published Monday, September 17th, 2012

Robin Smith: The wall of separation

By Robin Smith

The Hamilton County Commission, Ridgeland High School and now the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga have been confronted by a group from Wisconsin, The Freedom From Religion Foundation. The FFRF, citing the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, demands that prayer cease within the confines of their events or meetings.

Let's understand what that the First Amendment actually says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." While the weapon of the anti-Christian crowd is the first part, the "Establishment Clause," the entire text clearly notes that governments should neither establish a religion nor prohibit its practice.

As the FFRP and others claim infringement of their constitutional rights, the citation of the "separation of church and state" as referenced in President Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists often accompanies a revision of the First Amendment. The Baptists fought for this "separation," but it wasn't hostile to religion or seeking the abandonment of faith in society.

Jefferson's letter to the Connecticut Baptists reflected a quote by the colonies' first Baptist, Roger Williams. Williams, a strong advocate against government intrusion of religion, was the first to use the statement "wall of separation." You see, in many of the original states, there was an "established" church supported by taxes, protected by laws and enforced by the jailing and punishment of dissenters. As a result, separation of church and state was badly needed.

Of the original 13 colonies, seven states had governments that were not neutral to one's denomination. Connecticut and Massachusetts were "Congregational" (Puritan and Calvanist), while Georgia, New York, North and South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland recognized the Church of England, the Mother Church of the worldwide Anglican Communion, as the state church.

We tend to assume Jefferson's letter of 1802 was an unsolicited proclamation of constitutional protection from religion. Instead, it was his response to a group of faithful believers who refused to pay taxes to support the organizational acts of another belief system and were jailed for failing to do so. Some Baptists in Connecticut even lost their property to confiscation by the state.

The Danbury Baptists' letter that triggered the response from Thomas Jefferson stated, "Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty ... and that no man ought to suffer in name, person or effects on account of his religious opinions. ..." The believers of the Danbury Baptist Association were simply petitioning within the actual meaning and intent of the First Amendment to freely practice their own faith without penalty from a government.

Interestingly, Jefferson's letter to the Baptist Association at Chesterfield, Va., penned on Nov. 21, 1808, is not referenced in demands for freedom from the anti-religious. The president wrote, "We have solved by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government, and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving everyone to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are inductions of his own reason, and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." The Jefferson and Baptist "wall of separation" supports an individual's right to worship freely but has never been part of the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or any of the original documents quoted in an effort to end worship.

The County Commission, Ridgeland High and UTC have never forced participation of prayer with threat of imprisonment or loss of property. Yet, if I refuse to withhold taxes to fund abortion. ... Nah. I'm sure that's different.

Robin Smith, a consultant at Rivers Edge Alliance, is a wife and mother living in Hixson. She served as the Tennessee Republican Party chairman from 2007-2009.

142
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
lkeithlu said...

Public schools, county commissions and state universities are tax-payer funded entities. By sanctioning sectarian prayer, they are showing favoritism to that sect and therefore establishment. This is not about "keeping faith out of society", but about respecting the diversity of faiths in this society. You only think it is okay because it represents your sect. When the point comes that you are not part of the majority belief, you will not like it at all. Should you move or the demographics change, you will be faced with that realization.

No one is padlocking churches or preventing people from praying in public. But if taxes provide your job, while on the job you represent ALL of us, and have no business leading prayer while representing me and others who have different belief systems. That includes teachers, coaches, lawmakers, and professors.

I fail to see why this is so hard to understand, until I realize that the majority faith in Chattanooga charges its members to bring others to the faith, so I am sure you are expressing this out of true belief that these prayers are for our own good. It can't be that God gives a rat's patootie about the outcome of a football game or a commission meeting.

September 17, 2012 at 7:44 a.m.
conservative said...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.....

"the entire text clearly notes that governments should neither establish a religion nor prohibit its practice"

Correction please : Not "governments" plural but just one government, specifically, CONGRESS. CONGRESS shall make no law!

The prohibition is against CONGRESS and no other government! People only aid the atheists when they do not make this distinction.

Words have meaning and we must stick to those meanings.

September 17, 2012 at 9:26 a.m.
LibDem said...

When the Commission sets aside a prayer period at the opening of their meetings and selects a leader for that prayer, they have indeed "established" a time, place and manner of religious observance. Ms. Smith is an intelligent person and knows this quite well. She is also, however, a politician and knows well where the votes are.

(In my reading of the Constitution, I have not yet found the clause that says, "If you don't like what your government is doing, you should stay away.")

September 17, 2012 at 9:33 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Your opinion, conservative, means little because you have made it clear time and again that you believe all Americans should subscribe to your particular and narrow flavor of christianity and everyone else is unwelcome. The US constitution and bill of rights protects people like me from people like you.

September 17, 2012 at 10 a.m.
conservative said...

Well Ike, regarding my opinion, "Words have meaning and we must stick to those meanings."

I am confident that is a correct opinion and an opinion shared by the vast majority of people. If we are to communicate with one another we must have an understanding and agreement on the meaning of words. Think about it.

September 17, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Your interpretation of words is twisted and vile. You use your interpretation to divide and sow discord. The really sad thing is you do it from a position of religion, judging those that don't believe EXACTLY as you do. This is about as un-American as one can be, which is ironic. I will say it again: The constitution and bill of rights protects the rest of us from the likes of you. And I disagree that a majority thinks like you. In my 50+ years of experience I have encountered few like you, which is why I still believe in the goodness of people.

You are one of the small number of individuals that is scared of ambiguity, fears diversity and thinks you are better than others. I am sorry for you, to a point, but not enough to excuse your behavior.

September 17, 2012 at 11:01 a.m.
conservative said...

Furthermore Ike, in regards to the government that is prohibited from making a law establishing a religion, I wrote, "Not "governments" plural but just one government, specifically, CONGRESS. CONGRESS shall make no law!" and "The prohibition is against CONGRESS and no other government!"

This is a fact, NOT an opinion and one you seemed to recognize because you made no attempt to refute my statements.

September 17, 2012 at 11:02 a.m.
conservative said...

"Your interpretation of words is twisted and vile"

If you are sincere and not just striking out in hate, then you must not know the meaning of the word CONGRESS in regards to the first amendment, so I will start you out with a few from some respected dictionaries.

CONGRESS : the group of people in the U.S. who are elected to make laws. It consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate - MACMILLAN

CONGRESS : The national legislative body of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. - Houghton Mifflin

CONGRESS : : the supreme legislative body of a nation and especially of a republic - Merriam- Webster

CONGRESS : the national legislative body of the U.S., consisting of the Senate, or upper house, and the House of Representatives, or lower house, as a continuous institution. Dictionary.com

September 17, 2012 at 11:25 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Your claims that the the separation of church and state does not exist and that this country was established as a "christian" country have been demolished by people far more learned and articulate than me. You will get nowhere with me on this thread, and anyone who reads these comments regularly knows you well enough to dismiss your claims here. The SCOTUS record contradicts what you say. You can go on thinking you are the smartest person here, if that's what makes you happy. I am satisfied in my understanding of my rights as an American and in the end, they will be protected from the likes of you.

September 17, 2012 at 11:31 a.m.
conservative said...

Ike, regarding your "You use your interpretation to divide and sow discord."

You are the hypocrite. I Know the meaning of the term CONGRESS as used in the first amendment. I have provided you with many definitions that support my interpretation of the word CONGRESS.

You are the one who wants to twist the meaning of the word CONGRESS to suit your belief or agenda.

September 17, 2012 at 11:49 a.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

The giants of our society's government know constitutional law very well. They are the elected officials of the United States Congress. They are held to the strictest standards for upholding our nation's Constitution. The constitutionally, lawfully, correct procedure/method in which they open every session of Congress is.......THEY PRAY ALOUD A PRAYER OF FAITH. Please see below a link to the Congressional Record (112th Congress). It opens with these words: "The PRESIDING OFFICER. Today's opening prayer will be offered by Rev. Joel Osteen, the Senior Pastor...The guest Chaplin offered the following prayer: "Let us pray"

Now, for those on this site, including myself, when we become members of Congress, let us give the correct Constitutional interpretations. Until then, In Jesus Christ's Holy Name...Well......."LET US PRAY"

Ken ORR

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2012-04-26/pdf/CREC-2012-04-26-senate.pdf

September 17, 2012 at 12:44 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike, regarding your "you believe all Americans should subscribe to your particular and narrow flavor of christianity"

There are no flavors of Christianity. However, you have stumbled into the truth about the narrowness of Christianity.

Here are the words of Jesus as recorded in Luke 13:23 - 24 : 23 And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Now Mathew 7:14 - Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it

September 17, 2012 at 12:53 p.m.
ITguy said...

