Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Fred Flintstonensis · 12-20-2002, 03:47 PM

Audacious Shitstain,

I am at work and have to belt this out quick, some of the 'atheist automatons' can fill in the names for me. I am NOT one of the separation activists you speak of, so I do not know these names off the top of my head. First let me clarify something:

I mis-spoke. I should not have said that all those people knew him (Washington) and said he was a deist. I should have said all those people knew him and none of them said that he was a christian. That out of the way, let me QUICKLY flesh out some of the things I mentioned. When I mention names I might get them wrong. This has been a closed issue for me for nearly 2 decades and my memory fails me so many years after my initial studies.

The aquaintances which I mentioned included Abercrombie(?)--who I think was a minister--who said to a biographer (Wilson?) "Sir, Washington was a deist" He knew Washington, you didn't. Like I said in my other post, it is not a debate between you and us, it is between you and Abercrombie. Hmmm... who should I believe? Well let's see: Abercrombie actually knew Washington; probably had dinner at his house and knew his wife on a first name basis. Maybe even tossed back a few pints with him. Audacious Shitstain knows... well he knows how to do a google search. Who to believe? Who to believe? (taps finger on desk nervously).

The same biographer interviewed friends and family of Washington. He (like you) had an almost frantic need to believe that Washington was a god-fearing, Bible- believing Christian. Unlike you, he interviewed people who knew and loved Washington. Nothing that any of them told him gave him any hope that Washington was anything other than a heathen (I believe that was the exact word he used). His research lasted several years. Years of interviews with friends and family of Washington, years of written correspondence, years of reading his notes and letters and during all that arduous research there was not one fact that he discovered that could have lead him to HONESTLY conclude that Washington was a Christian. Now this guy desperately wanted to portray Washington as a Christian. He was looking for any fact, any testimony to exploit and found none. Don't you think that if Washington loved Jesus that that man could have found at least one person who would say so? Another later biographer followed a similar path and came to the same conclusion. (I highlighted the word 'honestly' because that is another difference between you and him: he was intellectually honest; you are not.)

Jefferson, who also knew Washington, knew him to be a deist. You refer to him as "the Enigmatic Washington". The reason why he was enigmatic is because he was a politician and did not want the general public (read: the voting public) to learn that he was not a Christian. You call Washington 'enigmatic'; Jefferson called him a 'sly old fox'. Funny that Washington (unlike Jefferson) was only enigmatic when it came to his religious affiliation (unlike Washington, Jefferson was enigmatic about nearly everything). Other than that, he was a pretty open and transparent guy, a bit verbose, but pretty accessable.

You can level all the ridiculous charges you want and we would not expect anything less, but you have a passionate need to believe Washington was a christian, while I personally couldn't give a fat rat's ass if he was or wasn't. If he was a Christian he certainly was a very strange one, but like I said it doesn't matter. If some researcher found an authentic open letter to the American people saying that 'we the undersigned believe in the deity of Jesus Christ' and it had the signatures of every person who could have been remotely considered to be a founding father it would not make any difference to me. Because I would say "gee, the modern christian right sure could learn a thing or two from these christian men, who knew that the only way for everyone to have religious freedom is to establish the government of the United States as a purely secular institution and to make sure it stays that way." You think that if you can prove that these men were protestant christians that it must follow that they founded a christian nation and it does not. Whether or not they were christian, whether or not they were deists or Unitarians, they founded a secular nation.

As far as the Audacious Shitstain/James Kennedy connection, I confess that was an insult wrapped up in a guess. If you were a boxer and I attended one of your bouts and you spent the evening getting severely beaten I might suppose that your trainer was, say, a 10 year old girl. Watching you debate with these guys here makes me feel that you were just recently weaned from Dr. James Kennedy's breast. to be perfectly frank, you really suck at this. You are so obviously full of shit, so desperate to believe anything that supports the party line and so anxious to lash out when you are inevitably cornered that you are more likely to convert people to our side of the fence. Really, if I had started out reading these threads as a christian who believed that our christian founders founded a christian nation I might have changed my mind by now after watching you stammer and fart and feign and attack throughout this debate. You also can barely hide your hatred of atheists. The ultimate proof that this country was not founded by people like you is the fact that we can have this discussion, without fear of persecution.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Fred Flintstonensis ]

Butters · 12-20-2002, 04:06 PM

Quote:

But you don't teach it as a theory, nor do you point out the self-contradictions in it which nobody but a Phd biologist could begin to reconcile

This is getting way off topic, and as far as I'm concerned this thread can close, but not until I point out that you are wrong on both counts above.

Radorth · 12-20-2002, 04:46 PM

Blah, blah, blah, blah

Quote:

you have a passionate need to believe Washington was a christian,

Really? Since you are into palm reading, tell us, which kind of a Christian do I passionately need him to be? A Baptist? A Quaker? A Methodist?

