Political Crossfire Forums

[Doowstados]

Why does it matter, nothing is 100% so this whole debate is irrelevant anyway.

[Dustferret]

http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/

[Doowstados]

Theres the links, wheres your reply?

EDIT: Last time I checked likns wasn't a word.

[LetsGetReal]

Dustferret wrote: http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/ Now I see why I shouldn't have taken you seriously.

[Dustferret]

Check the documents. If the site isn't credible the documents are.

[MJB]

Dustferret wrote: Thomas Jefferson:

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.

That Jefferson was dissatisfied with the Christian dogmas of his day, and the corruption of Christianity over the centuries, does not remotely suggest he was an atheist, nor does it mean he was not of Christian persuasion.

Quote: Thomas Jefferson:


“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." [Letter to Benjamin Rush April 21, 1803]

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And 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 a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

“It [the Bible] is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
[Jan 9, 1816 Letter to Charles Thomson]



From Article 3 of The North West Ordinance

(drafted by Thomas Jefferson)

"Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged."

"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 in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other." (letter to Benjamin Rush, 1803)

[Doowstados]

He states he believes in jesus, if you consider that act being christian.

[LetsGetReal]

Doowstados wrote: He states he believes in jesus, if you consider that act being christian. This again shows us why we can't listen to such people.

[Doowstados]

I believe there was a jesus, it doesn't mean i'm christian. It means I believe there could have been a man who was named jesus, who did parlor tricks like machiavelli, It never states he believed jesus was the son of god, did it?

EDIT: Added a comma.

[Doowstados]

We are off subject, look at the thread title.

[Aqualung]

Dustferret wrote: I mean Atheism as anti-christianity, will edit.
Will edit because you are intellectaully dishonest and just plain wrong.

[Aqualung]

Dustferret wrote: Crosseyedmary-Don't call me wishy-washy. You start out saying you agree with misconception 3, and now you disagree, because people start gangin up on me or what?
I didn't call you wishy washy.

I agree with your misconceptions. Most are true. But that doesn't mean I agree with all the other stuff you're saying, which is complete and total bull.

As to number 3, I read the misconception, and then assumed for some strange reason that your fact was logical and informed. I guess I made a mistake.

[Aqualung]

Dustferret wrote: Who says my sources are less unreliable than yours?
Wouldn't you mean "Who says my sources are MORE unreliable than yours?" Because one would hope that, with the way you bashed his sources, that you thought yours were at least a little less unreliable than his.

[Aqualung]

Dustferret wrote: I was not aware of the Jeffersonian bible. However, if you red or look up the quotes form documents I posted, you will find them correct.
That's because you posted a bunch of crap without bother to make sure it was true or not. That's called "trolling".

[Æ]

CrossEyedMary wrote: Dustferret wrote: Who says my sources are more reliable than yours?
Wouldn't you mean "Who says my sources are MORE unreliable than yours?" Because one would hope that, with the way you bashed his sources, that you thought yours were at least a little less unreliable than his.
Less unreliable = More reliable.

Two ways to say the same thing and I bet that he made exactly the statement he thought he wanted to make. :wink:

[Doowstados]

CrossEyedMary, try posting all of your rebukes in the same post, its kind of annoying when you don't. :)

[Aqualung]

Aereus wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Dustferret wrote: Who says my sources are more reliable than yours?
Wouldn't you mean "Who says my sources are MORE unreliable than yours?" Because one would hope that, with the way you bashed his sources, that you thought yours were at least a little less unreliable than his.
Less unreliable = More reliable.
Yeah, duh. My point is, he says is essentially saying, "Who says my sources are more reliable than his." Got it? Well, since he posted them, shouldn't at least HE be saying they are more reliable? (ANSWER: YES) And, would anybody reasonably get mad simply because somebody was saying his sources were less unriable (ie, more reliable, as you so kindly took the time out of your day to point out)? (ANSWER: NO) Now, stop rolling your eyes at me and actually try to understand what I wrote.

Doowstados wrote: CrossEyedMary, try posting all of your rebukes in the same post, its kind of annoying when you don't.
Too bad. You posting more than once = me posting more than once.

It's interesting, too, that that's all you had to say.

[Æ]

CrossEyedMary wrote: Aereus wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: Dustferret wrote: Who says my sources are more reliable than yours?
Wouldn't you mean "Who says my sources are MORE unreliable than yours?" Because one would hope that, with the way you bashed his sources, that you thought yours were at least a little less unreliable than his.
Less unreliable = More reliable.
Yeah, duh. My point is, he says is essentially saying, "Who says my sources are more reliable than his." Got it? Well, since he posted them, shouldn't at least HE be saying they are more reliable? (ANSWER: YES) And, would anybody reasonably get mad simply because somebody was saying his sources were less unriable (ie, more reliable, as you so kindly took the time out of your day to point out)? (ANSWER: NO) Now, stop rolling your eyes at me and actually try to understand what I wrote.
I see I hit :roll: when I meant ;). Anyway, lighten up. The post was not aimed at you.

[perdidochas]

Doowstados wrote: Yes well i'm sure theres a drug for that, theres a drug for everything.

Actually, anything you have to do pertaining to religion can be done in schools as long as your beliefs aren't forced on other students or, it doesn't interupt the classroom.

Theoretically yes, but there are overzealous (and misguided) teachers and principals out there who would stop a child from reading a Bible during free time, or who would stop a child from saying grace over his/her meal.

[perdidochas]

genitalrage wrote: removing it sounds good. they don't carry Mein Kampf in schools.
Or the Satanic Bible.

My high school library had a copy of Mein Kampf (in English) as well as the Communist Manifesto.