This issue has been settled. It is foolhardy to spend taxpayer monies to fight this battle yet again. You may disagree, but you are wrong. It is time to move on.

September 17, 2012 at 1:25 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike, I've shown you from God's word that Christianity is the narrow way to eternal life.

Now I want to show you that Jesus also spoke of a broad or wide way and where that leads.

Mathew 7:13 - )“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. ESV.

This broad or wide way would be that "flavor" of Christianity you wrote of. However, it is the way of death.

September 17, 2012 at 2:06 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike...

Now to your "You use your interpretation to divide and sow discord."

If you are referring to my correct interpretation of the word CONGRESS in the First Amendment, then you are totally wrong and the discord would be by you and those who agree with you.

I submit that my interpretation of the word CONGRESS is backed by common sense, reason and authoritative dictionaries. Furthermore, you wisely refused any attempt to refute me on the matter.

September 17, 2012 at 2:39 p.m.
LibDem said...

conservative, I don't think anyone disputes your transcription of the First Amendment. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but I believe the 14th Amendment extends the protections of the Bill of Rights down to the state level. It appears that the majority of Supreme Court justices (not all) agree with this.

September 17, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I'd take the word of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court over conservative's any day.

Ike, I've shown you from God's word that Christianity is the narrow way to eternal life.

a) I don't believe that your bible is "God's Word" b) I don't believe that your god exists.

therefore I don't buy your argument

September 17, 2012 at 3:14 p.m.
conservative said...

Well now, "I'd take the word of the 9 justices of the Supreme Court over conservative's any day." is pretty vague. Who are you trying to convince with that statement or what are you even referring to speciffically?

Your "I don't believe that your bible is "God's word" is strange considering you used the word Christianity, for there would be no Christianity without God's word to reveal it! You also used a common term of Christianity, "sow discord."

So you bring up Christianity when it suits you and then claim there is no God and no Bible which is the word of God, when it suites you because you fail in your argument.!

September 17, 2012 at 4:13 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I only mention Christianity because you have repeatedly based all your arguments on the bible. I am just pointing out (again) that I don't buy your arguments based on the bible, because to me it's just a book.

As for the wall of separation, regardless of how you want to focus on the actual words written into the founding documents, the SCOTUS doesn't agree with your interpretation. I am siding with them. After all, as I said before as well, they are making sure MY rights are protected from people like you.

September 17, 2012 at 4:20 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike...

"Your claims that the the separation of church and state does not exist"

You made that up.That is not the truth. The First Amendment clearly states that CONGRESS is prohibited from establishing a religion. That is the law of the land and I strongly agree with that!

September 17, 2012 at 4:27 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike...

"and that this country was established as a "christian" country"

You made that up as well.

I have never stated that.

September 17, 2012 at 4:33 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike....

"The US constitution and bill of rights protects people like me from people like you."

And just what is your fear of me? Little ole me.

September 17, 2012 at 4:41 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I get the impression from your many posts that it is exactly what you want: For all of us to be good little conservative christians and live under biblical law. No science, no atheists, no "evilution" or geology, required daily prayers to Jesus in public school, all muslims and jews are welcome to leave pronto.

September 17, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Take one look at the horrendous atrocities that the theocracies of the world inflict upon their own people.... in the name of GOD.

Conny has the gall to say "little ole me", when it's his type that occupy the bloodiest pages of human history.

Hurry up and go the way of the dodo-bird Conny, the rest of the modern world is trying to learn about and things-n-stuff without the vain taint of stone age fantasy land mucking up the lessons.

September 17, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike...

"As for the wall of separation, regardless of how you want to focus on the actual words written into the founding documents,"

Every American should " want to focus on the actual words written into the founding documents," that is what I am trying to get YOU to do.

You are so blind that you can't discern the clear meaning of the First Amendment which up until recently was clear to anyone of average intelligence.

Again, CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.....

I will also provide once again, definitions (which are not my interpretations) of the word CONGRESS :

CONGRESS : the group of people in the U.S. who are elected to make laws. It consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate - MACMILLAN

CONGRESS : The national legislative body of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. - Houghton Mifflin

CONGRESS : : the supreme legislative body of a nation and especially of a republic - Merriam- Webster

CONGRESS : the national legislative body of the U.S., consisting of the Senate, or upper house, and the House of Representatives, or lower house, as a continuous institution. Dictionary.com

September 17, 2012 at 5:06 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Make your argument with SCOTUS, conservative, not me. I don't care one bit about religion, as long as I don't have to participate or pay for it, or that others impose beliefs on me that I disagree with. That goes for keeping Kosher and Sharia Law as well as your silly bible.

September 17, 2012 at 5:28 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

Your definitions don't matter. Our Supreme Court doesn't resort to pedantry like you do when they interpret the Constitution.

The precedent that has been set by the Supreme Court on issues regarding the First Amendment. They will never change.

But keep arguing your invalid point. Your insanity is entertaining.

September 17, 2012 at 5:35 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike...

"I get the impression from your many posts that it is exactly what you want: For all of us to be good little conservative christians"

You certainly got that one right!

Jesus who died for my sins gave the great commission to all his disciples that is, Christians -

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” Mathew 28:18-20. ESV.

I want everyone saved from the penalty and power of sins in their lives. And this Salvation only comes through the Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ :

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ESV

September 17, 2012 at 5:38 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I knew you wouldn't disappoint me, conservative. I rest my case.

September 17, 2012 at 5:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

ikeithlu,

Christians never waste an opportunity to proselytize. Talking someone else into believing their myth helps them reconcile and solidify their own beliefs.

September 17, 2012 at 6:01 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

easy, SOME christians don't, but conservative does not consider them to be TROO (TM) christians. Because there are christians like conservative, the rest of us need the constitution and bill of rights.

September 17, 2012 at 6:07 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike...

"I get the impression from your many posts that it is exactly what you want: For all of us to be good little conservative christians" "and live under biblical law."

Specifically, "and live under biblical law."

Not a chance! In no way whatsoever! Nothing could be further from the truth! The Old Testament laws given to the Jewish nation of Israel were never intended to save anyone :

Romans 3:20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

The Old Testament sacrificial system was never intended to save anyone but to be a constant reminder of the sinfulness of man in the hope man would run to the Savior Jesus Christ at the appointed time.

People who live a life believing good works will save them from their sins are under a curse and will not inter the Kingdom of God

Galatians 3:10

[ The Righteous Shall Live by Faith ] For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”

This verse sums up how one is Justified ( declared not guilty and not held accountable for his sins) : Romans 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law

September 17, 2012 at 6:24 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Then why don't you throw out the Ten Commandments with the Old Testament laws, as well?

Christians constantly wish to ignore certain Old Testament laws and argue that they aren't applicable yet they still cling to the most famous of Old Testament laws, the 10 Commandments!

Christians cannot reconcile this logically. It only adds to the incoherence of their beliefs and their own ignorance.

September 17, 2012 at 6:32 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike...

Now, this is the gist of how one is justified by faith and receives Salvation :

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Romans 3:21-26, ESV.

Accepting the fact that one has no righteousness of his own and that same one believes, trusts and relies on the fact that Jesus Christ personally died for his sins and then makes Jesus Christ the Lord of his life is how everyone becomes a Christian. To make Jesus the Lord of your life means that one walks in obedience to his commands.

The Christian will still sin but it will not be a lifestyle. There will be changes in his life, he will confess his sins and he will sin less and become more Christlike as he reads,studies and obeys God's word. This is called spiritual growth or Sanctification.

The Holy Spirit will indwell the believer to effect this change in his lifestyle.

September 17, 2012 at 6:47 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Quoting bible passages does nothing for me, hon. Sorry. Besides, what do you care? Believe what you believe and leave the rest of us alone. Christians like you ignore physical reality and judge others with no cause. Your mean-spirited posts tell me you have no love in your heart for others, even as you say you are a follower of Jesus (who by the way I believe existed and probably was an amazing person. I think he'd be appalled at the stuff you post here day after day.) If you wanted to convince non-believers like me of anything you have a pretty ineffective approach. But don't waste your time: I know incredible people who are true Christians who I admire and love, but they cannot MAKE me believe, nor more than they can MAKE me tall, athletic or male. Of course, they don't meet your definition as a true Christian. They do meet my definition, though, living their beliefs everyday with love and graciousness and I try to follow their example. If it is their faith that makes them so, great. But I know many people who I also love and admire who are non-believers, who love others and live honorably without the religious reasons. The scientist in me tells me that the religion part is unrelated to how people act.

By the way, my lack of belief does not come from ignorance. I've read the bible, studied religion, and attended church for decades. So don't try to educate me.

September 17, 2012 at 7 p.m.
Easy123 said...

