their
writings. Though Chrisitian Identity in general form, the latter group's
opposition is directed as much toward Christians (and most Fundamentalists) in
general as to any other group. Numerous other examples also exist.
While I wouldn't even begin to argue that there are not -some- Fundamentalists
that peddle hate, generally the faiths themselves are not the problem. Hate
itself is the problem. And the fact that it occurs -also- in portions of some
groups does not necessarily mean attacking those religions in general in any
way effectively combats the hate. All it really does is play into the hands of
neo-nazis like "Pothier" in their lust for violence. Remember the rash of
church-burnings and desecrations? Some of the victims were also
Fundamentalists. Much as Mormons, Moslems, Eastern Orthodox, Wiccans, Hindus,
and many other groups have also been the target of "Pothier's" type of hate.
In the end in order to stop the hate it's every bit as necessary to recognize
and oppose the neo-nazi nuts like "Pothier" as it is to oppose any other of the
minority among us who are hatemongers. This, above any theological precept, is
the common ground that must be struck if the hate is to be stopped. Society
must not allow pathetic hate cultists like "Pothier" to employ religion as a
tool to play people off against each other in their as much as admitted effort
to incite the hate and violence they so desire in their sick effort to
implement their agendas of neo-right hate.
Mr. Wizard
Nancy Luft
Dear Rev. Charles Blake, Jr.,
I am sorry to have to inform you that Jesus Christ is a Super Hoax.
Please read all my postings here and at alt.conspiracy.
The folks in our Pentagon know the Russians had sputniks with gamma ray,
x ray, lasers up back then that did the miracles for Jesus just as they
do them at times today. The Guru that gassed those folks to death in
the Tokyo Subway could levitate in space at will in front of all his
followers because Russain satelites with gamma ray lasers caused him to
float in thin air and they also levitated Jesus to walk on water that
was not froozen. Read the sputnik made psychic, Jeane Dixon's, books
.. sputniks send her hallucinations just like they sent the Apostle's
at The Last Super hallucinations of Jesus, etc..
Did you know that when Jesus lived the term virgin birth actually meant
any female's first born son whether she was married or not? The popes
many centuries after Jesus died changed it to mean to have god as one's
father? Yes, sir! That all the places in the Bible that said for as
long as I shall live got changed to life everlasting? That the Bible is
a odd combination of Russian prose and Hebrew mythology? Total mind
controlling sputniks sent ESP, the thoughts, to those who wrote the
books of the Bible? Yes, sir.
If our founding fathers believed in the Bible, them being men of
integrity, they really could not have helped being brainwashed back
then!
Well, always remember that brainwashing is anti American to the nth
degree, so seek the TRUTH and spread it far and wide.
Recall that part in the Bible that says god is coimng down to earth to
dwell with men? Russians wrote it and guess what? They are what
created that god in that Bible. Yup, here they are soon to be public to
all on this earth along with the god they created in that biblical
fiction.
Well, just remember that old Russian saying in the Bible ... blessed be
the peace makers for they shall inherit the earth and hope it is true
and wish for a treaty with them.
Nancy Ann Luft
1515A S. 10th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
(414) 645-2390
Gee, has anyone yet told you that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are
not really real, either?
Since I explained reality to Vatican City that pope can not put enough
miles on his pope mobile trying to keep his flock brainwashed and
controlled! I'm having the same problem with Rev. Schuller of The Hour
of Power, Rev. Pat Robertson, Rev. Jerry Falwell ...!
Oh my dear we are in sad shape praying to a Russain sputnik made savior
and all! Honestly the Russains say we do not have to pray to him any
more! And we can read other things that have a bit more of reality in
them like Mad Magazine instead of the Bible!
It is such a huge national embarassment to have so many of my fellow
Americans praying and worshipping an enemy made savior named Jesus! IF
you must be delusional, could you kind of try to keep it all inside of
your churches? Just don't be so public, maybe? It might take some of
you folks a while to wake up to reality, but that is OK if you try hard
to keep it in your churches. Your delusional system will not upset so
very many that know the TRUTH if you keep your delusions to yourselves
inside of your churches ... I would think!
Marty Lierly
Morpheus wrote:
} Gehenna00 wrote:
}
} } THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
} } 'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
} } THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE HELD
} } AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
} }
} } CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT TIME
} } IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC INFIDELS
} } IN HIS HOLY NAME.
} }
} } A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
} }
} } REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
} } VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
} } CONTINA, MS
}
} The founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. That is the majority of them
} were, such as John Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James
} Madison, Thomas Paine, and George Washington.
While I don't agree with the original post, your response is nothing but a load of
crap.
} This is why the First Amendment is the First Amendment, not the 2nd, or 3rd...etc.
} The first Amendment provides freedom of religion. We can be thankful for this
} because if the founding fathers were Christians, generally speaking, they would
} never consider that people should be free to practice other religions. Their
} belief in Deism is why, and also why they devoted so much effort in trying to
} separate the church from the state.
The First Amendment was so important it was placed third, the Second was fourth, the
first two amendments were not ratified, that's why we have ten Amendments in the Bill
of Rights, not twelve. There was no ordering in preference of importance that I am
aware of. There was no concept of 'separation of church and state' expressed, they did
not wish a state-church, like the Church of England. You are a knucklehead, spouting
leftist lies.
} Deists are sometimes considered to be free thinkers and humanitarians, which was
} quite popular for intellectuals during the seventeenth century. They even
} considered themselves to be people of no religion. Jesus to them was considered
} more of a philosopher than a son-of-God.
Total nonsense.
} Thomas Paine summarized Deism fairly well when he said, "God is the Power of the
} first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon." That is
} about the closest they came to believing in a trinity.
See the post by RGlenCheek listing copious amounts of quotes by the Founders, not you,
on this subject. And may you never trot this crap out again.
} You need to study history a bit more closely. Maybe take a course at a community
} college, or divinity school. You might also learn that the KJV is full of errors,
} deletions, and inaccuracies.
'You need to study history a bit more closely', this statement might well be the laugh
of the month. You suggesting it to someone else, hardy-har-har!!!
} The self quoting fomentation of your Crusade, "A weapon used in defense of the
Marty Lierly
kbyi...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
} In article <926897703$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>,
} "Mike Kelly" <mjk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
} }
} }
} } Marty Lierly wrote in message
} } <926887801$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
} } }"...It is also essential to understand that the Founders knew that these
} } great liberties and
} } }freedom would not be sustained if we ever departed from the moral and
} } ethical roots
} } }of our Christian teachings. This is sadly overlooked today, and just look
} } at the
} } }erosion of our rights."
} }
} } I agree for the most part. I'm not sure that morality and ethics are unique
} } to Christianity, but certainly societies that disregard both in favor of
} } secular self-indulgence are doomed. We are indeed a society with out
} } purpose, or at least a sense of purpose.
} }
} } Lyan
} }
}
} Serious question: what should be the "purpose" of any society? Should a
} society have a purpose? Didn't the FFs do pretty well with defining an
} an environment in which each individual, not "society" could find life,
} liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Isn't that enough of a purpose?
This thread and these comments discuss the bedrock of our liberty and freedom,
expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That liberty and freedom require
a strong moral and ethical national character, as expressed in Christianity. It
was foretold that these rights would dissipate if we ever lost our moral and
ethical character. They were right. Perhaps purpose wasn't the best choice of
words to express this concept.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will
have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a
distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
-James Madison
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ellenburg
on Sun, 16 May 99 23:50:01 GMT, "King Trent" <bwa...@nconnect.net>
wrote:
}Your message would be less intolerable were it not ALL UPPERCASE! Very
}annoying. BTW, The Founding Fathers were not all Christian; Thomas
}Jefferson, for one, was an Atheist.
Thomas Jefferson's own words disagree with you. For example...
In 1803, in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Jefferson wrote,
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to
the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I AM A CHRISTIAN, in the only
sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in
preference to all others; ascribing to himself every _human_
excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."
(my emphasis)
In 1816, in a letter to Charles Thomson, Jefferson wrote, "...
I AM A REAL CHRISTIAN, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of
Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call _me_ infidel and
_themselves_ Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw
all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor
saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond
the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious
ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not
recognize one feature."
It is easy to claim to be a Christian, so, do Jefferson's words back
up his claims?
In 1814, in a letter to John Adams, he wrote, "The doctrines
which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the
comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet
explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious
reason that nonsense can never be explained."
In 1819, in a letter to William Short, he wrote, "Epictetus
and Epicurus give laws for governing ourselves, Jesus a supplement of
the duties and charities we owe to others."
In 1820, in a letter to William Short, he wrote, "His object
was the reformation of some articles in the religion of the Jews, as
taught by Moses. That sect had presented for the object of their
worship, a being of terrific character, cruel, vindictive, capricious
and unjust. Jesus, taking for his type the best qualities of the
human head and heart, wisdom, justice, goodness, and adding to them
power, ascribed all of these, but in infinite perfection, to the
Supreme Being, and formed him really worthy of their adoration."
In 1822, in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, he wrote,
"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of
man.
1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.
2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.
3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as
thyself, is the sum of religion."
In the same letter, Jefferson wrote, "Had the doctrines of
Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the
whole civilized world would now have been Christian."
Therefore, Jefferson did indeed claim to be Christian. He believed in
the Law of the Lord (which is, to love thy neighbor as thyself --
Matthew 7:12). And he also proved he was no lightweight in praising
the Lord.
Dan Ellenburg
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should
labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these
firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere
Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to
cherish them." - George Washington, from his Farewell Address
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification
of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it
be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution
designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though
this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the
customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
- George Washington, from his Farewell Address
Gray Shockley
On Sun, 16 May 1999 18:50:01 -0500, King Trent wrote
(in message <926898601$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>):
} Your message would be less intolerable were it not ALL UPPERCASE! Very
} annoying. BTW, The Founding Fathers were not all Christian; Thomas
} Jefferson, for one, was an Atheist.
---------------------------------------------
Nope, deist; "Nature's God" and so forth.
Although - applying many "Christians'" standards, he would have been an
atheist.
(Deism says that there was a "God" that kicked off the universe and then
"withdrew".)
Gray
---------------------------------------------
Oh, TJ also thought Jesus to be the most perfect *man* who had ever lived.
Reference the so-called "Jeffersonian Bible".
g
Mike Kelly
King Trent wrote in message
<926898601$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}BTW, The Founding Fathers were not all Christian; Thomas
}Jefferson, for one, was an Atheist.
"I swear upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward any tyranny over the
mind of man."
Odd quote for an atheist. I think he was agnostic, a Deist with no
confirmed specific belief. I doubt he was an atheist.
}They still state (Sec. 6, Par. 4) that
}the Constitution is the "Supreme law of the land".
}
}King Trent
I pointed that out too. I doubt the point will be addressed, however.
Ah well.
Lyan
Mike Kelly
kbyi...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<926908501$25...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}Serious question: what should be the "purpose" of any society? Should a
}society have a purpose? Didn't the FFs do pretty well with defining an
}an environment in which each individual, not "society" could find life,
}liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Isn't that enough of a purpose?
