ybnormal

I have so much to learn from Radorth, but I think I'm getting the hang of it now...

Buffman

Radorth

Er, I named the sources, and told you I searched for them on the web. I also told you why I didn't look very hard for the "Franklin/Barton source. If you and Toto want to take credit for knowing where to search after you know exactly what you are looking for, go ahead.

Yes, I will be quite pleased to take credit for researching information more thoroughly than you do. Isn't that what all this waste of band width has been about. Your lack of accurate research credibility and your reliance on the work of others who were proven propagandists and liars?

Radorth

Most of the bandwidth was wasted because so many skeptics just like to hear themselves preach about how dumb and unholy Christians are. There was much baiting going on as well, which was the primary reason for my reticence.

When you folks admit all the quotes on Positiveatheism's "Big List" of Washington quotes (as one example) are simply removed from context to push their agenda, we might get somewhere. You act like atheists are free of bias, when in fact both camps are simply trying to offset what they consider to be unreasonable bias on the other side.

Nevertheless I will make a reasonable effort to find the context or at least the original source for my quotes, or state that I cannot locate it at least. Perhaps, in some cases the intent of the author will be different than I thought, but I'm hardly afraid it will.

Rad

Buffman

Radorth

Most of the bandwidth was wasted because so many skeptics just like to hear themselves preach about how dumb and unholy Christians are.

Please try to view this from my position. Haven't you just made a statement that could be used to justify the skeptic position? (i.e.: Where is the verifiable, statistical, support for your contention of "so many skeptics?") I doubt that you will be able to find any post where I made such glittering generalities about Christians who haven't earned the label. Quite the reverse. You will find many where I support statements made by theists...if they are accurate. Just read my opening post in this topic.

There was much baiting going on as well, which was the primary reason for my reticence.

What you seem to perceive as baiting, I call challenging propaganda and lies. To avoid any adversarial escalation in the discussion merely requires sincere and honest answers. A simple "I don't know" can earn an enormous amount of respect from me. Intentional avoidance or error will receive my suspicion and condemnation.

When you folks admit all the quotes on Positiveatheism's "Big List" of Washington quotes (as one example) are simply removed from context to push their agenda, we might get somewhere.

Of course they are. However, when and why was that "Big List" created? How many of the quotes are unverified? I have no idea because I have only used that list, and many more fundamentalist Christian site lists, to help me obtain leads on original source documents/ references.

You act like atheists are free of bias, when in fact both camps are simply trying to offset what they consider to be unreasonable bias on the other side.

Now there is an allegation/opinion that I can support. However, I have been following this issue for several decades and feel that it was the Christian fundamentalist takeover of the 1979 Southern Baptist Convention that was responsible for the initiation of the founding father quote wars...not the atheists. "Then Came David Barton!" He was followed "religiously" by the radical Christian right...and still is. Then came fromtheright and Radorth posting similar Barton posts or acting as apologists for those who continue to use his revisionist history.

Nevertheless I will make a reasonable effort to find the context or at least the original source for my quotes, or state that I cannot locate it at least. Perhaps, in some cases the intent of the author will be different than I thought, but I'm hardly afraid it will.

I could ask no more of anyone. Why do you think I kept posting all those URLs? Many contained the original documents/speeches/ writings...or at least the references to the most fundamental sources for the posted quote. Of course I am going to offer my personal opinions about the biographers of the founding/framing fathers...especially when it becomes patently obvious that they introduced their own religious conditioning biases into their writings. And when I discover that there are additional factors that are available to gain a sharper focus, and hopefully a clearer insight, into the times and circumstances surrounding the material in question, I will continue to offer my interpretations for public review and consideration. However, I expect serious researchers to use the material I am able to provide to arrive at their own conclusions...and be able to defend them based on the verifiable evidence.

joedad

Hurrah!

Rad, Darling, I'll believe it when I see it, immediately, hopefully.

Here's hoping.

Also, I notice that often you make reference to "nascent christianity." Just for my personal understanding of your position, could you tell me what this is exactly, and specifically how it differs from christianity?

joe

Radorth

Who decides that? You? Are you the inerrant judge of all Christians and their motives? Your posts are full of gratuitous ad hom, and you simply lied when you said "with no help from you." Why do you continue this soapbox derby, which I would have happily stopped when I signed off as "Kettle"?

I marvel the moderators allow these rants to go on and on and on.

Which is exactly what I said two or three times about one of the central issues- Washington's true beliefs- with no effect. It was never I who labeled him or made rash claims about what he said or did not say. Nor did I read all kinds of hidden agendas into them when they contradicted my own suspicions. How I could say "I don't know" when I did know what document they came from, and said what it was, but could not locate a URL.

It is most sad that you accuse me of anything more than not giving the whole context, while some of your helpers were doing little different for their quotes. You might want to cut and paste some of your posts into an e-mail to a few atheist websites I've seen.

Rad

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

[ November 12, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Yellum Notnef

Yes,I`ve been wondering about this myself.
They should have put a lid on your nonsense a long time ago.

Radorth

What I tried to tell you, but which you can't or won't believe is that I searched the Washington UVa site for over an hour, punching in "Jesus" and "Christ" and "Delaware Chiefs" etc, but I could not find it. I also admitted I could not find the original source, but you are so intent on justifying yourself, that you ignore my assertions, apparently.

Obviously I don't have the knowledge of how to search, or the resources that you do, but that is hardly the measure of my integrity. Meanwhile you easily found them after I named the document they were in, then you claim all credit.

Sheesh.

Rad

Radorth

Fenton, are you perhaps trolling around the forum trying to get a rise out of me?

Rad

Radorth

I tried pretty hard to explain in a lengthy post last night, over on the "I'm not religious" thread. If you have specific questions after reading it, perhaps you can ask them over there. It basically means to me "before it was corrupted by legalists and ignorant religious people"

Rad