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -Christopher Hitchens

"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means." -George Bernard Shaw

"To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead." -Thomas Paine

September 17, 2012 at 7:04 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

PS there is nothing wrong with my "lifestyle" either

September 17, 2012 at 7:07 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

You seem to be hung up on works in order to earn Salvation. Trying do obey the Ten Commandments in order to gain Salvation will only doom one to hell. Sinful man will always fail to perfectly keep the Ten Commandments. These are the people who have rejected the saving grace offered by Jesus Christ and seek to live a life of good works to establish their own righteousness. These are those who proclaim they don't do this or that, comparing themselves to others. One can always point to a worse sinner than themselves.

A Christian does good works because he is walking in obedience to the indwelling Holy Spirit not in order to gain Salvation for he obtained that when he accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

The Ten Commandments not only reveals how sinful man is but also reveals just how far from the righteouness of God he is. No mere man has ever kept the Ten Commandments. That is reason enough why everyone needs a Savior.

September 17, 2012 at 7:32 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike..

The gist of your position is that you want to espouse your views but don't want to be told the views of Christians. You don't really believe in free speech.

September 17, 2012 at 7:42 p.m.
Easy123 said...

conservative,

"You seem to be hung up on works in order to earn Salvation."

Nope.

"Trying do obey the Ten Commandments in order to gain Salvation will only doom one to hell."

Prove it.

"Sinful man will always fail to perfectly keep the Ten Commandments."

I know a few people that haven't broken any of those Commandments. They are all under the age of 3, but still.

"These are the people who have rejected the saving grace offered by Jesus Christ and seek to live a life of good works to establish their own righteousness."

Some people haven't heard the name of Jesus Christ. Why do you omit them?

"These are those who proclaim they don't do this or that, comparing themselves to others."

Like you.

"One can always point to a worse sinner than themselves."

You seem to do it often.

"A Christian does good works because he is walking in obedience to the indwelling Holy Spirit not in order to gain Salvation for he obtained that when he accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior."

That isn't morality. Doing good because someone told you to on pain of death and eternal suffering is not sincere in the slightest. It isn't true morality.

"The Ten Commandments not only reveals how sinful man is but also reveals just how far from the righteouness of God he is."

So your mythological deity created humans with free will. Then Adam and Eve commit the original sin. And, somehow, we are all implicated in this sin. Then your mythological deity creates a set of rules that no one can live up to or keep.

This is highly illogical and fallacious. Your ignorance is proved because you believe it.

"No mere man has ever kept the Ten Commandments."

How do you know? That is a claim which you have no way of being able to prove or know with any amount of certainty.

"That is reason enough why everyone needs a Savior."

That serves as no reason whatsoever. You have presented nothing of proof or evidence. You haven't even made a logical or reasonable argument in defense of your position.

September 17, 2012 at 7:47 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"The gist of your position is that you want to espouse your views but don't want to be told the views of Christians. You don't really believe in free speech."

Ikeithlu, much like myself, believes in truth. Your "Christian" view does not deal in truth or honesty. Free speech is great. I use it to say how delusional and ignorant you are for believing myths and lies.

Keep your religion out of schools, science class, government, etc. and we won't have a problem.

September 17, 2012 at 7:52 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Original sin is not only the silliest and most nonsensical concept ever devised; it is also highly immoral. To shrug off responsibility for one's actions and pretend that merely believing that the blood of some mythical "savior" is enough to earn one a ticket to everalasting life is abhorrent and childish. Can you imagine an omniscient, omipotent God really coming up with such a far-fetched, silly scheme - er, "divine plan" - as that? If that's the kind of guy who's running the show up in heaven, I have some serious doubts about just what kind of "heaven" you xtians are gonna be hanging out in for all eternity.

September 17, 2012 at 7:58 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Regarding Robin Smith's article: as brilliant as our Constitution is, the wording of the First and Second Amendments have always left a lot to be desired and could stand some revision. There has never been a clear, concise understanding of exactly what the heck the framers really meant. We expend countless time and energy debating and trying to prove what they meant, or what we want them to have meant, by poring over their personal writings or speeches, searching for clarity.

But regardless of what they originally intended, our country has changed immeasurably since then. We have become a nation that none of our forefathers could have envisioned. From the kinds of high-tech weapons, electronics, automobiles, aircraft, and space-ships that have been invented to the numbers and diversity of religious beliefs that exist today to the extent of our globalized economy, we are not even close to the kind of nation that we were 225 years ago.

While the core concept of our Constitution was indisputably brilliant and needs to be kept intact, it is time for a second Bill of Rights which would be more representative of the kind of more diverse and multi-cultural society we are today. Of course, I know that will never happen - there are too many Americans who think the Constitution is, word for word, as sacrosanct as the Bible literalists think their Bible to be. But I'm just sayin'...

September 17, 2012 at 8:42 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

Thanks, easy-you said it better than I could. I don't think I have a problem with Christians expressing their views, as long as they don't have a problem hearing me call them on BS. (Of course, my Christian friends don't spout BS, like world wide floods, talking snakes, and a literal 7 day creation) Christians can talk to me all they want, but I will be brutally honest on what I think. I don't intend to change their minds, and they shouldn't expect to change mine. If you like your religion, that's great. Just don't expect me to like it, believe it, or pay for it.

Just an observation: the church I grew up in did not say that salvation was from accepting Jesus as your savior. They did say that it was our responsibility to help others, without evangelizing, with the assumption that they would believe because they saw how our belief made us kind, generous and loving. No hell (that would have scared the crap out of me as a child), and everyone, Christians and those of all other faiths, went to heaven as long as they were not evil (like murderers; people like that could not get "saved" by accepting Jesus). Such a nice and positive way of looking at the world. As I got older I finally stopped believing in God as I stopped believing in Santa and the Easter Bunny, but I admired my pastor and his family for being so giving and kind.

It wasn't until I moved here that I experienced the hellfire and brimstone, good deeds don't mean anything type of Christian. That solidified my atheism for good.

September 17, 2012 at 9:37 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike...

After reading your last comment I can see why you know very little about Christianity. You were involved in some non Christian organization as a child and have adhered to some of their non Christian beliefs even though you parted ways. I am glad you got away from them.

However, you seemed to have involved youself with another non Christian group with your "good deeds don't mean anything type of Christian" statement. There is no such thing as a "good deeds don't mean anything type of Christian." I repeat, you have or had involved yourself in another non Christian organization.

BTW, I still want to know why you fear me and how the Constitution protects you from me.

September 18, 2012 at 9:14 a.m.
dao1980 said...

It makes your "smite" impotent... simple as that.

Well, I guess it also works to keep your gibberish out of everyone's governance.

Oh, and by the way conny, I spoke the the sky-daddy this morning and he said he's got his eye on you. I'm no expert, but you may have some supernatural "smite" headed your way..

September 18, 2012 at 9:44 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Sorry that all my christian friends and relatives are not "christian" in your eyes. I'll be sure to let them know. Especially since some of them are members of the clergy. They will find that amusing.

What an arrogant SOB you are.

September 18, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.
conservative said...

You redefine Christianity and then call me arrogant!

BTW, I still want to know why you fear me and how the Constitution protects you from me.

September 18, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

You are the one defining Christianity. Christianity dogma is, by definition, the epitome of arrogance

I think most rational thinking people fear a theocracy. The First Amendment protects rational thinking people from you and your agenda to establish a theocracy here in the United States.

September 18, 2012 at 11:13 a.m.
conservative said...

easy..

Yes, I am doing my best to define Christianity NOT redefine as antichrists such as you and Ike have tried to do. Try reading before you react.

You two antichrists redefining Christianity, now that is the epitome of arrogance!

I have no agenda, know of no one who has an agenda of creating a theocracy in the United States. You have made that up.

September 18, 2012 at 2:56 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

How is your definition any better than anyone elses? How can you decide whether you are defining or redefining Christianity? There are many different sects of Christianity yet you believe that you own full rights to the true definition. That is arrogance. Try thinking before you type.

One ignorant Bible Thumper attempting to delineate who is a "true" Christian, that is the epitome of arrogance!

You have an agenda and it is to create a theocracy in the United States. I haven't made it up. Remember this:

ikeithlu said...

"I get the impression from your many posts that it is exactly what you want: For all of us to be good little conservative christians"

You certainly got that one right!

Jesus who died for my sins gave the great commission to all his disciples


Would you like to try again? Or will you continue to deny your true intentions and lie some more? I'll put money on the latter.

September 18, 2012 at 3:21 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

Wanting people to be saved, to become a Christian, to inherit the Kingdom of God is not establishing a theocracy. I strongly believe in the First Amendment regarding the prohibition of a national state sponsored religion ; CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..... and I strongly support that. As an atheist, heathen and antichrist you are blinded to the meaning of the clearly worded First Amendment. The only other explanastion would be that you are feigning the inability to understand the meaning of those simple words.