Excellent question. I don't have a specific "purpose" in mind in the
strictly occupational sense. I do believe very strongly that we were
created for a reason and that we have lost our sense of that (as early as
Eden perhaps). We have forsaken the Commandments, especially the Golden
Rule and its close cousin, from Matthew 22:37-40:
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the
second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these
two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Not everyone, but a
lot of us. I believe it is through at least the committed effort to keep
those laws that we will pass to the next life, individually and as a group.
I think our Founding Fathers did a fine thing by establishing a state that
revered and protected the right of individuals. If you've read my posts you
know I'm fairly Libertarian in my approach to state vs. individual. But a
society is not a state. A society is a necessary part of our being; a state
is an artificial construct. Individual freedom is limited in any sensible
body to those activities that don't infringe on the freedom of other
individuals. Society is the lowest level that balances the concerns of one
or more individuals, but it does so with far less rigidity than government.
I don't advocate government defining our position with regard to purpose.
In fact, I would adamantly oppose any such tyranny of spirit. We must all
come to God in our own way and of our own free will. A reversal of the
trend of constant "public policy" might enhance our perception of purpose in
this regard. We were endowed by our Creator with the rights you mention for
a reason; that those rights are being subjugated to Caesar, as it were, must
be an abomination.
Does any of this answer the question? I realize some of it is a bit
spiritual (and expressed in Christian terms), but that is the nature of the
question. It is at the heart of our being. I don't know if I can answer
the question completely in a post. I do want to assure you that I don't
view our "purpose" as task specific. I don't think that there is any one
pursuit of happiness in life that is invalid. A musician can do God's work
as well as Mother Theresa if that is what the musician is called to do.
Somehow the mosaic of pursuits should add up to one larger purpose.
Currently, I think materialism, fear and other darker influences are
interfering with a number of happinesses. People are seeking narcotic
solutions to dull pain and with it experience rather than questing through
pain to find truth (or even Truth). It creates a sort of void in people
that allows them to feel next to nothing when they destroy a school and the
community around it.
I don't pretend to have a simple fix for that, Kaa, but I feel very strongly
that this purpose is the central question we must work to answer. Perhaps
the work itself will help.
Regards,
Lyan
Marty Lierly
Mike Kelly wrote:
} Marty Lierly wrote in message
} <926887801$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
} }"...It is also essential to understand that the Founders knew that these
} great liberties and
} }freedom would not be sustained if we ever departed from the moral and
} ethical roots
} }of our Christian teachings. This is sadly overlooked today, and just look
} at the
} }erosion of our rights."
}
} I agree for the most part. I'm not sure that morality and ethics are unique
} to Christianity, but certainly societies that disregard both in favor of
} secular self-indulgence are doomed. We are indeed a society with out
} purpose, or at least a sense of purpose.
}
True, it isn't unique to Christianity. Christianity was the frame of reference
and framework used by the Founders, primarily because they were Christians and
the nation was settled by Christians. It is quite acceptable to say
Judeo-Christian heritage. Any monotheistic God-centered faith with closely
similar morals and ethics, and the ability to impart those values from
generation to generation probably also qualifies as defending the Constitution
and Bill of Rights. The Founders were keenly aware of duties, responsibilities,
obligations and the like, things necessary to sustain freedom and liberty. That
comes from the religious tradition. They were quite wise.
RGlenCheek
Mike Kelly wrote in message
<926985902$56...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}RGlenCheek wrote in message
}<926920201$30...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}}Yes, christianity has been so divided against itself; a real shame. Which
}is
}}probably why God intends to reunite His followers and the method of this
}}melding will be a general persecution.
}
}According to which scripture?
Apocolyptic subjects are never straight forward, exept in its essentials.
That a general persecution of believers will come during the end times is
simply an opinion of mine; I dont place any more on it than that. I would be
quite happy to be in error on this one, and doubt that I will be caught up
in it myself, anyway.
It is based on an understanding, IMO, of what is the end of the Age of the
Gentile Kings; which was the subject of some controversy among the
Millerites and others. They got the date wrong the first time, and
misunderstood the implications, but none-the-less, their date of 1914 for
the beginning of the end of that Age seems to ring true to me, since WWI
ended the dominant christian monarchies of Europe and only figureheads
remained afterward.
Other signals that we are in the final End Times are the following:
a. the Gospel is to be preached in every kingdom, and it has in every
language.
b. the church is to spread to every nation; that has happened
c. there is to arise a Great Apostacy that will mislead many of the
faithful. While there have always been heresies in christianty, the current
infiltration of modernists into the church leaves little in comparison to
past times. I have personally met three catholic priests, one a Jesuit, that
have confided in me that the Resurrection of Christ did not take place in
'space and time'. Heheheh, the Apostacy is here for sure.
d. the Jews will convert to the 'Righteous One' to about 144,000. With the
'Jews for Jesus movement, this has or is occuring today.
e. The Age of the Gentile kings will end. That, as I said above, has
happened.
f. human life on our planet will be endangered. Now, I am not speaking of
pollution here, or nuclear war, but I do believe that the many biological
agents that are still stock-piled bya ll sides (even the US, though we deny
it), could threaten all human existance if used on a wide scale. In the
event of amoral, desperate and ruthless leadership, they may well be used.
g. the Temple in Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, IMO. Nothappened yet,
obviously, since this would require the destruction of the Dome of the Rock,
which sits on the ancient Temples foundation.
}}When the church is cleansed of its pretenders, con-men, and dual-minded
}fools, we will make great stride.
}
}The church will be empty then. We are all fools, pretenders and even
}con-men at some time.
This is sophistry. Are you claiming that there is no difference between
Jimmy Swagert and Jerry Falwell? There is plain evidence that Swaggert was a
fraud in a qualitatively different way than ANYTHING demonstrated against
Fallwell. Or are you perhaps taking this pointless argument that since we
all sin, we are all as wicked as the other? This, too, is sophistry of
incredible proportions. It is true that NONE of us deserve Gods mercy, but
that is not the same as saying that there is no significant difference
between Stalin and St Joan of Arc. If I have to explain THAT to you, forget
it; if you dont get that, then you wont get anything I can tell you on the
matter either.
}The church will not be cleansed until the Day.
}Surely you aren't presuming to judge in His place?
Did not Paul say that we will judge the world (1 Cor 6:2)? Did not Jesus
Himself tell us to 'judge righteous judgement'? (John 7:24) If we have a
backslider, are we not to talk ot him in private first, then with another
brother in Christ, then, if he still wont repent, bring him before the
elders of the congregation? Surely you dont mean to countermand the Lord and
His Apostles? The church will cleanse itself, but usually only in periods of
crisis, when their faith is less comfortable and good men are needed rather
than those who like to play the sycophant.
}}When
}}that day comes, we will once again appreciate the gulf that separates the
}sons of Abraham from the sons of Baal, >and not divide ourselves over silly
}theocratic theories and other twaddle. Good is as Good does should be the
}}Churches motto then.
}
}While I'm sure I'd love less inter-denominational bickering, I can't
believe
}the Christian faith will ever be about judgement of deeds alone.
I agree; it isnt and wont be. Without Gods Grace, we are hopeless. That
doesnt change anything of my proposition that the church is corrupt, and
this corruption is its principle social undoing here and around the world.
}Sin is
}human; we are saved by our confession, absolution and atonement, not by our
}infallibility.
Did I suggest we would? We human beings can win wars and insurrections, but
we cannot avoid sin.
}To strive to be Christlike is our goal, but the final
}judgement is not a scorecard of our sins.
We (all of humanity) will be saved by the Grace of God through the Atonement
of Jesus Christ, BUT when and how this comes about is up to us. We can
either strive for His kingdom and war with evil, or we can be hard-heads and
work against His Will, and go the hard way. But nothing can resist Gods
Love. I take comfort in this thought, bieng mindful of what a horrid sinner
I am. But there are still far worse than I.
An interesting response. Thanks alot; it was refreshing.
rglencheek
Mike Kelly
Marty Lierly wrote in message
}Mike Kelly Wrote:
}}I'm not sure that morality and ethics are unique
}} to Christianity, but certainly societies that disregard both in favor of
}} secular self-indulgence are doomed. We are indeed a society with out
}} purpose, or at least a sense of purpose.
}True, it isn't unique to Christianity. Christianity was the frame of
reference
}and framework used by the Founders, primarily because they were Christians
and
}the nation was settled by Christians.
Correct, with the exception of previous settlers not germane to your point.
}It is quite acceptable to say Judeo-Christian heritage. Any monotheistic
God-centered faith with closely
}similar morals and ethics, and the ability to impart those values from
generation to generation probably also >qualifies as defending the
Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Founders were keenly aware of duties,
}responsibilities, obligations and the like, things necessary to sustain
freedom and liberty. That
}comes from the religious tradition. They were quite wise.
I agree that those values came to our Founding Fathers from a
Judeo-Christian tradition (Blackstone was a key figure in the fundamental
bases of American law. However, I submit to you that all of those values
can be found in other faiths, and in other societies predating our own. The
pagan and polytheistic Roman republic had moral principles such as duty,
responsibility, civic virtue, etc. before God as we understand Him was well
published, and before Christ was born.
From what I understand of Wicca, they do nothing that violates the morality
I consider the core of my Christian belief. Theologically I don't agree
with them, but in term of civic morality and virtue, I am not aware of any
problems with their faith. Why the worry, as a citizen? Why the focus on
"monogamy?"
Regards,
Lyan
Marty Lierly
Joseph Pothier wrote:
} Marty Lierly wrote:
}
} Mr. Lierly,
}
} You really should read more American history--- and by that I mean real
} history written be real historians like Eric Foner, Richard Hofstadter,
} etc.--- and not right-wing revisionists. [More below.]
}
} }
} } Morpheus wrote:
} }
} } } Gehenna00 wrote:
} } }
} } } } THE FOUNDING CHRISTIAN FATHERS WOULD CONDEMN US FOR INITIATING THE SATANIC
} } } } 'CONSTISCREWTION' AS SUPREME LAW!!
} } } } THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON THE KJV, AND THE KJV MUST BE HELD
} } } } AS SACRED BY ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS.
} } } }
} } } } CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED IN AMERICA FOR 200 YEARS AND IT IS RIGHT TIME
} } } } IN THE NAME OF OUR LORD JESUS TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM IDOLATRIC INFIDELS
} } } } IN HIS HOLY NAME.
} } } }
} } } } A WEAPON USED IN THE DEFENSE OF THE FAITH IS A WEAPON WELL USED.
} } } }
} } } } REV. CHARLES BLAKE JR.
} } } } VICTORY LANE ASSEMBLY (MARK OF JESUS)
} } } } CONTINA, MS
} } }
} } } The founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. That is the majority of them
} } } were, such as John Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James
} } } Madison, Thomas Paine, and George Washington.
} }
} } While I don't agree with the original post, your response is nothing but a load of
} } crap.
} }
}
} Actually Gehenna is correct, albeit I think he over stated his point. He
} would have been more correct to say that many of the Founders were
} deists. For an examination of the intellectual influences on the
} Founders, including Deism, see Gordon S. Woods' now classic *The
} Creation of the American Republic*.
