Buffman

Rad

That is not how I see it. To me the issue is simply a matter of what they envisioned for America. Washington's statement in his address above says it all, and you, when confronted with such statements, go through all kinds of intellectual tap-dancing to explain them a way.

That is merely one more of your desparate, cheap shot, allegations you are using to help you win, in your own mind, some form of black or white debate. You forced me to conclude, long ago, that you are totally incapable of any manner of intellectual discussion. The only real challenge that you have presented to me is whether to (1) treat you like an intellectual pygmy, (2) try to reason with you by offeringyou an opportunity to expand your conditioned knowledge base, or (3) just write you off as one more Born Again, Protestant, Christian apologist no longer capable of coherent reason.

Of the five items you listed, only two are accurate representations of my "opinions." The rest are primarily your own fantasy beliefs/opinions.

I'm sorry. They held Christian ideals dear and necessary to political success and even human happiness, nearly to a man, and all the pontificating, theories, goofy analogies and speculations we see here will never change that history.

Don't be sorry! Just be honest and as historically accurate as possible. These "men" held ethical and moral values dear for the success of our new, and unique, federal republic. Do Christian teachings advocate many of these same desirable ideals/values/qualities? They most certainly do! However, are you continuing to maintain that "ONLY" Christian "DOGMA" provides these same ideals? And that only the Judeo-Christian Bible is inerrantly true/right/correct/accurate concerning them?

What you seem to be claiming is that ONLY Christians can be all the things that these founders thought important to the survival of the form of government they crafted. Is that what you sincerely believe? Try to provide an complete and coherent answer this time. Please! (Take your time for once. Give it some sincere and introspective thought before you bang out just one more debating cheap shot attempting to convince yourself that you are a "winner.")

Radorth

Buffman, you really must go read some of your own posts sometime.

You have stated at various times that Washington did not read things he signed, that political expediency drove him to say certain things, and you compared the motives of Bin Laden to Congessmen. So yes you do assert things you cannot possible know for sure, and whenever confronted with a quote which does not fit your ideas, you resort to speculation, etc.

Madison calls Christianity a "precious gift," and runs on about how ignorant the rest of the world is of the Gospel, but we are told that he was just telling the Christians what they wanted to hear.
It's all very convenient.

No, I'm claiming that without Christian ideals found in the New Testament, which these men studied diligently in college, we would not have an America as we know it. And the founders virtually all say so, which is why I believe skeptics chose to distract people with overly pedantic preaching about sources, contexts, and "Barton quotes."

"That's a Barton quote. You can't use that!"

"Well yes, he has used it, but it isn't on his list of questionable quotes."

"We don't care. You can't use anything Barton ever quoted. It could be manufactured."

"Well shouldn't we go find out?"

"Radorth used a Barton quote. Radorth is a liar."

Isn't that pretty much how it went? I'm afraid so. And I'm afraid I did not even finish quoting some less well known founders, such as Samuel Adams whose contribution is highly underrated. (Not that many here wants to hear them talk about how Christ influenced them)

Rad

Radorth

How could they be anything but similar where they overlap? Burning places of worship is hardly Luther's invention. Luther seems clear that there were limits, whereas Hitler would take what Sister Teresa said and twist it around in his sick mind to justify anything he wanted to do. What Hitler did to dissidents was remarkably similar to what Stalin did, but I doubt he needed coaching from Stalin to figure it out. It's just plain old scapegoating and tyranny. To suggest Hitler would have done any differently without Luther's writings is merely tendentious theorizing.

Nevertheless I think Hitler probably did use Luther's writings to justify himself to the German people who had misgivings.

Rad

Bookman

I'm personally willing to concede this; however, without those few specifically Christian ideals the America that we have would be only slightly different, IMO.

Many of the founders were Churchgoers. Some were devout. All (or nearly all -- I've a fear of absolute statements) were well educated. In that time, as in this one, Christian thinkers, Christian people and Christian doctrine have proved to be remarkably flexible, for lack of a better term. Christians, like all people, have embraced a number of good, new ideas throughout the past two hundred years and beyond. To claim that those ideas are Christian ideas simply because some educated Christians embraced them is both remarkably arrogant and incredibly silly.