Whether he was a Christian or not, I do not know for certain (unlike you). If he was, he was one in his heart and actions but not so anyone would know. Would he have denied Jesus was his savior if backed into a corner? I doubt it, but his reticence leads me to believe he was sort of a cross beteen a Christian and a deist, perhaps unsure. No one knows if he believed in the resurrection, or the divinity of Christ.

I say "IMO he was" because of his lifestyle and the use of "above all, the religion of Jesus Christ." But no one knows his heart but God, and all Atheist Automaton Astrologers, apparently.

Rad

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Radorth · 12-20-2002, 05:07 PM

AAA definition of deist:

Someone who believes in special creation, a final judgement and eternal life, exalts the teachings of Jesus, and sees the hand of God greatly involved in human affairs.

So basically a deist is any believer in God who doubts Christ was divine. Is that correct now?

Sheesh.

Rad

Toto · 12-20-2002, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
AAA definition of deist:

Someone who believes in special creation, a final judgement and eternal life, exalts the teachings of Jesus, and sees the hand of God greatly involved in human affairs.

So basically a deist is any believer in God who doubts Christ was divine. Is that correct now?

Sheesh.

Rad

Rad - I know you think you are being outrageously sarcastic, this is not too far off. Deists believed in a god. (Latin deus = god.) Since they hadn't learned about evolution, they believed in special creation. Some of them also believed that divine providence or some other force worked in history, while others believed in a god who just started the universe going and then went to sleep.

They did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, and that is why they are not Christians. If Christianity means anything, it has to have something to do with a divine Jesus.

A number of religions believe in one god (more or less) and that Jesus was a sage or a good person, but they are not Christian. One could mention Jews (some of whom have a good opinion of Jesus and think that his teachings reflect the teachings of the Pharisees); Islam, which accepts Jesus' virgin birth and counts him as a prophet; and eastern religions (check out the SRF). There is also <a href="http://www.atheistsforjesus.com" target="_blank">Atheists for Jesus</a> who believe in the teachings of Jesus but not his divinity.

For non-Christians, the Bible is literature, not holy writ. The teachings of Jesus are worth reading, but not something to use to beat children into submission.

But this thread is about what the founders thought about Separation, not what they thought about Christianity. And it is pretty clear what separation meant: no government sponsorship of any religious point of view, no government subsidy of religious viewpoints, no religious test for office. Even the Christians among them realized that if the government could endorse Christianity, it would end up endorsing one sect of Christianity over the others.

I am not going to close this thread, but I will bow out, since it is an unproductive use of my time waiting for you to make a coherent point.

Daggah · 12-20-2002, 06:53 PM

Quote:

But you don't teach it as a theory, nor do you point out the self-contradictions in it which nobody but a Phd biologist could begin to reconcile.

What contradictions? And is anyone surprised that Radorth doesn't understand the scientific meaning of the word "theory?" I certainly am not.

Radorth · 12-20-2002, 10:25 PM

Well Toto, since you never really read my posts, or accept what I say about my own beliefs, you certainly are wasting your time, and mine, pedantically retating unproven assertions, blathering about things like beating children into submission or simply restating the obvious, such as

Quote:

They did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, and that is why they are not Christians.

Such a deep thought. Franklin and Jefferson didn't, no. Washington, Madison and Adams I am unsure of, but then I can't divine such matters of the heart without more facts such as you are so quick to demand.

Rad

Daggah · 12-21-2002, 05:01 AM

Wow. If anyone wanted a good example of irony, Radorth whining about others repeating unproven assertions and rambling is it!

Fred Flintstonensis · 12-21-2002, 05:15 AM

This thread needs to be closed. It is not productive and rapidly becoming not interesting. Radorth is just another angry christian who is pissed that he cannot impose his version of history on the facts. Any post involving Radorth needs to be closed.

Radorth · 12-21-2002, 09:49 AM

And virtually all the questions I asked go unanswered except with glittering generalizations, statements like "all those people said" Washington was a deist, and the continued redefinition of a "deist" in order to justify the AAA theories about the Framers' mindset and visions.

I'd definitely close it before I have time to dig out another ton of facts and quotes. Shucks, we never got to a major reason Madison wanted separation, in which he and I are in perfect agreement.

Man the founders gave the strict separationists quite a beating, eh? Well, some amazing historical facts did come out. I didn't realize until last week how much the "deists" favored Protestant over Catholic sects. Did you guys know that?