Oh, please. Deism did exist, and was not at odds with nor exclusive of Christianity, as was
Freemasonry. Protestants of varying denominations came here to settle, they built the
nation, they fought for Independence (the Presbyterian War), and founded this nation. They
have left us their own words. These words are the ones that are true.
} } } This is why the First Amendment is the First Amendment, not the 2nd, or 3rd...etc.
} } } The first Amendment provides freedom of religion. We can be thankful for this
} } } because if the founding fathers were Christians, generally speaking, they would
} } } never consider that people should be free to practice other religions. Their
} } } belief in Deism is why, and also why they devoted so much effort in trying to
} } } separate the church from the state.
} }
} } The First Amendment was so important it was placed third, the Second was fourth, the
} } first two amendments were not ratified, that's why we have ten Amendments in the Bill
} } of Rights, not twelve.
}
} You may be technically correct here, but what is your point?
I am correct, there is nothing technical about it. I was pointing it out. So many
journalists rant on and on about the First Amendment (the press part in particular), that it
was first for the most important of reasons, as they rag on about how archaic the Second
Amendment is. I have tired of this. I have tired of this myth.
} } There was no ordering in preference of importance that I am
} } aware of. There was no concept of 'separation of church and state' expressed, they did
} } not wish a state-church, like the Church of England. You are a knucklehead, spouting
} } leftist lies.
} }
}
} See Eric Foner's new work *The Story of Freedom.*
Regarding which part?
} } } Deists are sometimes considered to be free thinkers and humanitarians, which was
} } } quite popular for intellectuals during the seventeenth century. They even
} } } considered themselves to be people of no religion. Jesus to them was considered
} } } more of a philosopher than a son-of-God.
} }
} } Total nonsense.
} }
}
} Here you are dead wrong. Thomas Jefferson went so far as to issue his
} own edition of the New Testament in which he removed any mention of
} Christ being divine or the son of God. I sure you will be able to find a
} copy of Jefferson's Bible [as it is called], at any good university
} library.
Sure, it was a quibble free distillation, an essential Jesus, about 32 pages, IIRC. I don't
recall the title, but "The New Testament, According to Thomas Jefferson" doesn't ring a bell
for me. Jefferson himself claimed to be Christian. Do you want to go tell him that he was
wrong? Tell him about his kids with Hemmings while you're at it. (that's also unproven).
} I also suggest that you look at the collected works [some 35 volumes,
} and growing] of George Washington. In true Deist fashion, Washington
} almost always refers to God as the great designer or to Divine
} Providence. Rarely does he ever even mention Christ. This is an
} historical fact which you may verify for yourself, and which neither you
} nor I can change.
And this proves what, that he wasn't a follower of Jesus or a Christian? God is referred to
in the Bible by dozens of terms, means the same thing. I'll let Washington speak for
himself, do you have a quote by Washington where he renounces Christianity, or by any other
Founder?
} } } Thomas Paine summarized Deism fairly well when he said, "God is the Power of the
} } } first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon." That is
} } } about the closest they came to believing in a trinity.
} }
} } See the post by RGlenCheek listing copious amounts of quotes by the Founders, not you,
} } on this subject. And may you never trot this crap out again.
} }
}
} Copious amounts of quotes taken out of context, many of them not even by
} the Founders I might add, do not constitute proof. If this is the same
} list Mr. Cheek has posted previously in this NG, it includes many, many,
} people which are not Founders. The term Founding Fathers refers
} SPECIFICALLY and ONLY to those at the Constitutional Convention. Mr.
} Cheek is trying to make his point by redefining who the Founders were---
} an utterly intellectually dishonest approach.
My definition of a Founder extends farther than this. Please list all of the Founders, in
your definition, who proclaimed that they were not Christian. Of course, the people who
settled here, fought and won the Presbyterian War, and funded and supported the troops and
Congress were, by a vast majority, Christian. At least, they said they were.
} } } You need to study history a bit more closely. Maybe take a course at a community
} } } college, or divinity school. You might also learn that the KJV is full of errors,
} } } deletions, and inaccuracies.
} }
} } 'You need to study history a bit more closely', this statement might well be the laugh
} } of the month. You suggesting it to someone else, hardy-har-har!!!
} }
}
} No, Mr. Lierly, that won't do at all. In point of fact, you display both
} a markedly ignorance of this country's past and a politically prejudiced
} one.
Simply put, so that you will understand, I'm right, you're wrong. There are no politics
involved, nice try.
Marty Lierly
RGlenCheek wrote:
The phrase 'wall of separation between church and state' appears in a letter to
the Danbury Baptist Church, 1803 or 1807. It ends in prayer. As I recall,
Jefferson wasn't President at the time. I have read it, and can't seem to recall
which book it appears in. A web search would probably locate it.
} c) Christianity was practiced by most of the FF's and my quotes demonstrate
} this amply. They did quibble over less of it than I do today, but they would
} describe themselves as christian, and DID!
Why is it that people do not wish to take them at their own word?
Amen!
} }If this is the same
} }list Mr. Cheek has posted previously in this NG, it includes many, many,
} }people which are not Founders.
}
} No duh! So what?
}
} }The term Founding Fathers refers
} }SPECIFICALLY and ONLY to those at the Constitutional Convention. Mr.
} }Cheek is trying to make his point by redefining who the Founders were---
} }an utterly intellectually dishonest approach.
}
} No, I am simply going beyond the FF's and quoting some of their immediate
} heirs. You are cracked!
}
} }} } You need to study history a bit more closely. Maybe take a course at a
} community
} }} } college, or divinity school. You might also learn that the KJV is full
} of errors,
} }} } deletions, and inaccuracies.
} }}
} }} 'You need to study history a bit more closely', this statement might well
} be the laugh
} }} of the month. You suggesting it to someone else, hardy-har-har!!!
} }}
} }
} }No, Mr. Lierly, that won't do at all. In point of fact, you display both
} }a markedly ignorance of this country's past and a politically prejudiced
} }one.
}
} Marty, forgive him, for he knows not what he spews from his lower orifice,
} or is there a difference?
I think I'll just ignore him, I did for a long time, and it worked well then.
Thanks for the quotes again, RGlenn. "Our Sacred Honor" by Bennett contains many
documents on this matter. Is it that these people think that they must become
Christians themselves to be an American? Or is it something far more nefarious?
} rglencheek
doppleganger
If you're reading this Morpheus, (and I doubt it) you are one cool dude. You push a few choice
buttons on these Patriot, Christian identity idiots like rglencheap and Lierly then quietly back
away to let them scratch at each others egos. Cool.
J. P. Patches
} }BTW, The Founding Fathers were not all Christian; Thomas
} }Jefferson, for one, was an Atheist.
}
} "I swear upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward any tyranny over
the
} mind of man."
}
} Odd quote for an atheist. I think he was agnostic, a Deist with no
} confirmed specific belief. I doubt he was an atheist.
Jefferson certainly was not an atheist. He was a man struggling with God
and embittered by the deaths of his beloved family members, and was
confused in his theology such that he extracted the words of Christ from
the text from which they came for his "Jefferson Bible". But he surely was
not an atheist.
Joseph Pothier
<hate post snipped>
******** NEWS GROUP ALERT***** NEWS GROUP ALERT********
Apparently PIGSOURCE has chosen this weekend to have a psychotic
episode! Should we cut him some slack???
Yours,
JP
Happy Harpy
Mike Kelly
}Mike Kelly wrote in message
}}}fools, we will make great stride.
}}
}}The church will be empty then. We are all fools, pretenders and even
}}con-men at some time.
}This is sophistry. Are you claiming that there is no difference between
}Jimmy Swagert and Jerry Falwell?
No, I am claiming that you and I are not the appointed to make the
judgement. I don't pretend to know the souls of others. That is the Lord's
role, and those who "pretend" to take that role need to consider the beam in
their own eye. That isn't sophistry, it's scripture. I think Falwell is
more credible than Swaggart, but I don't know enough about either to judge
their souls.
}There is plain evidence that Swaggert was a
}fraud in a qualitatively different way than ANYTHING demonstrated against
}Fallwell. Or are you perhaps taking this pointless argument that since we
}all sin, we are all as wicked as the other? This, too, is sophistry of
}incredible proportions. It is true that NONE of us deserve Gods mercy, but
}that is not the same as saying that there is no significant difference
}between Stalin and St Joan of Arc. If I have to explain THAT to you, forget
}it; if you dont get that, then you wont get anything I can tell you on the
}matter either.
What you lack, oh teacher, is the simple truth that ALL of us deserve God's
mercy if we follow a few simple rules. It doesn't matter if Stalin repented
on his death bed, he will still be received. That is the Gospel of Our
Lord, and that is the beauty of Christianity. It is hard to think a Stalin
or Hitler might be forgiven, and harder still to do it, but Christ isn't
limited like we are.
}}The church will not be cleansed until the Day.
}}Surely you aren't presuming to judge in His place?
}Did not Paul say that we will judge the world (1 Cor 6:2)? Did not Jesus
}Himself tell us to 'judge righteous judgement'? (John 7:24) If we have a
}backslider, are we not to talk ot him in private first, then with another
}brother in Christ, then, if he still wont repent, bring him before the
}elders of the congregation? Surely you dont mean to countermand the Lord
and
}His Apostles? The church will cleanse itself, but usually only in periods
of
}crisis, when their faith is less comfortable and good men are needed rather
}than those who like to play the sycophant.
Naturally you'll understand if I use right judgement and look at the whole
of at least a chapter to put a quote in context. John 7:24 is an
admonishment to judge the depth of a matter by more than appearances, not to
discern the righteous from others as if we were their Judge. It is for your
own good that you make good judgements about whom to believe, not whom to
condemn.
1 Cor 6:2 is more to the point, and certainly I agree that an active and
unrepentent sinner needs to be separated from the church. But that is
slightly different than eliminating fools and the like, or pretenders. If
you were just waxing poetic, and this is what you meant, perhaps we agree.
If you are advocating what amounts to witch hunts, as it were, we do not
agree.
}}While I'm sure I'd love less inter-denominational bickering, I can't
}}believe the Christian faith will ever be about judgement of deeds alone.
}I agree; it isnt and wont be. Without Gods Grace, we are hopeless. That
}doesnt change anything of my proposition that the church is corrupt, and
}this corruption is its principle social undoing here and around the world.
I cannot deny the corruption of some who call themselves Christian.
However, not all of the corruption is permissiveness and progressive
interpretation. Some is on the more restrictive and regressive end of the
spectrum. Politics, humanism, attempts to gain recruits rather than keep
the Church membership "whole" or "pure," racism, paganism (the Universalists
actually address this issue), etc. all need to be watched equally. I'm
pretty sure you know that.
}}Sin is
}}human; we are saved by our confession, absolution and atonement, not by
our
}}infallibility.
}
}Did I suggest we would? We human beings can win wars and insurrections, but
}we cannot avoid sin.
It seemed so, but evidently we agree on this point, and on the others,
so...>An interesting response. Thanks alot; it was refreshing.
}rglencheek
My pleasure, and thanks.