Wanting people to be accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is NOT establishing a theocracy! Yet I'm certain you will still not get it or you will lie about not getting it.

Now, a sect of Christianity is not the same as a definition of Christianity or who is a Christian. You don't know or understand this because you refuse to. Why? Simply because you are an atheist, heathen and an antichrist. There are tenants of Christianity which one must hold to be a Christian and these are based on Scripture not the whim of man. You and Ike constantly falsely accuse me of defining Christianity but my source is the word of God and only the word of God. Again you won't or can't understand this because you are an atheist, heathen and an antichrist.

One clear and essential tenant of Christianity is that one must accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. Yesterday, Ike wrote this - "the church I grew up in did not say that salvation was from accepting Jesus as your savior." It is impossible according to Scripture, not my words, but the words of Scripture to become a Christian and not accept Jesus as your Savior. Those who hold this belief are only "professing" Christians and not true Christians.

One more thing for now, you and Ike seem to believe that I am trying to convince you of the truth. Wrong! Only God can do that. I realize that you both are hardened atheists, heathens and antichrists. My goal in refuting you two is to prevent others from being fooled by the both of you.

You both self destruct every time we debate.

September 18, 2012 at 5:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"Wanting people to be saved, to become a Christian, to inherit the Kingdom of God is not establishing a theocracy."

That is the definition of theocracy.

"As an atheist, heathen and antichrist you are blinded to the meaning of the clearly worded First Amendment."

The only person that understands the First Amendment literally is you. And you are proved wrong daily because our Supreme Court does not view it literally. You have no argument.

"The only other explanastion would be that you are feigning the inability to understand the meaning of those simple words."

You seem to have a problem understanding reality. The Constitution is supposed to be interpreted by the courts. It is a living document. Which part of that do you not understand?

"Wanting people to be accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is NOT establishing a theocracy!"

Keep trying to push that lie.

"Now, a sect of Christianity is not the same as a definition of Christianity or who is a Christian."

Many different sects of one religion would imply that the definition is flexible.

"You don't know or understand this because you refuse to."

You don't understand that because you're arrogant and you enjoy trying to flex your spiritual muscles to "Christians" and non-Christians alike.

"Simply because you are an atheist, heathen and an antichrist."

This doesn't serve as a reason for anything. I am an atheist. I am not a "heathen". And I am not particularly Anti-christ either. But you will say so because you always like to use your meaningless Biblical jargon.

"There are tenants of Christianity which one must hold to be a Christian and these are based on Scripture not the whim of man."

There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity.

"You and Ike constantly falsely accuse me of defining Christianity but my source is the word of God and only the word of God."

You have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of oral tradition. Your source is extremely flawed. You're still attempting to redefine Christianity according to your own views. I've seen you do it regularly.

"Again you won't or can't understand this because you are an atheist, heathen and an antichrist."

Atheist: yes. Heathen: no. Anti-christ: not particularly. But I understand completely that you believe your interpretation of Christianity is superior to anyone elses.

"One clear and essential tenant of Christianity is that one must accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. "

That's debatable. You would have to define "accepting Jesus as your savior". It's vague rhetoric.

"Those who hold this belief are only "professing" Christians and not true Christians."

Again, that is up for debate.

September 18, 2012 at 7:58 p.m.
Easy123 said...

"you and Ike seem to believe that I am trying to convince you of the truth."

No one has ever accused you of telling the truth.

"Only God can do that."

Your mythological deity can't do anything.

"I realize that you both are hardened atheists, heathens and antichrists."

I'm not hardened, just highly logical and reasonable. Atheist: yes. Heathen: no. Anti-christ: not particularly. You haven't even been half correct every time you've said that little line.

"My goal in refuting you two is to prevent others from being fooled by the both of you."

To date, you haven't refuted myself or ikeithlu. However, I and Ikeithlu refute you almost daily. Exposing your ignorance and bigotry just comes with the territory. It's become a simple task. But I know you'll keep trying to fool people. I'll be there to make you look stupid.

"You both self destruct every time we debate."

If by "self destruct" you mean: make you look like an incompetent moron, then you hit the nail on the head. You are not a worthy opponent in a debate about anything because of your ignorance. It's truly unfair because you lack so much basic knowledge about logic, science, your own religion, etc. Doesn't it stink when an atheist knows more about the Bible and your own religion than you?

Keep going. This is fun.

September 18, 2012 at 8:03 p.m.
conservative said...

I wrote ""Wanting people to be saved, to become a Christian, to inherit the Kingdom of God is not establishing a theocracy."

You once again are wrong when you wrote "that is the definition of a theocracy"

No, God indwells the believer to serve and obey him, not to rule anyone in a political sense. No government is set up or strived for in a political sense. You are totally wrong.

The rule by God in the Old Testament with it's sacrificial system, priests, tithes (taxation) and commandments was a theocracy. You as an atheists, heathen, and antichrist don't have any idea what a Biblical theocracy is. It is complete arrogance on your part to dictate to anyone what a theocracy is.

Now pay close attention here for I am going to demonstrate the absurdity of your and Ike's position about what constitutes a Christian and your claim that we want a theocracy. You and Ike want anyone basically to be able to claim that they are a Christian. Now, here is your great contradiction. and great problem. You don't want a theocracy established but according to your own words becoming a Christian is establishing a theocracy!!!

Do you see how ridiculous you are. A person surrendering to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in his personal life is establishing a theocracy in our nation according to you. This is absurd!

You have self- destructed again.

September 18, 2012 at 9:04 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

I wrote "Wanting people to be accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is NOT establishing a theocracy!"

You responded with "Keep pushing that lie."

You like being repetitious, so do I. It's just another opportunity to show others that you are wrong and hostile to Christianity.

Every Christian is proposing to establish a theocracy according to you. That is so amusing and of course you are wrong. You use the word Christian and don't even know what constitutes being a Christian. Setting that aside, you have produced nothing to substantiate your claim about me or anyone else wanting to set up a national religion for political reasons, i.e. a theocracy.

The First Amendment plainly states - CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..., I am strongly opposed to a national religion and I know of no efforts by Christians to bring one about. You bring forth NO proof just false and dishonest accusations.

You are an atheists, heathen and an antichrist so I welcome every opportunity to show this to others just in case someone might be deceived by you.

Once again, thank you.

September 18, 2012 at 9:37 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You do more to promote atheism than anything I have posted here, conservative. Thanks.

September 18, 2012 at 9:45 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"You once again are wrong when you wrote "that is the definition of a theocracy""

No, you are.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theocracy

"No, God indwells the believer to serve and obey him, not to rule anyone in a political sense."

You have just defined 'theocracy'.

"No government is set up or strived for in a political sense."

You have just admitted your goals. "Wanting people to be saved... God indwells the believer to serve and obey him.". You want a theocracy. You want your deity to rule.

"You are totally wrong."

You are.

"The rule by God in the Old Testament with it's sacrificial system, priests, tithes (taxation) and commandments was a theocracy."

The New Testament has a sacrificial system (Jesus), priests (you call the pastors now), tithes (most Christians tithe), and commandments (most Christians cling these laws).

"You as an atheists, heathen, and antichrist don't have any idea what a Biblical theocracy is."

Atheist: yes, heathen: no, antichrist: not really. I know what a theocracy is. You don't seem to though.

"It is complete arrogance on your part to dictate to anyone what a theocracy is."

It isn't arrogance. I know the definition of the word and I know it coincides with your Bible Thumper agenda.

"Now pay close attention here for I am going to demonstrate the absurdity of your and Ike's position about what constitutes a Christian and your claim that we want a theocracy."

Pay close attention while I refute your argument completely.

"You and Ike want anyone basically to be able to claim that they are a Christian."

False. Neither I nor Ikeithlu have said anything of the sort.

"You don't want a theocracy established but according to your own words becoming a Christian is establishing a theocracy!!!"

That is neither a contradiction or a problem. And I nor Ikeithlu ever said becoming a Christian is establishing a theocracy. However, wishing that everyone was a Christian with your deity as the divine ruler is intent to establish a theocracy. Wow, that was easy.

"Do you see how ridiculous you are."

No, I see how ridiculous you are though.

"A person surrendering to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in his personal life is establishing a theocracy in our nation according to you."

Again, I never made that statement nor have I implied it. You have created a strawman argument.

"This is absurd!"

It would be if I actually believed as you say I do but, of course, I don't.

"You have self- destructed again."

If by "self destruct" you mean: make you look like an incompetent moron, then you hit the nail on the head AGAIN.