American law has a diverse ancestry that includes Christianity but certainly not exclusively (or even principly).

Bookman

Sabine Grant

Rad and Buffman : could one consider that some christians past and present can hold dear the principles of Separation of Church and State while nurturing their own faith? of course! Could I claim as a christian that the Bible is the sole source of morality. Of course not! The book can be used for personal agendas that have nothing to do with the betterment of humanity depending on personal interpretation. It was used to justify slavery and is still quoted today in white supremacist groups.

Is it really that important to prove that Madison and Washington were or were not christians as their endeavor led to positive accomplishments?

I tend to believe that both were well aware of the opression and control any organized religion could exercise if allowed to interfere with political affairs.... but that does not mean neither of them was nurturing their personal faith in God.

Buffman

Rad

You have stated at various times that Washington did not read things he signed,

I said he didn't "write" that specific document. Get your facts straight. I have no idea if he read it or not. Do you? I certainly suspect that he did.

that political expediency drove him to say certain things,

In this specific instance, I speculated that "military" expediency could have been the motivation behind Washington not making any changes in the documents verbiage. Are you claiming that Washington, and all these other founders, were not capable of using "political expediency" as part of their speeches and writings.

you compared the motives of Bin Laden to Congessmen.

I did offer a comparison of bin Laden's supernatural faith belief's in Allah to those of certain Christian politicians' faith beliefs in their chosen supernatural God(s). The only motive that was implied was that of there being little difference in getting people to sacrifice their lives for some supernatural afterlife promise.

So yes you do assert things you cannot possible know for sure, and whenever confronted with a quote which does not fit your ideas, you resort to speculation, etc.

You are partially correct. I don't "assert" things I can not back up with verifiable evidence. However, I do offer my opinions/speculations on a good many issues in the absence of conclusive evidence. Don't you?

Madison calls Christianity a "precious gift," and runs on about how ignorant the rest of the world is of the Gospel, but we are told that he was just telling the Christians what they wanted to hear. It's all very convenient.

Please provide the post where "I" made such a statement. I, and others, have continuously pointed out that you take Madison's, and anyone else's, statements out of context any time the word God, Jesus or Christian appears in one with total disregard for what came before or after the inclusion...unless it it's patched together with something else to make it seem like a stronger case.

No, I'm claiming that without Christian ideals found in the New Testament, which these men studied diligently in college, we would not have an America as we know it.

Rad! Rad! Rad! Don't you see what a grandiose statement that is? You are claiming that these men only learned what is in the Bible during their college years and then never read, or were exposed, to any other books/ideas. You are also attempting to claim, as I have pointed out many times before, that the Judeo-Christian Bible is the one and only source of all absolutely perfect ethical/moral education. (Please read Bookman's thoughtful response again.)

And the founders virtually all say so, which is why I believe skeptics chose to distract people with overly pedantic preaching about sources, contexts, and "Barton quotes."

And that's why Barton 'et al' have to manufacture or misrepresent the evidence that is contrary to their "faith beliefs." Like no mention of God, Jesus, Christ or Christianity in the Constitution or Bill of Rights...the one document that legally founds the United States.

"Well shouldn't we go find out?"

Of your list, this is the one that you count on others to do for you. And when they do, and show you that one of your quotes is not accurate, what have been your responses? Throw a cheap shot at them! Change the subject! Waffle! Do a great deal of "gobbling" while completely ignoring, or admitting, that you used a poor source for the specific quote in question.

Isn't that pretty much how it went? I'm afraid so. And I'm afraid I did not even finish quoting some less well known founders, such as Samuel Adams whose contribution is highly underrated. (Not that many here wants to hear them talk about how Christ influenced them)

If you continue to ask questions and then answer them yourself, you are simply wasting an opportunity to learn new information. There are many founders who were devout Christians. Samuel Adams was many things as well as being a Christian. He was a skilled propagandist. Evidently being a devout Christian did not prevent him from bearing false witness? Is that the measure of virtue? Do what I say, but not what I do?