Lyan
Mike Kelly
Marty Lierly wrote in message
}This thread and these comments discuss the bedrock of our liberty and
freedom,
}expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That liberty and freedom
require
}a strong moral and ethical national character, as expressed in
Christianity. It
}was foretold that these rights would dissipate if we ever lost our moral
and
}ethical character. They were right. Perhaps purpose wasn't the best choice
of
}words to express this concept.
Perhaps you're right. Well, I don't get $500.00 a plate for my opinions
(yet), and that's part of the reason why.
:-)
Lyan
Kurt Lochner
Joseph Pothier wrote:
}
} <hate post snipped>
}
} ******** NEWS GROUP ALERT***** NEWS GROUP ALERT********
}
} Apparently PIGSOURCE has chosen this weekend to have a psychotic
} episode! Should we cut him some slack???
In a word?
--Nope. Happy Harping with ya's...
Marty Lierly
Mike Kelly wrote:
You couldn't have expressed this better!
} I don't pretend to have a simple fix for that, Kaa, but I feel very strongly
} that this purpose is the central question we must work to answer. Perhaps
} the work itself will help.
}
} Regards,
} Lyan
It is not possible for this nation to sustain itself as a free society if we
individually do not practice the morality and ethics taught in our Christian
tradition (Judeo-Christian, if you prefer), if one is a Christian or not. This
has been stated by others, a bit over 200 hundred years ago.
Marty Lierly
Thanks for the quotes, Dan. Proof in their own words.
Dan Ellenburg wrote:
} on Sun, 16 May 99 23:50:01 GMT, "King Trent" <bwa...@nconnect.net>
} wrote:
}
} }Your message would be less intolerable were it not ALL UPPERCASE! Very
} }annoying. BTW, The Founding Fathers were not all Christian; Thomas
} }Jefferson, for one, was an Atheist.
}
--
Marty Lierly
Gray Shockley wrote:
} On Sun, 16 May 1999 18:50:01 -0500, King Trent wrote
} (in message <926898601$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>):
} } Your message would be less intolerable were it not ALL UPPERCASE! Very
} } annoying. BTW, The Founding Fathers were not all Christian; Thomas
} } Jefferson, for one, was an Atheist.
} ---------------------------------------------
} Nope, deist; "Nature's God" and so forth.
}
} Although - applying many "Christians'" standards, he would have been an
} atheist.
}
} (Deism says that there was a "God" that kicked off the universe and then
} "withdrew".)
}
} Gray
}
} ---------------------------------------------
} Oh, TJ also thought Jesus to be the most perfect *man* who had ever lived.
} Reference the so-called "Jeffersonian Bible".
}
from Dan Ellenburg:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
Marty Lierly
Mike Kelly wrote:
} Marty Lierly wrote in message
} <927331557$63...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
} }Mike Kelly Wrote:
} }}I'm not sure that morality and ethics are unique
} }} to Christianity, but certainly societies that disregard both in favor of
} }} secular self-indulgence are doomed. We are indeed a society with out
} }} purpose, or at least a sense of purpose.
}
} }True, it isn't unique to Christianity. Christianity was the frame of
} reference
} }and framework used by the Founders, primarily because they were Christians
} and
} }the nation was settled by Christians.
}
} Correct, with the exception of previous settlers not germane to your point.
Whatever small minority that you are referring to didn't have much, if any,
impact. At least according to our discussion.
} }It is quite acceptable to say Judeo-Christian heritage. Any monotheistic
} God-centered faith with closely
} }similar morals and ethics, and the ability to impart those values from
} generation to generation probably also >qualifies as defending the
} Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Founders were keenly aware of duties,
} }responsibilities, obligations and the like, things necessary to sustain
} freedom and liberty. That
} }comes from the religious tradition. They were quite wise.
}
} I agree that those values came to our Founding Fathers from a
} Judeo-Christian tradition (Blackstone was a key figure in the fundamental
} bases of American law. However, I submit to you that all of those values
} can be found in other faiths, and in other societies predating our own. The
} pagan and polytheistic Roman republic had moral principles such as duty,
} responsibility, civic virtue, etc. before God as we understand Him was well
} published, and before Christ was born.
If they are in consonance with the Christian values that were at the heart of
the settling, founding and law-making of this nation, they should fit in as far
as duties, obligations, responsibilites, etc. These are the civic morality that
sustain rights, freedom and liberty. It can't be just ANY set of values. It
isn't 'my morals are as good as your morals', as is the growing common notion,
entrenched in our public schools and elsewhere. Remember what happened to Rome,
it wasn't just the lead.
} From what I understand of Wicca, they do nothing that violates the morality
} I consider the core of my Christian belief. Theologically I don't agree
} with them, but in term of civic morality and virtue, I am not aware of any
} problems with their faith. Why the worry, as a citizen? Why the focus on
} "monogamy?"
}
} Regards,
} Lyan
If it is not God-centered, Supreme Being, Creator, etc., it is not religion. As
such, it should not have a chaplain in the military, especially when other
faiths of greater number do not have their own (someone posted the numbers on
this a while back, if you care to hunt it down). If these folks want to run off
into the woods at night, get naked and dance around a fire pretending they are
witches and warlocks, that's legally ok with me.
Marty Lierly
doppleganger wrote:
} If you're reading this Morpheus, (and I doubt it) you are one cool dude. You push a few choice
} buttons on these Patriot, Christian identity idiots like rglencheap and Lierly then quietly back
} away to let them scratch at each others egos. Cool.
You are one terribly confused individual. There are a few Christian Identity folks, RGlenCheek and
myself are not among them, inded, we are far across the spectrum from that position. Of course,
coming from one who uses 'cool dude' and 'cool' in a tiny post cannot be accused of having much
intelligence. Get your facts straight and you won't be a slanderer.
Marty Lierly
Mike Kelly wrote:
} Marty Lierly wrote in message
Don't feel bad, I'm still giving my informed opinions away, too. ;-)
Gray Shockley
"I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD . . . "
_To Dr. Benjamin Rush_
_Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800_
DEAR SIR, -- I have to acknolege the receipt of your favor of
Aug. 22, and to congratulate you on the healthiness of your city.
Still Baltimore, Norfolk & Providence admonish us that we are not
clear of our new scourge. When great evils happen, I am in the habit
of looking out for what good may arise from them as consolations to
us, and Providence has in fact so established the order of things, as
that most evils are the means of producing some good. The yellow
fever will discourage the growth of great cities in our nation, & I
view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the
liberties of man. True, they nourish some of the elegant arts, but
the useful ones can thrive elsewhere, and less perfection in the
others, with more health, virtue & freedom, would be my choice.
I agree with you entirely, in condemning the mania of giving
names to objects of any kind after persons still living. Death alone
can seal the title of any man to this honor, by putting it out of his
power to forfeit it. There is one other mode of recording merit,
which I have often thought might be introduced, so as to gratify the
living by praising the dead. In giving, for instance, a commission
of chief justice to Bushrod Washington, it should be in consideration
of his integrity, and science in the laws, and of the services
rendered to our country by his illustrious relation, &c. A
commission to a descendant of Dr. Franklin, besides being in
consideration of the proper qualifications of the person, should add
that of the great services rendered by his illustrious ancestor, Bn
Fr, by the advancement of science, by inventions useful to man, &c.
I am not sure that we ought to change all our names. And during the
regal government, sometimes, indeed, they were given through
adulation; but often also as the reward of the merit of the times,
sometimes for services rendered the colony. Perhaps, too, a name
when given, should be deemed a sacred property.
I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not
forgotten. On the contrary, it is because I have reflected on it,
that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present
dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease
neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many
to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it
would reconcile the _genus irritabile vatum_ who are all in arms
against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be
softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it
possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the
prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which,
while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom
of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of
obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro'
the U. S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one,
every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians
& Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country
threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of
power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes.
And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god,
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their
opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets
against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison,
&c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to
rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison,
for they are men of truth.
But enough of this: it is more than I have before committed to
paper on the subject of all the lies that has been preached and
printed against me. I have not seen the work of Sonnoni which you
mention, but I have seen another work on Africa, (Parke's,) which I
fear will throw cold water on the hopes of the friends of freedom.
You will hear an account of an attempt at insurrection in this state.
I am looking with anxiety to see what will be it's effect on our
state. We are truly to be pitied. I fear we have little chance to
see you at the Federal city or in Virginia, and as little at
Philadelphia. It would be a great treat to receive you here. But
nothing but sickness could effect that; so I do not wish it. For I
wish you health and happiness, and think of you with affection.
Adieu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 21 May 1999 19:05:52 -0500, Mike Kelly wrote
(in message <927331552$63...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>):
}
}
}
} King Trent wrote in message
} <926898601$21...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>... }BTW, The Founding
} Fathers were not all Christian; Thomas }Jefferson, for one, was an Atheist.
}
} "I swear upon the altar of God eternal hostility toward any tyranny over
} the mind of man."
}
} Odd quote for an atheist. I think he was agnostic, a Deist with no
} confirmed specific belief. I doubt he was an atheist.
}
Gray Shockley
On Fri, 21 May 1999 19:05:57 -0500, Marty Lierly wrote:
} True, it isn't unique to Christianity. Christianity was the frame of
} reference and framework used by the Founders, primarily because they were
} closely similar morals and ethics, and the ability to impart those values
You arrogant, self-serving, worthless bigot.
I hope you and your buddy, Martin Lindstedt, have a wonderful time together.
You deserve each other.
You're scum, Liar-ly.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
Gray Shockley
On Fri, 21 May 1999 20:05:01 -0500, One of the ML Brothers wrote:
} Simply put, so that you will understand, I'm right, you're wrong. There are
} no politics involved, nice try.
----------------------------------------------------------
Brain of one ML much like the other: unused.
Garbage in, garbage out.
The ML's are for "people" like themselves and only those "people".
There's not a dime's worth of difference between ML and ML.
(Except maybe the color of their sheets.)
I think they are just upset that they didn't get to work for Stalin; he's their
kind of guy.
ML's: I might not be right but you two are certainly wrong.
Were the two ML's separated at birth?
Are they separated now?
Gray
Gray Shockley
On Fri, 21 May 1999 19:05:57 -0500, Marty Lierly wrote:
} True, it isn't unique to Christianity. Christianity was the frame of
} reference and framework used by the Founders, primarily because they were
} Christians and the nation was settled by Christians. It is quite acceptable
} to say Judeo-Christian heritage. Any monotheistic God-centered faith with
} closely similar morals and ethics, and the ability to impart those values
} from generation to generation probably also qualifies as defending the
} responsibilities, obligations and the like, things necessary to sustain
} freedom and liberty. That comes from the religious tradition. They were
} quite wise.
You, however, have no religion worthy of a man.
You are a bigot.
Though my people's gods and goddesses may be scum to you, MonoBoy, you're scum
to me and I welcome every post from you, scumboy.
You're not just "not very bright", you're evil. boy. Both you ML's and mikie
and your other trash.
Are you one of those "marvy" boys of the 1980's/90's, scumboy?
I mean is your sheet a nice pastel rather than white - do you belong to a Klan
militia chapter, boy?
I think the ML duo may, eventually, end up where "it don't smell too nice".
You've invalidated your existence, boy.