You do not have the basic intellect, reasoning/logic skills, or knowledge to engage in a debate with me. You continue to make yourself look like an idiot with your fallacious arguments and blatant lies.

Keep going. This is getting better by the minute.

September 18, 2012 at 9:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"You like being repetitious, so do I. It's just another opportunity to show others that you are wrong and hostile to Christianity."

You haven't shown anyone that I am wrong or hostile to Christianity.

"Every Christian is proposing to establish a theocracy according to you."

I never said anything of the sort.

"That is so amusing and of course you are wrong."

I can't be wrong about something I never said.

"You use the word Christian and don't even know what constitutes being a Christian."

I know all too well what constitutes being a Christian.

"you have produced nothing to substantiate your claim about me or anyone else wanting to set up a national religion for political reasons, i.e. a theocracy."

Yes, I have. "Wanting people to be saved... God indwells the believer to serve and obey him". You want your deity to rule. That is the definition of 'theocracy'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy

"I am strongly opposed to a national religion and I know of no efforts by Christians to bring one about"

You just stated that you want everyone to be a Christian and obey your deity. You want a world religion. I know of many efforts. Prayer in schools, government buildings, creationism in schools, "In God We Trust" on our currency, etc.

"You bring forth NO proof just false and dishonest accusations."

You obviously don't know what proof is when it is presented because I have presented plenty.

"You are an atheists, heathen and an antichrist so I welcome every opportunity to show this to others just in case someone might be deceived by you."

Atheist: yes, heathen: no, antichrist: not really. I welcome every opportunity to make you look even more ignorant than you make yourself look with your own words. No one will every be deceived by you. I assure you of that.

"Once again, thank you."

And now you are thanking me for making you look like a fool. Highly amusing. Your ignorance has been duly noted.

September 18, 2012 at 10:01 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"One clear and essential tenant (sic) of Christianity is that one must accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. "

"There are tenants (sic) of Christianity which one must hold to be a Christian and these are based on Scripture not the whim of man." - conservative

The con-man and several other of the fundie-Christian commenters here represent a very narrow, exclusive, arrogant brand of Christianity.

The Nicene Creed, which was established in Nicea in 325, is the tenet that many Christians like to think is the core of Christian belief. The crux of the conflict among the various Christian sects at the time was whether Jesus was divine or human. It was decided (voted on) by 300 bishops that Jesus was divine, and that God, JC, and the "holy ghost" represented the so-called Trinity; and that believing in the divinity of Jesus and his dying and rising from the dead for the explicit purpose of "saving" us from sin was to be the essence of true Christian belief.

Most fundie Christians like to think that every word of the Bible and everything that ever transpired regarding the history of Christianity was in accordance with God's "divine plan." But it was at the behest of the emperor Constantine, who was intent on unifying Rome and thus securing greater political power, that the bishops convened in the first place. Had it not been for that meeting at Nicea, primarily for Constantine's political purposes of empowerment, there is no telling what the official creed might have become or even if there ever would have been an official creed at all.

There was great diversity among Christians at the time, far greater than what exists today. Many did not believe in a literal Jesus, and many others were more pagan-like than Christian but still called themselves Christians. To think that the Nicene Creed (decided upon by men hashing out their differences much like politicians trying to come to agreement on a new law) is the one and only determining factor of what constitutes a "true" Christian is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

It's too bad there are so many who dwell in such willful ignorance even today, and worse yet, they keep trying to poison the minds of others with their false, distorted sense of importance and exclusivity.

September 18, 2012 at 10:26 p.m.
Lanierlaw said...

The operative term is "establishment of a religion". Engaging in prayer before a meeting or posting the 10 Commandments on the Courthouse wall hardly qualifies as a practical matter. To "establish" a religion one must develop a liturgy, write or purchase music, obtain a location for services, retain a priest, pastor or other leader, a music director, one or more musicians, develop a membership recruitment program, develop an online presence, and raise money to find the operation. Our courts have twisted the State and Federal Constitutions out of all common sense meaning. Obviously none of them ever served on a church finance committee! On the other hand, the Entitlement State established by Liberals meets those requirements and is clearly their religion of choice.

September 19, 2012 at 2:12 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Lanierlaw,

You're arguing semantics. And it is a bad argument.

Religion isn't a church, despite what you make think. And posting the 10 commandments and prayer before government meetings does qualify as an establishment of religion. The government is preferring one religion over another. This is directly opposed by the First Amendment.

You have twisted the meaning of words out of all common sense meaning.

There is no entitlement state established by Liberals. You and Thurston Howell Romney should get together and bash the poor.

September 19, 2012 at 2:36 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Lanierlaw...

Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how some people seem to be blessed with the gift of being able to interpret so precisely what the framers of the Constitution meant. But now that you mention it, yes, I'm sure they must have been thinking of things like an "online presence" and developing a "membership recruitment program" when they used the phrase "establishment of religion." What a joke.

Just wondering...do you have to work at being that funny or does it come naturally?

September 19, 2012 at 2:38 a.m.
conservative said...

easy.....

You wrote, "I am an atheist. I am not a "heathen".'

Now that seems strange to me for you have in the past claimed to have read the Bible many times and I seem to recall you also claimed to have attended a Bible college. Now the word "heathen" is used around 150 times in the King James Bible and you deny that you are a heathen.

It is a term that is used for people who don't know God and who are opposed to God. Those who are lost in their sins, Biblically speaking. That is YOU easy. You foolishly say there is no God. It is impossible to know God if you say there is no God! Therefore, you are a heathen.

Yes, you are a heathen!

September 19, 2012 at 9:28 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

You say "heathen" like it's a bad thing....

September 19, 2012 at 9:40 a.m.
conservative said...

easy.....

You wrote, "I am an atheist. I am not a "heathen".'

Now to some Scripture that proves you are a heathen :

Galatians chapter 3 verse 8 reads - "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."

Here the word "heathen" is used in regards to those people in nations who don't know God, just like you easy. It is impossible for you to know God if you claim God does not exist.

Easy, you are a heathen. Atheism and heathenism are inseparable.

September 19, 2012 at 10:13 a.m.
dao1980 said...

So now conny wants to assert his infallible assessments of "heathenism", and who does and does not fall under that category. (really important stuff to a fundy)

For all who are interested in observing the debilitating affects of religious fanaticism upon the human mind..

I give you - Exhibit A: conservative, AKA conny, AKA con-man, AKA pompous blithering pharisee that Jesus despises and has said "will not enter" his kingdom...

September 19, 2012 at 10:16 a.m.
conservative said...

Ike...

I saw where you thanked me. That is an improvement over your last profanity laced bout of hatred.

I'm sure that I will provide you with more opportunities to thank me in the future.

September 19, 2012 at 10:20 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Please demonstrate where I have EVER used profanity on this site, liar.

September 19, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.
conservative said...

"What an arrogant SOB you are."

September 19, 2012 at 10:38 a.m.
conservative said...

You say "heathen" like it's a bad thing....

Well, from your point of view you must take pride in it. From my point of view, yes, "a bad thing" to use your words, but tragic, very tragic also.

September 19, 2012 at 10:44 a.m.
conservative said...

easy....

You wrote - "I am an atheist. I am not a "heathen". And I am not particularly Anti-christ either." also "antichrist: not really."

You seem to be throwing in "particularly" in order to give you some wiggle room. Well you are an antichrist as well as a an atheist and heathen. The three are inseparable.

The prefix anti means against, look it up.

Now this Scripture pertains to you easy :

1 John 2:22 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." As an atheist easy, you deny that Jesus was God in the flesh.

No mistake about it easy, you are an atheist, a heathen and an antichrist!

September 19, 2012 at 11:22 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"It is a term that is used for people who don't know God and who are opposed to God. Those who are lost in their sins, Biblically speaking."

Your definition of the term is not accurate.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heathen

Also, it's hard to know someone/something that doesn't exist.

"That is YOU easy."

Again, no it isn't.

"You foolishly say there is no God."

I logically and reasonably say there is no god.

"It is impossible to know God if you say there is no God!"

It is impossible to know something/someone that doesn't exist.

"Therefore, you are a heathen."

No, I am not.

"Yes, you are a heathen!"

No, I am not.

September 19, 2012 at 11:23 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"Now to some Scripture that proves you are a heathen :"

Scripture proves nothing outside of your own ignorance.

"Here the word "heathen" is used in regards to those people in nations who don't know God, just like you easy."

Again, your definition of the term isn't accurate. And again, it is impossible to know someone/something that doesn't exist.

"It is impossible for you to know God if you claim God does not exist."

And again, it is impossible to know someone/something that doesn't exist.

"Easy, you are a heathen."

No, I am not.

"Atheism and heathenism are inseparable."