http://www.uc.edu/news/samadams.htm

(Extract)
Many historians have portrayed Adams as an extremist and a dictator who manipulated the colonial "mob" and distorted the facts to bring out a revolution, but Alexander argues that although Adams was a skilled propagandist and politician, he did not control the masses.
(End extract)

http://search2.eb.com/elections/micro/4/88.html

(Extracts)
John Adams described his cousin as a plain, modest, and virtuous man. But in addition, Samuel Adams was a propagandist who was not overscrupulous in his attacks upon British officials and policies, and a passionate politician as well. In innumerable newspaper letters and essays over various signatures, he described British measures and the behaviour of royal governors, judges, and customs men in the darkest colours. He was a master of organization, arranging for the election of men who agreed with him, procuring committees that would act as he wished, and securing the passage of resolutions that he desired.

Adams was a member of the convention that framed the Massachusetts constitution of 1780 and also sat in the convention of his state that ratified the Federal Constitution. He was at first an anti-Federalist who opposed the ratification of the Constitution for fear that it would vest too much power in the federal government, but he finally abandoned his opposition when the Federalists promised to support a number of future amendments, including a bill of rights. He was defeated in the first congressional election. Returning to political power as a follower of Hancock, he was lieutenant governor of Massachusetts from 1789 to 1793 and governor from 1794 to 1797. When national parties developed, he affiliated himself with the Democratic Republicans, the forerunner of the Democratic Party. After being defeated as a presidential elector favouring Thomas Jefferson in 1796, he retired to private life.
(End extracts)

Sabine Grant

I have no difficulty with those views.

Daggah

Ladies and gentlemen. Radorth just defended Luther's claims saying that there were LIMITS to what should be done to the Jews.

Those limits were burning them out of their homes, terrorizing them, and enslaving them. And he calls these LIMITS?

I don't know about you but this utterly disgusts me. It actually makes me physically sick that someone would say this in defense of that despicable man.

Even worse, it isn't true. Luther said, regarding the Jews:

"We are at fault for not slaying them."

Never before have I felt such disgust at another poster on this forum. [ad hom removed - Bookman]

Radorth

Oh have a holy kitten. I'm not defending Luther, because I do think he was way off the Biblical mark. He completely ignored large portions of Romans. I'm saying we were misled about what he actually said, and how he supposedly gave Hitler tips and excuses to the Jews. It was clearly asserted that Luther proposed a "final solution" equal to Hitler's. If so, where is the evidence?

But then people who would compare the founder's motives to Osama Sin Laden's shouldn't throw rocks.

So Daggah, do you agree with Buffman's comparison or not? I would have went into a holier-than-thou fit myself, but unlike you I realize we are all biased.

Rad

Radorth

They were. It's the arbitrary presumptions and speculations about when they did and when they did not that I am objecting to. You have nothing approaching proof of Washingtons motives in that case. Are you saying he did not have time to get it edited or what, exactly?

Yes when I want to hear 5 skeptics whine about the lack of quotes. Even using the qualifier IMO doesn't help, but I don't suppose you noticed. I spelled out IMO in capital letters and it was replaced by ellipses, by a moderator no less. Remember?

That's a lie, particularly in this case. I quoted enormous portions of Madison's "A Memorial and a Remonstrance" and all we heard about it was the usual "Oh he was just telling the Christians what they wanted to hear."

I was not speaking just of your responses. Where did I say YOU made the statement? Actually you were virtually silent about that posting of Madison's words, so I assume you were wise enough not to argue.

The point is simply that the skeptic's response to some facts and quotes has become rather predictable, although you do seem to think some before reacting.

Rad

Radorth

You remain challenged to come up with a quote Barton "manufactured." The term is entirely misleading, and once again your post is filled with assertions few readers could possibly verify.

But I'm glad you are writing to atheist websites telling them to quit using inaccurate quotes. Barton has already put out the word that his own list of "questionable quotes" are not to be used.

BTW, did you instruct all the atheist sites to stop quoting one-liners out of context? How about telling them to give all the resources on their sites, like Barton does? Are they doing that now? When they do the same, I'll help you get after Barton for using ellipses.

Criminy. It's the old double standard, pedantically applied.

Rad