Gray
--------------------------------------------------------
Gray Shockley
On Fri, 21 May 1999 19:06:01 -0500, one of the ML brothers wrote:
} This thread and these comments discuss the bedrock of our liberty and
} in Christianity. It was foretold that these rights would dissipate if we
} ever lost our moral and ethical character. They were right. Perhaps purpose
} wasn't the best choice of words to express this concept.
} "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
} Americans." -Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, March 11, 1993, page 2A)
LIAR-ly and Clinton: two clowns masking themselves as "moral".
A couple of jokes.
Gray
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Shockley
On Fri, 21 May 1999 23:20:01 -0500, doppleganger wrote:
} If you're reading this Morpheus, (and I doubt it) you are one cool dude.
} You push a few choice buttons on these Patriot, Christian identity idiots
} like rglencheap and Lierly then quietly back away to let them scratch at
} each others egos. Cool.
Where do you get that about Glen?
I'm not really sure that he and I have ever agreed about anything except that
we both have our opinions. BUT - if he moved in next door - I betcha we'd have
some mighty fine B-B-Q's, all the time arguing about just about everything.
As far as Lierly goes (please!), he's just another bottom feeder. Another bigot
and they're SO very tiring (and boring, to boot).
Gray
Gray Shockley
On Fri, 21 May 1999 20:35:05 -0500, one of the ML Brothers pontificated:
} The phrase 'wall of separation between church and state' appears in a
} letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, 1803 or 1807. It ends in prayer.
That's kinda hard to tell, oh ML (who is right and others are wrong).
} As I recall,
You mean to "the best of your recollection", President Lierly?
}Jefferson wasn't President at the time.
As usual, you're wrong but, even so, it would be irrelevant. See quotation
attributed to James Madison below.
} I have read it, and can't seem to recall which book it appears in.
You mean to "the best of your recollection", President Lierly?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have
perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted,
bastardized form of illegitimate government."
-attributed to James Madison
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
} A web search would probably locate it.
Since you seem to be "web-challenged", may I proffer:
Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State
The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty in the
new nation wrote to President Thomas Jefferson, Oct. 7, 1801.
Sir, Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your
Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in
our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great
satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United
States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious
than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to
believe, that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty -- That
Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals --
That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his
religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends
no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our
constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together
with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our
government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws &
usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object
of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor
part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable
rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such
degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.
It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain
under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men
-- should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law &
good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah
and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the
national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot
destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments
of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like
the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these
States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the
Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of
philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty
years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill
the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions
which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which
providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support
you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those
who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the
people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to
his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association.
Nehh Dodge
Ephram Robbins The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson
On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist
Association, Thomas Jefferson (President of the United States of America,
1801-1809) wrote:
Gentlemen:
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to
express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me
the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit
of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded
of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more
pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man
and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his
worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only,
and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the
whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and
State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in
behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction
the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his
natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his
social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the
common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious
association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Thomas Jefferson
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TJ slept on his sheets. He didn't wear them, bigotboy.
Gray
Gray Shockley
On Sat, 22 May 1999 14:50:03 -0500, Marty Lierly wrote
(in message <927402603$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>):
} } Oh, TJ also thought Jesus to be the most perfect *man* who had ever
} lived. } Reference the so-called "Jeffersonian Bible". }
}
} from Dan Ellenburg: Thomas Jefferson's own words disagree with you. For
} example...
----------------------------------------------------------------
[LOL]
Try, little bigot, TRY and read those words as Jefferson wrote them and not
interpreted through your "legend in his own mind" theological "greatness".
Think about what ""To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but
not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I AM A CHRISTIAN, in the only
sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in
preference to all others; ascribing to himself every _human_ excellence; &
believing he never claimed any other." means.
You. bigotboy, are the very "corruptions of Christianity" to which he was
referring.
or
""... I AM A REAL CHRISTIAN, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of
Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call _me_ infidel and
_themselves_ Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their
characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. "
You, bigotboy, are an example of the "Platonists" to which he refrred.
None are so blind as he who puts on his own blinders.
Gray
Gray Shockley
On Sat, 22 May 1999 16:05:01 -0500, Marty Lierly wrote:
} If it is not God-centered, Supreme Being, Creator, etc., it is not
} religion.
Hm,m,m - thanks for making that clear; many of us had been using definitions
that only came from dictionaries, theologians and those who have =seriously=
studied religion. But I should have known that "those of learning and wisdom"
are nothing compared to the overwhelming knowledge and genius of Marty "I'm
God's Second Son" Lierly.
} As such, it should not have a chaplain in the military,
Please clue me in on your experience with military chaplains, I hadn't realized
that - when you were serving your country (for which all Americans should be
grateful), you had that much experience with chaplains. Please elaborate.
} especially when other faiths of greater number do not have their own
} (someone posted the numbers on this a while back, if you care to hunt it
} down). If these folks want to run off into the woods at night, get naked
} and dance around a fire pretending they are witches and warlocks, that's
} legally ok with me.
"legally ok with me"??????
Now, in addition to being an expert theologian, you're also an expert attorney
(or are you "judging as you are judged")?
Lierly - you're heading for the abyss of insanity. You need to seek counseling
[this is NOT a joke or Gray being sarcastic].
Gray
Mike Kelly
Gray Shockley wrote in message
<927441302$13...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
Excellent post, and thank you for the cite.
Lyan
Mike Kelly
Marty Lierly wrote in message
}You couldn't have expressed this better!
Thanks.
}It is not possible for this nation to sustain itself as a free society if
we
}individually do not practice the morality and ethics taught in our
Christian
}tradition (Judeo-Christian, if you prefer), if one is a Christian or not.
This
}has been stated by others, a bit over 200 hundred years ago.
I agree. I note, however, that those same values stem from other beliefs
(religions, philosophies, etc.) as well. I believe they come from God
(others may not), but I tolerate other faiths and perspectives as long as
they don't violate those morals that I think socially critical, and as long
as they don't attempt to persecute, suppress or otherwise interfere with my
faith and practice.
Lyan
Mike Kelly
Marty Lierly wrote in message
}If they are in consonance with the Christian values that were at the heart
of
}the settling, founding and law-making of this nation, they should fit in as
far
}as duties, obligations, responsibilites, etc. These are the civic morality
that
}sustain rights, freedom and liberty. It can't be just ANY set of values. It
}isn't 'my morals are as good as your morals', as is the growing common
notion,
}entrenched in our public schools and elsewhere. Remember what happened to
Rome,
}it wasn't just the lead.
True enough (although I think you date yourself when you claim to remember
what happend to Rome...)
}} From what I understand of Wicca, they do nothing that violates the
morality
}} I consider the core of my Christian belief. Theologically I don't agree
}} with them, but in term of civic morality and virtue, I am not aware of
any
}} problems with their faith. Why the worry, as a citizen? Why the focus
on
}} "monogamy?"
}}
}} Regards,
}} Lyan
Monagamy? Where is my editor?! Try monotheism... Sorry about that.
}If it is not God-centered, Supreme Being, Creator, etc., it is not
religion. As
}such, it should not have a chaplain in the military, especially when other
}faiths of greater number do not have their own (someone posted the numbers
on
}this a while back, if you care to hunt it down). If these folks want to run
off
}into the woods at night, get naked and dance around a fire pretending they
are
}witches and warlocks, that's legally ok with me.
I think your view of their faith is a bit pejorative, but I agree that not
every splintered faction of belief rates a chaplaincy. My reasons are those
of simple military logistics, not persecution. I for one I'm lucky enough
to be able to be served well by any Christian chaplain (and have even
received Communion from a Rabbi). I know some Christians who would have
strong reservations being served by a Wiccan, which might make things a bit
problematic if said Wiccan were the chaplain for a battalion. Even I might
have problems with an unconsecrated individual serving communion. I don't
believe lay leaders (those trained to hold services in places were chaplains
are not able to be present, such as submarines) can give the full
sacramental order, and they are Christian. I think the military needs to
think that one over, for sure, but not with prejudice.
Lyan
Marty Lierly
Gray Shockley wrote:
} On Fri, 21 May 1999 19:05:57 -0500, Marty Lierly wrote:
} } True, it isn't unique to Christianity. Christianity was the frame of
} } reference and framework used by the Founders, primarily because they were
} } Christians and the nation was settled by Christians. It is quite acceptable
} } to say Judeo-Christian heritage. Any monotheistic God-centered faith with
} } closely similar morals and ethics, and the ability to impart those values
} } from generation to generation probably also qualifies as defending the
} } Constitution and Bill of Rights.
} ---------------------------------------------------------------------
}
} You arrogant, self-serving, worthless bigot.
}
} I hope you and your buddy, Martin Lindstedt, have a wonderful time together.
} You deserve each other.
}
And just what part of my statement offended you? I am merely condensing and
repeating what the Founders thought and stated. They are quite correct; our
rights, liberty and freedom are dependent upon the moral character of our
citizens. With these came duty, morality, obligation and responsibility, to name
a few. Mr. Lindstedt and Matt Nuenke are among my least favorite on this
newsgroup, I wish they would peddle their goods elsewhere. Gray, ole buddy, it's
time you went out and plowed another field, for the calming effect.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will
have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a
distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
-James Madison
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let
us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution
was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates,
and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of
the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable
one in which it was passed."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wm. Johnson, June 12, 1823,
The Complete Jefferson, P 322
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Lierly
Gray Shockley wrote:
} On Fri, 21 May 1999 20:35:05 -0500, one of the ML Brothers pontificated:
} } The phrase 'wall of separation between church and state' appears in a
} } letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, 1803 or 1807. It ends in prayer.
}
} That's kinda hard to tell, oh ML (who is right and others are wrong).
}
} } As I recall,
}
} You mean to "the best of your recollection", President Lierly?
}
} }Jefferson wasn't President at the time.
}
} As usual, you're wrong but, even so, it would be irrelevant. See quotation
} attributed to James Madison below.
}
} } I have read it, and can't seem to recall which book it appears in.
}
} You mean to "the best of your recollection", President Lierly?
I stated that in the original unsnipped post. Memory serves pretty well, don't
you think? I am quite scrupulous in providing accurate information, and will
state when I am uncertain about a recollection and will even correct myself when
I discover an error. Such as the number of commas in the 2nd Amendment recently.
That's all anyone can do.
Good going Gray, I found it in "Recapturing The Constitution", by Presser, an
excellent book. The letter appears on page 164. You are correct on the date.
Good work. Good boy. Down boy, down boy, off the leg....
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will
have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a
distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
Marty Lierly
Gray Shockley wrote:
} On Sat, 22 May 1999 14:50:03 -0500, Marty Lierly wrote
} (in message <927402603$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>):
} } } Oh, TJ also thought Jesus to be the most perfect *man* who had ever
} } lived. } Reference the so-called "Jeffersonian Bible". }
} }
} } from Dan Ellenburg: Thomas Jefferson's own words disagree with you. For
} } example...
} ----------------------------------------------------------------
}
} [LOL]
}
} Try, little bigot, TRY and read those words as Jefferson wrote them and not
} interpreted through your "legend in his own mind" theological "greatness".