Rad

[ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

12-20-2002, 03:47 PM	#121
Fred Flintstonensis Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Orla Vista, FL Posts: 34	Audacious Shitstain, I am at work and have to belt this out quick, some of the 'atheist automatons' can fill in the names for me. I am NOT one of the separation activists you speak of, so I do not know these names off the top of my head. First let me clarify something: I mis-spoke. I should not have said that all those people knew him (Washington) and said he was a deist. I should have said all those people knew him and none of them said that he was a christian. That out of the way, let me QUICKLY flesh out some of the things I mentioned. When I mention names I might get them wrong. This has been a closed issue for me for nearly 2 decades and my memory fails me so many years after my initial studies. The aquaintances which I mentioned included Abercrombie(?)--who I think was a minister--who said to a biographer (Wilson?) "Sir, Washington was a deist" He knew Washington, you didn't. Like I said in my other post, it is not a debate between you and us, it is between you and Abercrombie. Hmmm... who should I believe? Well let's see: Abercrombie actually knew Washington; probably had dinner at his house and knew his wife on a first name basis. Maybe even tossed back a few pints with him. Audacious Shitstain knows... well he knows how to do a google search. Who to believe? Who to believe? (taps finger on desk nervously). The same biographer interviewed friends and family of Washington. He (like you) had an almost frantic need to believe that Washington was a god-fearing, Bible- believing Christian. Unlike you, he interviewed people who knew and loved Washington. Nothing that any of them told him gave him any hope that Washington was anything other than a heathen (I believe that was the exact word he used). His research lasted several years. Years of interviews with friends and family of Washington, years of written correspondence, years of reading his notes and letters and during all that arduous research there was not one fact that he discovered that could have lead him to HONESTLY conclude that Washington was a Christian. Now this guy desperately wanted to portray Washington as a Christian. He was looking for any fact, any testimony to exploit and found none. Don't you think that if Washington loved Jesus that that man could have found at least one person who would say so? Another later biographer followed a similar path and came to the same conclusion. (I highlighted the word 'honestly' because that is another difference between you and him: he was intellectually honest; you are not.) Jefferson, who also knew Washington, knew him to be a deist. You refer to him as "the Enigmatic Washington". The reason why he was enigmatic is because he was a politician and did not want the general public (read: the voting public) to learn that he was not a Christian. You call Washington 'enigmatic'; Jefferson called him a 'sly old fox'. Funny that Washington (unlike Jefferson) was only enigmatic when it came to his religious affiliation (unlike Washington, Jefferson was enigmatic about nearly everything). Other than that, he was a pretty open and transparent guy, a bit verbose, but pretty accessable. You can level all the ridiculous charges you want and we would not expect anything less, but you have a passionate need to believe Washington was a christian, while I personally couldn't give a fat rat's ass if he was or wasn't. If he was a Christian he certainly was a very strange one, but like I said it doesn't matter. If some researcher found an authentic open letter to the American people saying that 'we the undersigned believe in the deity of Jesus Christ' and it had the signatures of every person who could have been remotely considered to be a founding father it would not make any difference to me. Because I would say "gee, the modern christian right sure could learn a thing or two from these christian men, who knew that the only way for everyone to have religious freedom is to establish the government of the United States as a purely secular institution and to make sure it stays that way." You think that if you can prove that these men were protestant christians that it must follow that they founded a christian nation and it does not. Whether or not they were christian, whether or not they were deists or Unitarians, they founded a secular nation. As far as the Audacious Shitstain/James Kennedy connection, I confess that was an insult wrapped up in a guess. If you were a boxer and I attended one of your bouts and you spent the evening getting severely beaten I might suppose that your trainer was, say, a 10 year old girl. Watching you debate with these guys here makes me feel that you were just recently weaned from Dr. James Kennedy's breast. to be perfectly frank, you really suck at this. You are so obviously full of shit, so desperate to believe anything that supports the party line and so anxious to lash out when you are inevitably cornered that you are more likely to convert people to our side of the fence. Really, if I had started out reading these threads as a christian who believed that our christian founders founded a christian nation I might have changed my mind by now after watching you stammer and fart and feign and attack throughout this debate. You also can barely hide your hatred of atheists. The ultimate proof that this country was not founded by people like you is the fact that we can have this discussion, without fear of persecution. [ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Fred Flintstonensis ]</p>

12-21-2002, 09:49 AM	#130
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	And virtually all the questions I asked go unanswered except with glittering generalizations, statements like "all those people said" Washington was a deist, and the continued redefinition of a "deist" in order to justify the AAA theories about the Framers' mindset and visions. I'd definitely close it before I have time to dig out another ton of facts and quotes. Shucks, we never got to a major reason Madison wanted separation, in which he and I are in perfect agreement. Man the founders gave the strict separationists quite a beating, eh? Well, some amazing historical facts did come out. I didn't realize until last week how much the "deists" favored Protestant over Catholic sects. Did you guys know that? Rad [ December 21, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-20-2002, 05:07 PM	#124
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	AAA definition of deist: Someone who believes in special creation, a final judgement and eternal life, exalts the teachings of Jesus, and sees the hand of God greatly involved in human affairs. So basically a deist is any believer in God who doubts Christ was divine. Is that correct now? Sheesh. Rad

12-21-2002, 05:01 AM	#128
Daggah Banned Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Deployed to Kosovo Posts: 4,314	Wow. If anyone wanted a good example of irony, Radorth whining about others repeating unproven assertions and rambling is it!

12-21-2002, 05:15 AM	#129
Fred Flintstonensis Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Orla Vista, FL Posts: 34	This thread needs to be closed. It is not productive and rapidly becoming not interesting. Radorth is just another angry christian who is pissed that he cannot impose his version of history on the facts. Any post involving Radorth needs to be closed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.