The two terms are entirely and mutually exclusive to one another. Your Biblical jargon means nothing.

September 19, 2012 at 11:26 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"You seem to be throwing in "particularly" in order to give you some wiggle room. Well you are an antichrist as well as a an atheist and heathen. The three are inseparable."

I use the word particularly because that is exactly what I mean. I am not anti-christ. I am an atheist. And I am not a heathen. The three are mutually exclusive terms. You can have one without the other two or any combination.

"The prefix anti means against, look it up."

Unlike you, I don't have to.

"Now this Scripture pertains to you easy :"

No Scripture pertains to anyone other than the real and fictional people it is specifically referring to.

"No mistake about it easy, you are an atheist, a heathen and an antichrist!"

Again, I am an atheist. I am not a heathen. And I am not particularly antichrist. No mistake about it.

September 19, 2012 at 11:29 a.m.
conservative said...

easy you wrote :

"There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity"

It's not that you are wrong, you made that up and that is much worse. False accusations are easy to make. The easy pun was intended.

September 19, 2012 at 11:36 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"It's not that you are wrong,"

Correct, I am not wrong.

"you made that up and that is much worse."

I'll present the evidence if you would like.

"False accusations are easy to make. The easy pun was intended"

I haven't made any false accusations. No pun intended.

September 19, 2012 at 11:40 a.m.
conservative said...

easy...

After I wrote "You and Ike constantly falsely accuse me of defining Christianity but my source is the word of God and only the word of God."

you wrote this "You have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of oral tradition. Your source is extremely flawed."

Yes, there are copies and copies and copies of the Bible all over the world, in fact it is the largest selling book year after year after year.

And "you're still attempting to redefine Christianity according to your own views. I've seen you do it regularly."

It's not that you are wrong, you made that up and that is much worse. False accusations are easy to make. Pun intended.

BTW, how do you as an atheist, heathen and an antichrist determine who is a Christian? I doubt you will give your view for I'm confidant you can't. Prove me wrong.

September 19, 2012 at 12:02 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"Yes, there are copies and copies and copies of the Bible all over the world, in fact it is the largest selling book year after year after year."

You really are stupid. Your Bible consists of translations of translations, etc... of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies, etc... of oral tradition. I wasn't referring to how many Bibles are printed. I think any 4 year old could understand that.

"It's not that you are wrong, you made that up and that is much worse. False accusations are easy to make. Pun intended."

Correct, I am not wrong. I'll present the evidence if you would like. And I haven't made any false accusations. No pun intended.

"BTW, how do you as an atheist, heathen and an antichrist determine who is a Christian? I doubt you will give your view for I'm confidant you can't. Prove me wrong."

I am an atheist. I'm not a heathen or antichrist. I don't determine who is a Christian. They do that themselves.

A Christian is an individual who believes "...that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that only those who place their faith in Jesus will find salvation after death." -Sam Harris

I like that definition for basic qualifiers although there is a lot of flexibility within those three, simple statements.

Your doubt was unfounded much like your false confidence. And I have proven you wrong many times before. This time was no different.

September 19, 2012 at 12:21 p.m.
conservative said...

Easy.... "I'll present the evidence if you would like"

More weasel words, get on with it.

You are a heathen and an antichrist. I already proved that earlier. Look above, no pun intended.

The very general definition is not at odds with anything I have written, now get on with it.

BTW, you only agreed with someone else.

September 19, 2012 at 12:46 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"More weasel words, get on with it."

Get on with what? Would you like for me to present the evidence or not?

"You are a heathen and an antichrist. I already proved that earlier. Look above, no pun intended."

I am not a heathen or an antichrist. You didn't prove that whatsoever. Look above, no pun intended.

"The very general definition is not at odds with anything I have written, now get on with it."

It is at odds with the the statements you have written in it's flexibility. What would you have me get on with?

"BTW, you only agreed with someone else."

By the way, you have only agreed with someone else as well.

September 19, 2012 at 1:15 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

What an arrogant SOB you are.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You call THAT profanity?

Well, I stand corrected, saint conservative. You really do have very clean and thin skin indeed.

I still think you are a liar. You never call any of your cohorts at this site on the carpet for FAR worse that that. Hypocrite.

Oops-guess you would call that profanity too.

-the proud heathen

September 19, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.
conservative said...

easy....

"Get on with what? Would you like for me to present the evidence or not?"

Yes. Again, get on with.

"I am not a heathen or an antichrist"

As I showed above, you are both.

You like secular dictionaries here is the definition of heathen from Merriam- Webster :

"an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible"

This is you, no doubt about it.

September 19, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"Yes. Again, get on with."

Refer to your post September 18, 2012 at 9:14 a.m.

Would you like more evidence from outside this particular thread?

"As I showed above, you are both."

You haven't showed anything to prove your claim. I am neither.

"You like secular dictionaries"

There is no such thing as a "secular" dictionary.

"This is you, no doubt about it."

No, it isn't. I am not an unconverted member of a people or nation. The god of the Bible would need to exist in order to acknowledge him/her/it or convert. By your definition, newborn babies are heathens, correct?

That is a Biblical definition. I am not a pagan (the part which you omitted). Nor am I uncultured or uncivilized (you omitted that as well).

I do not meet the definition of the word. No doubt about it.

September 19, 2012 at 2:01 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike....

"I still think you are a liar. You never call any of your cohorts at this site on the carpet for FAR worse that that. Hypocrite."

Cohorts don't call one another that. You addressed me with that remark and that is why I brought it back up.

You would be surprised how little I read of the many comments here, especially the long ones. No one made me referee over other peoples discussions.

You calling me a liar is no bother to me simply because I expect such from atheists and "proud heathens" such as yourself.

September 19, 2012 at 2:19 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"You calling me a liar is no bother to me simply because I expect such from atheists and "proud heathens" such as yourself."*

So you expect atheists to call you out on your lies? How interesting!

September 19, 2012 at 2:26 p.m.
conservative said...

easy, you wrote :

"There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity"

I responded with "It's not that you are wrong, you made that up and that is much worse. False accusations are easy to make. The easy pun was intended"

You resonded : "I'll present the evidence if you would like."

Now since then you have yet to present your "evidence," just- "I'll present the evidence if you would like" and "Would you like for me to present the evidence or not?"

Now, it is "Refer to your post September 18, 2012 at 9:14 a.m."

Well, copy and paste your evidence and your "more evidence" and quit stalling.

Show me my words where you claim I rebuked people who met some required tenants of Christianity and where I denied their claim to Christianity.

You have only talked around the subject and have not quoted any of my words to back up your claim. Why? Because you haven't and you can't.

BTW, Ike admitted that she is a "proud heathen", I will work on getting her to admit to being an antichrist as well. You need to man-up.

September 19, 2012 at 2:50 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

The Bible, as well as Cambridge defines you as a heathen - "of people or their way of life, activities and ideas) having no religion, or belonging to a religion that is not Christianity, Judaism or Islam"

September 19, 2012 at 3:02 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Seems to me a christian blowing up an abortion clinic in the mid-west, or a muslim blowing up a town center in the mid-east would be more appropriate examples of being evil "heathens". (if you really want to demonize the word)

Oh well, as long as they prayed about it first it's ok... right conny?

September 19, 2012 at 3:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

conservative said... Ike...

After reading your last comment I can see why you know very little about Christianity. You were involved in some non Christian organization as a child and have adhered to some of their non Christian beliefs even though you parted ways. I am glad you got away from them.

However, you seemed to have involved youself with another non Christian group with your "good deeds don't mean anything type of Christian" statement. There is no such thing as a "good deeds don't mean anything type of Christian." I repeat, you have or had involved yourself in another non Christian organization.


I guess you don't know how to scroll up. I already made reference to this. Here is the evidence from this thread. Shall I gather more from other threads? I haven't talked around the subject. I already made reference to it. Are you having problems reading?

I have backed up my claim. Keep playing stupid. It's humorous.

September 19, 2012 at 5:32 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Again, the word is Biblical jargon. It is a misnomer. And you aren't even including the full definition, just the parts that you think support your argument.

Would you like to keep going? Please do! Your pedantry is amusing. You need to man up!

September 19, 2012 at 5:36 p.m.
conservative said...

easy....

Here once again is your false accusation :

"There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity"

Here your copy of what I wrote to Ike :

After reading your last comment I can see why you know very little about Christianity. You were involved in some non Christian organization as a child and have adhered to some of their non Christian beliefs even though you parted ways. I am glad you got away from them.

However, you seemed to have involved youself with another non Christian group with your "good deeds don't mean anything type of Christian" statement. There is no such thing as a "good deeds don't mean anything type of Christian." I repeat, you have or had involved yourself in another non Christian organization

Now what is your point?