}
} Think about what ""To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but
} not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I AM A CHRISTIAN, in the only
} sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in
} preference to all others; ascribing to himself every _human_ excellence; &
} believing he never claimed any other." means.
}
} You. bigotboy, are the very "corruptions of Christianity" to which he was
} referring.
}
} or
}
} ""... I AM A REAL CHRISTIAN, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of
} Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call _me_ infidel and
} _themselves_ Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their
} characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. "
}
} You, bigotboy, are an example of the "Platonists" to which he refrred.
}
} None are so blind as he who puts on his own blinders.
}
} Gray
Wrong again, Gray. You have obviously built this up in your mind to something it
isn't.
Marty Lierly
Mike Kelly wrote:
} Marty Lierly wrote in message
} <927401704$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
} }You couldn't have expressed this better!
}
} Thanks.
}
} }It is not possible for this nation to sustain itself as a free society if
} we
} }individually do not practice the morality and ethics taught in our
} Christian
} }tradition (Judeo-Christian, if you prefer), if one is a Christian or not.
} This
} }has been stated by others, a bit over 200 hundred years ago.
}
} I agree. I note, however, that those same values stem from other beliefs
} (religions, philosophies, etc.) as well. I believe they come from God
} (others may not), but I tolerate other faiths and perspectives as long as
} they don't violate those morals that I think socially critical, and as long
} as they don't attempt to persecute, suppress or otherwise interfere with my
} faith and practice.
}
} Lyan
Lyan, one known as Gray Shockley has decided upon a vendetta, for what reason I
don't know. Be careful when reading posts of others that have attributions to
me included. They are snipped in an attempt to spin, twist and distort. Your
statement 'those same values stem from other beliefs
(religions, philosophies, etc.) as well' is also right on point. Those sets of
values that are consonant with Judeo-Christian teachings, ethics and morality
will also sustain our liberties and freedom. A corrupt, immoral people will
cause the destruction of these.
Marty Lierly
Mike Kelly wrote:
} Marty Lierly wrote in message
} <927407101$10...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
} }If they are in consonance with the Christian values that were at the heart
} of
} }the settling, founding and law-making of this nation, they should fit in as
} far
} }as duties, obligations, responsibilites, etc. These are the civic morality
} that
} }sustain rights, freedom and liberty. It can't be just ANY set of values. It
} }isn't 'my morals are as good as your morals', as is the growing common
} notion,
} }entrenched in our public schools and elsewhere. Remember what happened to
} Rome,
} }it wasn't just the lead.
}
} True enough (although I think you date yourself when you claim to remember
} what happend to Rome...)
Unlike another member of this group, I do not claim to have been there... :)
} }} From what I understand of Wicca, they do nothing that violates the
} morality
} }} I consider the core of my Christian belief. Theologically I don't agree
} }} with them, but in term of civic morality and virtue, I am not aware of
} any
} }} problems with their faith. Why the worry, as a citizen? Why the focus
} on
} }} "monogamy?"
} }}
} }} Regards,
} }} Lyan
}
} Monagamy? Where is my editor?! Try monotheism... Sorry about that.
Monogamy sure works best, historically, socially and culturally, doesn't it?
} }If it is not God-centered, Supreme Being, Creator, etc., it is not
} religion. As
} }such, it should not have a chaplain in the military, especially when other
} }faiths of greater number do not have their own (someone posted the numbers
} on
} }this a while back, if you care to hunt it down). If these folks want to run
} off
} }into the woods at night, get naked and dance around a fire pretending they
} are
} }witches and warlocks, that's legally ok with me.
}
} I think your view of their faith is a bit pejorative, but I agree that not
} every splintered faction of belief rates a chaplaincy. My reasons are those
} of simple military logistics, not persecution. I for one I'm lucky enough
} to be able to be served well by any Christian chaplain (and have even
} received Communion from a Rabbi). I know some Christians who would have
} strong reservations being served by a Wiccan, which might make things a bit
} problematic if said Wiccan were the chaplain for a battalion. Even I might
} have problems with an unconsecrated individual serving communion. I don't
} believe lay leaders (those trained to hold services in places were chaplains
} are not able to be present, such as submarines) can give the full
} sacramental order, and they are Christian. I think the military needs to
} think that one over, for sure, but not with prejudice.
}
I don't have a favorable or unfavorable view. It's that I don't like being
B.S.'ed. I still hold that religious faith includes God, always will. All else
is something else, good, bad or indifferent. While other larger denominations go
unserved with a chaplain, the Wicca thing gets one. There is a reason, make no
mistake.
Mike Kelly
Marty Lierly wrote in message
}} True enough (although I think you date yourself when you claim to
remember
}} what happend to Rome...)
}Unlike another member of this group, I do not claim to have been there...
:)
I haven't been to Rome either, ancient or contemporary.
}} Monagamy? Where is my editor?! Try monotheism... Sorry about that.
}Monogamy sure works best, historically, socially and culturally, doesn't
it?
Oh give up--I muffed it and nothing more. Not that monogamy doesn't sort of
fit, but still, no points for that one.
}I don't have a favorable or unfavorable view. It's that I don't like being
}B.S.'ed. I still hold that religious faith includes God, always will. All
else
}is something else, good, bad or indifferent. While other larger
denominations go
}unserved with a chaplain, the Wicca thing gets one. There is a reason, make
no
}mistake.
Ah, now here is where my military experience is pertinent: I know from
experience that things happen in the military for no reason whatsoever.
Don't be so sure this was actually thought through.
Lyan
Robin Mitchell
On Fri, 21 May 99 14:05:01 GMT, "RGlenCheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
}But where does poor Marty go to find you a good book on christian
}apologetics? Not in any public library; the librarians would burn them!
}Porno-yes!, christian advocacy, NO! That is the guiding light of the
}librarians in America today.
I stumbled upon this post while searching DejaNews for something
entirely different, but I couldn't let the above pass unremarked. This
is sheer paranoid lunacy written by someone who obviously hasn't spent
much time in a public library recently but who isn't going to let that
inconvenient fact stop him or her from writing breathless hyperbole
about them.
As someone who *does* frequent libraries, I'm happy to report that I've
been checking out and reading Christian apologetics for some time now
from my local library in Southern California. They have a decent
collection of C.S. Lewis, George MacDonald, G.K. Chesterton, etc., and
what they don't have themselves they can order from other libraries.
Conversely, I haven't seen any traces of "porno" in the library, though
I admit that I haven't looked very hard. I guess I'll bow to Mr. or Ms.
RGlenCheek's expertise in that matter, which is presumably much greater
than mine -- I don't even know the Dewey Decimal category for porno!
And having said that, I now return you to your regularly scheduled
ravings...
--
Perform the arithmetic in my email address to reply
Fred
}>This is sophistry. Are you claiming that there is no
}>difference between Jimmy Swagert and Jerry Falwell?
}
}No, I am claiming that you and I are not the appointed
}to make the judgement. I don't pretend to know the souls
}of others. That is the Lord's role, and those who "pretend"
}to take that role need to consider the beam in their own
}eye. That isn't sophistry, it's scripture. I think Falwell
}is more credible than Swaggart, but I don't know enough
}about either to judge their souls.
Guys, guys, guys, no one is judging Jimmy Swaggart's soul by saying that
they think he's a fraud and acting accordingly. That's just an exercise of
godly wisdom. He claimed a spot as a leader in the church, and he needs to
be held all the more accountable, not because we are judging him, but
because we are exercising discernment with what slice of authority God has
given us, which is, in this case, the authority to call sin sin, to refuse
to give of our resources to a man whose behavior indicates that he is
living a lie, and to encourage others to also act accordingly. That simply
isn't judgment. The Pharisees claiming authority to say who was saved and
who was not - THAT is judgment.
When you punish your child for misbehavior, is that judging him? No, it's
using the authority that God has given you to use, ultimately for his
benefit if he is willing to accept that benefit of correction. When Jimmy
Swaggart is caught (more than once) driving around in his Jag soliciting
prostitutes, and you call that sin and say he is not fit to be a pastor, is
that judging him or his soul? No it is not. It is simply using the
authority that God has given one, to speak the truth and to act
accordingly, for the general benefit. Jimmy Swaggart doesn't derive a
benefit from being allowed unchallenged to dip into his salary or donations
to buy hire prostitutes. His followers don't benefit from being allowed
without challenge to follow him and give him money simply because they are
blind to the truth of his behavior and fitness for ministry. And no one
else benefits from being silent when such wickedness is going on before
them.
Certainly speak humbly, knowing that all are under the grace of God for a
time and that one does not speak out of ones own righteousness, but out of
an obligation to speak the truth to the benefit of the church. But don't
allow ones truth to be choked by the Accuser, who whispers what is
certainly true but not controlling, and is turned to an evil purpose of
beating us into silence: "...You are not worthy to speak the truth of the
Lord..."
Eisen John
Marty Lierly wrote:
}
} Don't feel bad, I'm still giving my informed opinions away, too. ;-)
}
May the baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your mind.
Marty Lierly
Mike Kelly wrote:
} Marty Lierly wrote in message
} <927501603$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
} }} True enough (although I think you date yourself when you claim to
} remember
} }} what happend to Rome...)
}
} }Unlike another member of this group, I do not claim to have been there...
} :)
}
} I haven't been to Rome either, ancient or contemporary.
}
} }} Monagamy? Where is my editor?! Try monotheism... Sorry about that.
}
} }Monogamy sure works best, historically, socially and culturally, doesn't
} it?
}
} Oh give up--I muffed it and nothing more. Not that monogamy doesn't sort of
} fit, but still, no points for that one.
Nothing was intended.
}
} }I don't have a favorable or unfavorable view. It's that I don't like being
} }B.S.'ed. I still hold that religious faith includes God, always will. All
} else
} }is something else, good, bad or indifferent. While other larger
} denominations go
} }unserved with a chaplain, the Wicca thing gets one. There is a reason, make
} no
} }mistake.
}
} Ah, now here is where my military experience is pertinent: I know from
} experience that things happen in the military for no reason whatsoever.
} Don't be so sure this was actually thought through.
}
All things in the military do not happen for no discernible reason at all.
Besides, things of this nature come from pretty far up in the military food
chain. Stick around, you'll learn a lot here. If you wish you can do a search at
http://www.dejanews.com/ on this group, subject material, such as UN/New World
Order, or on posters. It doesn't take long to figure out which posters offer
better quality information and which are detractors or hoaxers, just skip these
folks.
So you served a couple of years, are you using the Montgomery G.I. Bill to go to
school now? I take it you are under 25 years of age(?). Good luck on your
endeavors.
Gray Shockley
On Sun, 23 May 1999 17:05:01 -0500, Marty Lierly wrote
(in message <927497101$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>):
} And just what part of my statement offended you? I am merely condensing and
} repeating what the Founders thought and stated.
LOL
} They are quite correct; our
} rights, liberty and freedom are dependent upon the moral character of our
} citizens. With these came duty, morality, obligation and responsibility, to
} name a few. Mr. Lindstedt and Matt Nuenke are among my least favorite on
} this newsgroup, I wish they would peddle their goods elsewhere. Gray, ole
} buddy, it's time you went out and plowed another field, for the calming
} effect.
Just got in from cutting up storm damage. At least my part of town didn't lose
power as did much of the town.
I would think that Lindstedt would be one of your favorites.
You do for religion what he does for race.
I don't see a dime's worth of difference between you and him.
Gray
Gray Shockley
On Sun, 23 May 1999 18:20:03 -0500, Marty Lierly wrote
(in message <927501603$16...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>):
} I don't have a favorable or unfavorable view. It's that I don't like being
} B.S.'ed. I still hold that religious faith includes God, always will. All
} else is something else, good, bad or indifferent. While other larger
} denominations go unserved with a chaplain, the Wicca thing gets one. There
} is a reason, make no mistake.
-----------------------------------------
Citation, please.
Or do you intuit this?
What's your military background? Most people - even those in the military -
know very little of the Chaplains Corp.
Gray
Mike Kelly
Marty Lierly wrote in message
}Nothing was intended.
I mean, no points for me. When I goof, I goof.
}All things in the military do not happen for no discernible reason at all.
}Besides, things of this nature come from pretty far up in the military food
}chain. Stick around, you'll learn a lot here. If you wish you can do a
search at
}http://www.dejanews.com/ on this group, subject material, such as UN/New
World
}Order, or on posters. It doesn't take long to figure out which posters
offer
}better quality information and which are detractors or hoaxers, just skip
these
}folks.
1. I have learned from hard experience that the least sensible things tend
to come from high up said food chain. It must have something to do with the
Pentagon being in the vicinity of that gas that seeps out of the Potomac.
Proximity to Washington breeds this phenomenon.
2. It isn't that I don't believe the U.N. folks are generally up to no good
(they are, when all is said and done, politicians and their various hacks).
I just don't pay much attention to the actions of bufoons and clowns. The
also-ran countries and their "leaders" can play NWO all they want. My
concern begins when our own elected officials (and, yes, the electorate that
places them in power) start thinking the same way.
}So you served a couple of years, are you using the Montgomery G.I. Bill to
go to
}school now?
More than a couple (more than a decade now). Yes, I'm going to school. I'm
considering switching from Poli-Sci to Computer Science, but I'm close
enough to finishing that I might as well get a degree then start anew.
}I take it you are under 25 years of age(?). Good luck on your
}endeavors.
Thanks, but you're off by a bit. I'm over thirty. I have a wife and kid, a
house, two vehicles, lots of stuff in my basement that I haven't any real
use for, and a few investments. I have a good job (but am looking for
better) and entirely too much to do in work week. College is part of that
to do list, as is study for other credentials. Oh, and I have several guns,
a few of which are loaded (how else to protect all that crap in my
basement). So I thank you for you well-wishing, but have to say you aren't
very good at age guessing. :-)
Regards,
Lyan
RGlenCheek
Heheheheh, Wiz, you really kill me. Uncle Joe just got bar-B-Qed; damn, Joe,
that thing called 'memory' can be a real bitch sometimes, can't it?
rglencheek
PGISSource wrote in message
<927329701$49...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}
}"RGlenCheek" <rglen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
}
}}Joseph Pothier wrote in message
}}<926961600$40...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
}}}
}}}Well, Mr. Cheek, I see you are back up to
}}}your old tricks.
}}
}}Heh, you're the only fraud here, Uncle Joe.
}
}
}As we'll see momentarily, R.G. is quite correct about "Pothier" being a
fraud
}... a fraud who, like most neo-nazis and despite assorted laws admonishing
}against such bigotry, apparently believes anti-religious and other forms of
}hate are proper tools to use to attempt to incite his beloved violence.
}
}Consider, for instance, "Pothier's" current comment:
}
}}}Some Christians have attempted to
}}}persecute other Christian sects at times--- the
}}}Mormons come immediately to mind.
}
}Now let's review "Pothier's" own neo-nazi inspired posts on just that
topic.
}For instance, back in August 1996 (See: Re: OUTLAW the MILITIA! and
numerous
}other threads), nazi-Joe "Pothier" spewed:
}
}}> ***ARE YOU A MORMON, BOY?****
}}> TELL ME ***BOY*** WHAT IS THIS I
}}>HEAR ABOUT YOUNG MORMON
}}>WOMEN BEING INTERESTED IN
}}>SOME SORT OF UNDERWARE YOU
}}>***BOYS*** ARE SUPPOSED TO KEEP
}}>ON ALL THE TIME. AND WHILE WE
}}>ARE AT IT ***BOY*** JUST HOW
}}>MANY WIVES DO YOUINS' PLAN ON
}}>HAVIN'.
}
}A bit demeaning both to Mormons -and- women. And elsewhere:
}
}}>By the way, has anyone added water to you
}}>yet? And, on this underware thing, do they
}}>only come in white, or can you get them
}}>in colors? Just courious.
}
}and in yet another post:
}
}}>TELL ME MORMON **BOY** ABOUT
}}>THAT UNDERWARE YOU WARE.
}
}and in another:
}
}}>Oh, so he did not want to discuss the
}}>underware thing either. *INTERSETING.*
}
}yet another:
}
}}>If you join the CLDS, do you get to pick
}}>your own underware design? And, is there
}}>a relationship between the underware and
}}>the honor thing?
}
}I could go on, but as we can see nazi-Joe "Pothier" isn't being exactly
}truthful about his pretensions. Though not directly lying in the current
post,
}he attempts to project an image of his views about Mormons and their
}persecution that DejaNews shows is clearly false. The provable reality is
that
}"Pothier" himself is a major purveyor of anti-Mormon hate.
}
}This is not surprising, though. Neo-nazis like "Pothier" are often known
for
}trying to attibute their own hate solely to others. Like impersonating
}membership in other factions (consider "Pothier's" claim of being part of
the
}"anti-militia" faction) it's a common part of the agenda that nuts like
Louis
}Beam put out a few years back. An agenda which was echoed quite a lot by
other
}of "Pothier's" cohorts like the now defunct "Cyber Nazi Group."
}
}None of which means I agree with R.G. on many things. However, when it
comes to
}religious bigotry, it's amply clear that nazi-Joe "Pothier" is a major
}perpetrator in THIS forum, not R.G. or even for that matter most
}Fundamentalists here.
}
}So for "Pothier" to even obliquely imply otherwise is really nothing more
than
}the typical neo-nazi redirection of attention that he, Willie Pierce, Davey
}Duke, Markie Thomas (his nuts also were involved in "Pothier's" neck of the
}woods), little Tommy Metzger, and the rest of their childish ilk try so
}nauseatingly often in their efforts to hide their true affinities and dupe
}juvenile idiots into following them. After all, neo-nazi ideals are not
exactly
}appealing to folks without some lying. Something that nazi recruiters like
}"Pothier" so often appears to be are well aware of.
}
}So in reality is that kind of hate inherently religiously based? Not
}necessarily. There are a number of neo-nazi groups that show "Pothier's"
type
}of generalized hate toward -all- beliefs. Groups like the World Church of
the
}Creator. A group that much like "Pothier" hates nearly if not all faiths.
}Elements are also found in the Beaver Dam, WI group with much of their
}writings. Though Chrisitian Identity in general form, the latter group's
}opposition is directed as much toward Christians (and most Fundamentalists)
in
}general as to any other group. Numerous other examples also exist.
}
}While I wouldn't even begin to argue that there are not -some-
Fundamentalists
}that peddle hate, generally the faiths themselves are not the problem.
Hate
}itself is the problem. And the fact that it occurs -also- in portions of
some
}groups does not necessarily mean attacking those religions in general in
any
}way effectively combats the hate. All it really does is play into the hands
of
}neo-nazis like "Pothier" in their lust for violence. Remember the rash of
}church-burnings and desecrations? Some of the victims were also
}Fundamentalists. Much as Mormons, Moslems, Eastern Orthodox, Wiccans,
Hindus,
}and many other groups have also been the target of "Pothier's" type of
hate.
}
}In the end in order to stop the hate it's every bit as necessary to
recognize
}and oppose the neo-nazi nuts like "Pothier" as it is to oppose any other of
the
}minority among us who are hatemongers. This, above any theological precept,
is
}the common ground that must be struck if the hate is to be stopped. Society
}must not allow pathetic hate cultists like "Pothier" to employ religion as
a
}tool to play people off against each other in their as much as admitted
effort
}to incite the hate and violence they so desire in their sick effort to
}implement their agendas of neo-right hate.
}
}Mr. Wizard
}
}
}
}
}
RGlenCheek
Hmm, another Lefty committing mental-masturbation. See enough of that from
Uncle Joe Pothead. Oh well, guess I'll go back to my newspaper.
rglencheek
Nancy Luft wrote in message
<927329706$49...@black-helicopter.psychetect.com>...
Dear Rev. Charles Blake, Jr.,
<horse-shit deleted>
Nancy Luft
Greetings!
This Bible vs the US Constitution debate is rather interesting, not sure
exactly what is all proves, though.
The Special Sputnik Forces of the Russian Military created Jesus Christ
the Super Hoax usng their sputniks and also total mind controlled folks
to write the Bible which is an odd combination of Hebrew mythology and
Russian prose.
We have our American Revolution with 13 colonies, 13 symbolically being
the number for death, ie., death to Birtiah colomism ... The Russian
Military did cause our American Revoluton.
I heard that the only intelligent thing most of those folks did their
entire lives was to take part in writing our US Consititution, is that
really true?
Nancy Luft
Greetings!
Well, the Special Sputniks Forces of the Russian Military keep telling
me, by sending me ESP, that by using their sputniks they wrote our US
Constitution because after they caused our American Revolution with our
13 colonies, they cared to make sure we stayed free and independent of
English colonialism.
Well, I am to debate which is best according to the title of this
posting, the Russian written Bible or the Russian written US
Constitution! Both written by the Special Sputnik Forces of the Russian
Military by them over riding folks' minds to put their Russian ideas,
thoughts, into writing!
Far out!
I think I perfer to discuss treaties with them instead and how to write
and improved US Constitution to grant The People more POWER!
What would think of, say, The People voting at home with computers and
The People having that line by item veto power? I LOVE the thought of
the United States of America working toward that goal ... then perhaps
WE THE PEOPLE will not get so royally screwed so often by all our
politicians!
Nancy Ann Luft
1515A S. 10th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53204
(414) 645-2390
Joseph Pothier
RGlenCheek wrote:
}
} Heheheheh, Wiz, you really kill me. Uncle Joe just got bar-B-Qed; damn, Joe,
} that thing called 'memory' can be a real bitch sometimes, can't it?
}
There is a difference, Mr. Cheek, between religious bigotry and being in
a flame war with a specific individual. Besides, I only asked the fellow
about his holier-than-thou underwear!!!
Yours,
JP
Happy Harpy
Kurt Lochner
Joseph Pothier wrote:
}
} RGlenCheek wrote:
} }
} } Heheheheh, Wiz, you really kill me. Uncle Joe just got bar-B-Qed;
} } damn, Joe, that thing called 'memory' can be a real bitch sometimes,
} } can't it?
} }
}
} There is a difference, Mr. Cheek, between religious bigotry and
} being in a flame war with a specific individual.
There is?? It must be a subtle difference..