September 19, 2012 at 5:54 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

You have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity based on nothing but conjecture.

Here is some more of you doing the same:

"I disagree with everthing I have ever written about the man here. My comments were intended to convey my strong diagreement over his Godless behavior, his anti American views, his opposition to free enterprise and business etc."

July 26, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.

"Yes I do just like other true Christians do! Your erroneous beliefs reveal your standing with God."

July 22, 2012 at 5:29 p.m.

"You used the word "murder." You charged God with "murder." That is blasphemy!"

July 22, 2012 at 2:34 p.m.

"You have indicted yourself. You have made no profession of Christianity for obvious reasons. You are grossly ignorant of Scripture and even worse claim we have no Bible."

July 22, 2012 at 9:02 a.m.

"Not long ago you went on a hate filled tirade accusing God of "murdering" the firstborn of the Egyptian children. God a murderer, what blasphemy!"

July 21, 2012 at 9:30 p.m.

"You are arrogant and self righteous. You need a savior just like everyone else but you are too arrogant and self righteous to see it. Your selfish pride either won't let you see it or admit it."

...

"No, I don't believe he is a Christian and if enough facts about his life are made known I am certain it will be evident he wasn't. You make two errors here - 1) You take at face value that if someone attended a church that someone is a Christian 2) or WAS a Christian. A Christian can not cease to be a Christian."

July 21, 2012 at 6:20 p.m.

September 19, 2012 at 6:12 p.m.
Easy123 said...

And more:

"The mess media, being mostly ignorant of Scripture and hostile to Christianity are happy to call someone who attended a church a Christian. I recall the mess media calling the Branch Davidians and the group at Ruby Ridge Christians also. If Easy were to finally snap they would call him a Christian as well. After all he has claimed to have read the Bible many times and even attended a Bible college."

...

"Don't join in with ignorant, hostile people willing to blame Christianity for horrible crimes. Don't let them exploit your ignorance of what a true Christian is."

July 21, 2012 at 4:24 p.m.

"As I wrote before those at "Jesus is a Liberal" are not Christians but what I call CINO - Christian In Name Only."

"In their first sentence I pointed out that they were exclusionary - "Jesus is a Liberal welcomes all Liberal Christians."

"Now I want to turn your attention to a monumental LIE! In the second sentence they state - "Liberal Christian is an umbrella term for any liberal member of the many Protestant denominations, or churches within denominations, who view the Bible as the witness of God rather than the word of God"

"As I wrote yesterday, flee from these people, they are liars."

July 18, 2012 at 9:10 a.m.

"This site and those who have the same beliefs as this site are CINOs, Christian In Name Only! They are not Christians and even worse are anti Christian! And I will prove it."

"FLEE from this site FLEE from those associated with this site! They are Godless Socialists and heavily involved in the peace movement."

"I could spend hours pointing out the anti God anti Christ and anti Scripture beliefs of these people and I probably will."

"The first sentence contains this statement - "Jesus is a Liberal welcomes all Liberal Christians." They are exclusionary, only welcomning "Liberal Christians", no welcome for all Christians, just "Liberal Christians." They know they are not Christian and will not tolerate any views but the Christian In Name Only Liberal view."

July 17, 2012 at 6:36 p.m.

September 19, 2012 at 6:13 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Would you like to keep going? I could do this all day.

My accusations against you are honest and accurate. However, if you would like to keep going, I would enjoy delving deeper into your previous posts on this site to gather more evidence against you.

You choose.

September 19, 2012 at 6:19 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

Listing what I have written in the past is NOT refuting what I have written. You know this, now beginning with my 5:54 comment show everyone where I have denied the Christianity of people who meet the required tenants of Christianity. Again, you haven't and you can't.

Now please get to it.

September 19, 2012 at 6:41 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Listing what you wrote is proving my accusation against you. Only a fool would assert otherwise.

You denied the Christianity of the entire church which Ikeithlu attended. Ikeithlu's church, according to Ikeithlu, was a Christian church that met the required tenets of Christianity. And you have called the group a non-Christian organization.

Again, I can and I have.

Would you like to keep going? Should I do this for each of the quotes I mentioned?

You choose.

September 19, 2012 at 6:54 p.m.
conservative said...

Easy...

I knew you couldn't do it and I told you that you couldn't do it! You must have thought I would give up taunting you about bringing forth your "evidence."

Resorting to name calling is NOT evidence but a cop out.

Get on with it.

September 19, 2012 at 7:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

"Ah, I knew you couldn't do it."

I just did it. Along with two posts worth of incriminating, direct quotes from you.

Here, I'll post it again since you can't seem to comprehend things the first time:

"You denied the Christianity of the entire church which Ikeithlu attended. Ikeithlu's church, according to Ikeithlu, was a Christian church that met the required tenets of Christianity. And you have called the group a non-Christian organization."

"You must have thought I would give up taunting you about bringing forth your "evidence.""

I brought forth multiple examples of evidence. And you haven't stopped wriggling yet.

"Resorting to name calling is NOT evidence but a cop out."

I haven't called you a name. I have also provided copious amounts of evidence. I copped in, I guess you could say.

"Get on with it."

Been there, done that.

Now it's your turn.

September 19, 2012 at 7:07 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

"You denied the Christianity of the entire church which Ikeithlu attended"

I'm glad you brought this up. Now, you started this discussion with this statement : "There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity"

So, are there tenants of Christianity that must be met in order to call yourself a Christian? A simple yes or no will do.

September 19, 2012 at 7:20 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I can't wait to show this to my clergy friends and relatives. They would find it amusing. You really are a piece of work.

September 19, 2012 at 7:28 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

Are you doing research before you answer? It is a simple question.

September 19, 2012 at 7:37 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Why are you so eagerly awaiting an answer? Take a chill pill, psycho.

Sure. But it's not that simple.

September 19, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

Man up. You made the statement concerning meeting tenants of Christianity and you claim all that Bible education and now you are stumped on a simple question. Get on with it.

September 19, 2012 at 7:50 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

I already responded. Open your eyes and focus. GEEEZZ!

"Sure. But it's not that simple."

GET ON WITH IT!

September 19, 2012 at 7:52 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

BTW, Ike admitted that she is a "proud heathen", I will work on getting her to admit to being an antichrist as well. You need to man-up.

I am not really an "antichrist" because I accept that he existed but don't believe in his "divinity". I have no problem with people worshiping Jesus if that's what they want. How could that be "anti"?

September 19, 2012 at 7:54 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

Again, you started this discussion with this statement : "There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity"

So, are there tenants of Christianity that must be met in order to call yourself a Christian? A simple yes or no will do.

Get on with it.

September 19, 2012 at 8 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO YOU QUESTION TWICE.

ARE YOU STUPID OR OBLIVIOUS?

September 19, 2012 at 8:03 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

Again, you started this discussion with this statement : "There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity"

So, are there tenants of Christianity that must be met in order to call yourself a Christian? A simple yes or no will do.

Get on with it.

September 19, 2012 at 8:06 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

AGAIN, I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO YOUR QUESTION TWICE.

ARE YOU STUPID OR OBLIVIOUS?

September 19, 2012 at 8:07 p.m.
conservative said...

A "response" that has nothing to do with the question, a yes or no question, is NOT an answer.

Now, get on with it.

September 19, 2012 at 8:10 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I've given you an answer twice.

September 19, 2012 at 8:16 p.m.
conservative said...

Ike....

"I am not really an "antichrist" because I accept that he existed but don't believe in his "divinity".'

1John 2: 22-23

22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

September 19, 2012 at 8:23 p.m.
conservative said...

I saw no yes or no. And you know it.

Again, you started this discussion with this statement : "There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity"

So, are there tenants of Christianity that must be met in order to call yourself a Christian? A simple yes or no will do.

Get on with it.

September 19, 2012 at 8:25 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Biblical usage of words doesn't coincide with reality. Your Bible isn't a dictionary.

I am not obligated to answer your question with a yes or a no. And you know it. I answered the question.

Go back and read my response yourself. Your pedantry is nauseating and only serves to discredit you more.

September 19, 2012 at 8:27 p.m.
conservative said...

Changing the subject won't help. Man up

Again, you started this discussion with this statement : "There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity"

So, are there tenants of Christianity that must be met in order to call yourself a Christian? A simple yes or no will do.

Get on with it.

September 19, 2012 at 8:31 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Haven't changed the subject.

Already manned up and responded to your question twice.

I don't think you'll ever get on with anything. You keep going around in circles even after I answered your question. Again, your pedantry is nauseating.

September 19, 2012 at 8:34 p.m.
conservative said...

You certainly did. Where is your yes or no?

Again, you started this discussion with this statement : "There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity"

So, are there tenants of Christianity that must be met in order to call yourself a Christian? A simple yes or no will do.