} Besides, I only asked the fellow
} about his holier-than-thou underwear!!!
To which Whizzrad proceded to get in a 'bunch'..
--That was a nice wedgie you gave him, btw, he's still fuming..
Joseph Pothier
Kurt Lochner wrote:
}
} Joseph Pothier wrote:
} }
} } RGlenCheek wrote:
} } }
} } } damn, Joe, that thing called 'memory' can be a real bitch sometimes,
} } } can't it?
} } }
} }
} } There is a difference, Mr. Cheek, between religious bigotry and
} } being in a flame war with a specific individual.
}
} There is?? It must be a subtle difference..
}
} } Besides, I only asked the fellow
} } about his holier-than-thou underwear!!!
}
} To which Whizzrad proceded to get in a 'bunch'..
}
} --That was a nice wedgie you gave him, btw, he's still fuming..
Hi Kurt,
Ummmmm, your post brings up a whole new dimension of possibilities for
understanding PIGSOURCE's behavior! Not till I read your post did I
entertain the idea that Wiz-bo could have an underwear fetish! I'll have
to ponder the possibilities of this new approach <evil chuckle> this
evening in preparation for my Sunday morning postings!
Yours,
And Happy Harping With You
JP
Kurt Lochner
Joseph Pothier wrote:
}
} Kurt Lochner wrote:
} }
} } Joseph Pothier wrote:
} } }
} } } RGlenCheek wrote:
} } } }
} } } } damn, Joe, that thing called 'memory' can be a real bitch sometimes,
} } } } can't it?
} } } }
} } }
} } } There is a difference, Mr. Cheek, between religious bigotry and
} } } being in a flame war with a specific individual.
} }
} } There is?? It must be a subtle difference..
} }
} } } Besides, I only asked the fellow
} } } about his holier-than-thou underwear!!!
} }
} } To which Whizzrad proceded to get in a 'bunch'..
} }
} } --That was a nice wedgie you gave him, btw, he's still fuming..
}
} Hi Kurt,
}
} Ummmmm, your post brings up a whole new dimension of possibilities
} for understanding PIGSOURCE's behavior!
Does, doesn't it? I was rather struck by the calamity of it..
} Not till I read your post did I entertain the idea that Wiz-bo
} could have an underwear fetish!
I worked with a young man of Morman upbringing some years ago
and he advised that the 'practice' of extra underclothing was
now defunct, and actually *WAY* ahead of the so-called "militia"
preparedness nonsense..
} I'll have to ponder the possibilities of this new approach
} <evil chuckle> this evening in preparation for my Sunday
} morning postings!
I'm certain it will be the highlight of my morning...
--And Happy Harping With You Too...
Alice
The pagan religion of secular humaism is the religion taught today in so called
'academic learning centers' biased against Jesus Christ. 'Situational ethics' is
worshipped, 'what is right for one person is not necessarily right for others.
yet...any other religion, or culture is worshipped above Christianity. The pagans
didn't like it over in their own countries and want to come here and give us their
devilish and evil cultures full of witchcraft, called 'culture'. what a joke! Lets
face it, the whole thing is establishing the New World ORder. Look at the one dollar
bill and look at what our Presidents worship. There is no longer a U.S.A. when you
persecute the Christian, all freedoms will be taken away. Look at the examples of the
Soviet Union, China, North Viet Nam. Look at the U.N. which is the temple of the pagan
gods and the evil angel called Lucifer. Most Americans have their head in the sand and
don't know what the Constitution really means but depend on devil worshippers to
'interpret the constitution' for sheep. Worshipping self always destroys nations and
men's souls. Now we worship the UN and spit upon the constitution of the U.S. Now,
men are women and women are men and the President belongs to secret clubs of the world
bent on destroying this nation. It is better dead than red. May God destroy this
nation so evil men will not use it. I think we Christians better prepare ourselves for
death to serve God rather than men. Mere men who will be buried in the grave and turn
to dust and go to hell for serving Lucifer and destroying God's people. The Bible does
go above the constitution if the constitution is against the Bible, even if it was not
intended to be. If evil comes first, than we know we can't worship the law that is
against Jesus Christ. Jesus said, " I am the Way the Truth and the Life and no man
comes to the Father but by me." I come from ancestors who fought in the American
Revolutionary War, and they put the Bible first and hated tyranny, which secular
humanism is a form of. alice, ( ps. the religion of occultism is used all the time by
our leaders, don't tell me secular humanist otherwise, because it will be another lie.
I am not referring to men or women who believe in the orginal Constitution of the U.S.
and what George Washington and our Patriots fought for years ago. I am angry at
leftist who are hell bent on having us kiss the devils feet and have our kids go to
hell. It is time to dump the tea! No one can prove the Bible is not true. Do you
want your kids to go to hell? Is listening to pagan professors proof that the Bible is
not true? Do we have to believe all 'spirit guides' or pagan 'apparitions' as being
true? Why do the pagans want to come to American if their religion is so great in
'mother country? How come they didn't have freedom from their religion? Just a few
questions, why should Christians sell our souls to the devil? Do we have to continue
to sell our souls to the devil through 'political correctness' and being wimpy? Jesus
is coming King, not a wimp.
Buz O
6-17-99
Dear Sister Alice;
Sweetheart, I know it is your Christian duty to witness and
spread the word! I know many here in this group are
Christians and therefore appreciate your efforts.
The PROBLEM is Sister Alice, all of our citizens and all of
our militia members aren't necessarily Christian ... and
getting into religious debates is and does have a deliterous
effect on any sense of cohesion in establishing a United
Militia Front. Religion, being one of the chief deviseve
topics in any large group.
So while we appreciate your efforts, this really isn't the
forum for it; now is it? And since we all agree, that
something, most likely needs to be done, to get God back in
the classroom ... would you mind, Sister Alice, "not
jiggling the apple cart", while we try and work?
Sincerely; Your admirer,
Buz Ozburn
Marty Lierly
Buz O wrote:
} 6-17-99
}
} Dear Sister Alice;
}
} Sweetheart, I know it is your Christian duty to witness and
} spread the word! I know many here in this group are
} Christians and therefore appreciate your efforts.
}
} The PROBLEM is Sister Alice, all of our citizens and all of
} our militia members aren't necessarily Christian ... and
} getting into religious debates is and does have a deliterous
} effect on any sense of cohesion in establishing a United
} Militia Front. Religion, being one of the chief deviseve
} topics in any large group.
}
} So while we appreciate your efforts, this really isn't the
} forum for it; now is it? And since we all agree, that
} something, most likely needs to be done, to get God back in
} the classroom ... would you mind, Sister Alice, "not
} jiggling the apple cart", while we try and work?
Back off Buz, unless you want me to jump in on this. Let's see, you led the move to ban
racists, now you're picking on a well stated message from a Christian? Alices message is more
pertinent to this group than many, and if you look at our historical roots, founding,
constitution, etc., you will see that the Bible and Christianity is central to this nation
and its freedoms and liberties, naysayers and revisionists notwithstanding. I'm willing to
let it drop if you are. Otherwise...
Buz O
6-19-99
Marty;
My message was very POLITE and very much in agreement with
her stated goals. But you have got to admit that getting
all religious, in the news group, is going to backfire!
Either we are going to get it organized or we are going to
go to church ... personally, I figure going to church is for
Sunday morning ... and working on militia topics is what we
are suppose to be doing in mam.
I have NO DESIRE at all, to ban this person ... I didn't
bring up banning anyone ... you did!
You want to jump in the middle of this ... go for it!
Personally I'm out of it. I've said my 2 cents worth. And
I believe this nice lady probably understands where I'm
coming from as well. I'm surprised you apparently don't.
Marty, I thought you wanted to get the news group back on
topic ... and this isn't how, we are going to do it!!! Well
do you or don't you?
Obviously, you've got a little decision to make.
Buz Ozburn
Joseph T. Adams
Marty Lierly (mli...@earthlink.net) wrote:
:
: Back off Buz, unless you want me to jump in on this.
She and Buz *both* have valid points.
: if you look at our historical roots, founding,
: constitution, etc., you will see that the Bible and Christianity is central to this nation
: and its freedoms and liberties, naysayers and revisionists notwithstanding.
While I agree with that statement, it is far from obvious to most of
those whose "education" comes only from government schools and
television. Indeed, it is far from obvious even to many who are more
highly educated and informed. Alice is right to want to point it out,
but Buz also is right in that prudence and wisdom are very much needed
if you want to get that point across, and that this may not be the
ideal forum for doing so.
: I'm willing to
: let it drop if you are. Otherwise...
Actually I think it could be an interesting discussion, provided that
all sides try to show respect for the viewpoints of others. Sadly,
most of these discussions do degenerate into flame wars. The charter
doesn't address it either way, so I think it is up to all of us to
behave like mature and responsible individuals, especially if we wish
to be heard rather than ignored.
Joe
Marty Lierly
Buz O wrote:
} 6-19-99
}
} Marty;
}
} My message was very POLITE and very much in agreement with
} her stated goals. But you have got to admit that getting
} all religious, in the news group, is going to backfire!
} Either we are going to get it organized or we are going to
} go to church ... personally, I figure going to church is for
} Sunday morning ... and working on militia topics is what we
} are suppose to be doing in mam.
}
} I have NO DESIRE at all, to ban this person ... I didn't
} bring up banning anyone ... you did!
}
} You want to jump in the middle of this ... go for it!
}
} Personally I'm out of it. I've said my 2 cents worth. And
} I believe this nice lady probably understands where I'm
} coming from as well. I'm surprised you apparently don't.
}
} Marty, I thought you wanted to get the news group back on
} topic ... and this isn't how, we are going to do it!!! Well
} do you or don't you?
}
} Obviously, you've got a little decision to make.
}
} Buz Ozburn
Re-read what I wrote. And I don't think that an attempt at condescension is polite.
Marty Lierly
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
} Marty Lierly (mli...@earthlink.net) wrote:
} :
} : Back off Buz, unless you want me to jump in on this.
}
} She and Buz *both* have valid points.
}
} : if you look at our historical roots, founding,
} : constitution, etc., you will see that the Bible and Christianity is central to this nation
} : and its freedoms and liberties, naysayers and revisionists notwithstanding.
}
} While I agree with that statement, it is far from obvious to most of
} those whose "education" comes only from government schools and
} television. Indeed, it is far from obvious even to many who are more
} highly educated and informed. Alice is right to want to point it out,
} but Buz also is right in that prudence and wisdom are very much needed
} if you want to get that point across, and that this may not be the
} ideal forum for doing so.
}
} : I'm willing to
} : let it drop if you are. Otherwise...
}
} Actually I think it could be an interesting discussion, provided that
} all sides try to show respect for the viewpoints of others. Sadly,
} most of these discussions do degenerate into flame wars. The charter
} doesn't address it either way, so I think it is up to all of us to
} behave like mature and responsible individuals, especially if we wish
} to be heard rather than ignored.
}
} Joe
Joe, this thread was recently beaten to death a month or two ago, it is a fine thread. Search
the subject line on http://www.deja.com for all of the details. It is worth a read, but not a
repeat. An RGlenCheek did a masterful job on this, with lots of sourced quotes. Enjoy.