Get on with it.

September 19, 2012 at 8:40 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

I certainly didn't. I responded to your post to Ikeithlu. That isn't changing the subject.

I didn't give you a yes or no. I gave you my own answer.

I don't think you'll ever get on with anything. You keep going around in circles even after I answered your question. Again, your pedantry is nauseating.

Here is a little entertainment until you actually get on with your argument:

September 19, 2012 at 8:51 p.m.
conservative said...

Again, you started this discussion with this statement : "There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity"

So, are there tenants of Christianity that must be met in order to call yourself a Christian? A simple yes or no will do.

Get on with it.

September 19, 2012 at 8:55 p.m.
Easy123 said...

I don't think you'll ever get on with anything. You keep going around in circles even after I answered your question. Again, your pedantry is nauseating.

September 19, 2012 at 8:58 p.m.
conservative said...

Again, you started this discussion with this statement : "There are some required tenants of Christianity but I have seen people that would meet those requirements but you have tried to rebuke them and deny their claim to Christianity"

So, are there tenants of Christianity that must be met in order to call yourself a Christian? A simple yes or no will do.

Get on with it.

September 19, 2012 at 9:21 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

While the United States Congress 'Gets On With Opening Our Government's Sessions With Audible Prayers', maybe someone would be interested in reading what was breaking news:

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/sep/19/ut-prayer-games-not-unconstitutional/?breakingnews

Also, I continue to honoably & respectfully suggest that those opposed to Jesus Christ, in this Christian Nation, may want to find themselves a country whose Constitution fits their interpretations. Now, please return my honor and respect by not interfering with the Christian (Audible) Prayers when they next open Our County Commission Session. Do, Please, 'Get On With It'! kwo

September 19, 2012 at 9:39 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

I don't think you'll ever get on with anything. You keep going around in circles even after I answered your question. Again, your pedantry is nauseating.

How many times do you think you will copy and paste the same post? You haven't furthered your own argument whatsoever. You're just floundering around in the same spot.

Can you not get on with your argument? Are you scared or incompetent? Let me know when you quit pouting.

September 19, 2012 at 9:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

"maybe someone would be interested in reading what was breaking news:"

That isn't 'breaking news'. The Constitution and the Supreme Court tend to disagree with the University of Tennessee officials.

"in this Christian Nation"

This isn't a Christian nation.

"may want to find themselves a country whose Constitution fits their interpretations."

Take your own advice.

"Now, please return my honor and respect by not interfering with the Christian (Audible) Prayers when they next open Our County Commission Session."

I'm sure the unconstitutional prayers of the county commission will be interfered with by others as long as they continue.

You deserve no honor or respect. You give neither, therefore you deserve nothing in return.

September 19, 2012 at 9:50 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

Easy123, Let me describe the battle You are trying to win:

Psalm 33:10

"The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: He maketh the devices of the people of none effect."

Proverbs 21:30

"There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD."

So Easy, like Jesus Christ said to the Apostle Paul, i now quote Him, and say to You: Just put Your name in where He says 'Saul, Saul':

Acts 9:5

"And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

Acts 26:14 And when we were 'All Fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

September 19, 2012 at 10:51 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Orr,

Verses from your holy book of myths mean nothing.

September 19, 2012 at 11:11 p.m.
conservative said...

easy...

I don't know if you caught a subtle reminder (it may not have been intentional) of your condition by ORRMEANSLIGHT's very good comment.

It is contained in this verse : "The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: He maketh the devices of the people of none effect." Psalm 33:10

Hint : I brought it to your attention several times yesterday.

September 20, 2012 at 10:24 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

I don't know if you caught my not-so-subtle reminder of your ignorance, but I did it all day yesterday.

Your inane Biblical jibberish and constant spewing of blatant ignorance is of no consequence to me.

You seem to be under the delusion that your comments are witty, clever or hurtful in some way. I assure you, they are not.

You are a delusional, psychotic, ignorant, deceitful, irrational, murderer worshipping, self-righteous, immoral, illogical bigot. This will serve as my "subtle" reminder of your condition.

September 20, 2012 at 10:43 a.m.
conservative said...

Well, you just acted like a heathen.

September 20, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

Logically explain that. Flesh it out. Prove it.

Only heathen's call other people heathen's. You aren't even a Christian! You're a Christian-in-name-only. You only claim to be a Christian on here. You're really a Muslim.

September 20, 2012 at 11:33 a.m.
conservative said...

Easy...

I'm glad you wrote "Logically explain that."

Now, a heathen is someone who does not know God. You as an atheist not only deny God in your life but even go so far to deny his existence as well! It is impossible to know God when you deny that God exists!

September 20, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.
ORRMEANSLIGHT said...

conservative,

Proverbs 11:30

"The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise."

James 5:20

"Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins."

Saint Jude 1-

"And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh."

kwo

September 20, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

You cannot know someone or something that doesn't exist. Therefore, the word 'heathen' is meaningless. It's Biblical jargon.

As an atheist, I suspend belief about all gods and reject the claim of any god based on severe lack of evidence.

Do you believe in unicorns, talking horses, fairies? I doubt it. Why? :-)

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW SOMEONE OR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST. For something to exist, you have to prove that it exists.

:-)

Keep trying, delusional, psychotic, ignorant, deceitful, irrational, murderer worshipping, self-righteous, immoral, illogical bigot.

September 20, 2012 at 2:10 p.m.
conservative said...

Now to Scripture : "The LORD bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought: He maketh the devices of the people of none effect." Psalm 33:10

See, the word of God uses the word "heathen." In fact the word of God uses the word "heathen" about 150 times in the King James!

Note what the LORD brings to nought - the counsel of the heathen. Now substitute any name for the word "heathen." You as an atheist do not know God so your name easy, could be substituted and the verse would read "The LORD bringeth the counsel of easy to nought....

"Heathen" is a Biblical term for all of those who do not know God, not just you.

Plain and simple logic, just what you ordered.

September 20, 2012 at 3:16 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Conny's a real special kid... he's always had trouble digesting information regardless of how simply it's offered.

Oh, and he thinks ORR's shmart, like shuper duper shmart. That right there is enough to make anyone seem... well... not shmart.

Watch out Conny, the sky-daddy's coming for ya!

September 20, 2012 at 3:23 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Conservative,

It is impossible to know someone or something that doesn't exist. Therefore, the word 'heathen' is meaningless. It's Biblical jargon.

As an atheist, I suspend belief about all gods and reject the claim of any god based on severe lack of evidence.

Do you believe in unicorns, talking horses, fairies? I doubt it. Why? :-)

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW SOMEONE OR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST. For something to exist, you have to prove that it exists. That has yet to happen and it never will happen.

:-)

Keep trying, you delusional, psychotic, ignorant, deceitful, irrational, murderer worshipping, self-righteous, immoral, illogical bigot.

I explained this to you yesterday and today.

Plain and simple logic!

September 20, 2012 at 4 p.m.
conservative said...

ORRMEANSLIGHT, Your heavy use of Scripture tells me you understand Hebrews 4:12 very well :

Hebrews 4:12 English Standard Version (ESV)

12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

As a seminary professor once told me - Just stab them with the word of God!

September 20, 2012 at 4:22 p.m.
dao1980 said...

Ha! Hilarious, "stab'em wit that thar bible Jereldene!"

"Now hand me them thar snakes and git ta speeeakin' in tounges! We're gonna have us one them old time revivals!"

Conny, I hope your not really genuinely confused when those around you raise a condescending eyebrow.

You and ORR should get together in person some time and talk about "them homersexurals", and about how "errebody's goin ta Haill".

I'm sure you two would have a blast together.

September 20, 2012 at 5 p.m.
conservative said...

easy....

Although you readily admit to being an atheist you seem troubled at finding out that you are a heathen and an antichrist as well. This can work to your good. You are now reading at least some Scripture and I am thankful for that.

A seminary professor once told me that in order to get a man saved you must first get him lost. In other words a man must realize that he is lost in his sins, destined for hell, before he will accept Jesus Christ as Lord of his life and that Jesus Christ paid the penalty for his sins on the Cross.

Before God saved me I was a heathen as well as you, I did not know God. This verse clearly states the heathen condition of everyone before receiving the gospel - " And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed" Galations 3:8.

September 20, 2012 at 6:19 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

You understand, conservative, that arguments about bible verses, heaven and hell do nothing to convince anyone who considers the bible a very old book, written over hundreds of years by hundreds of people, and then translated over and over. Who do not think that hell exists at all. You will have to do better. You know, real measurable evidence. Oh, wait...there isn't any. Never mind.

PS: why do you even care?

September 20, 2012 at 7:27 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.