Why do Christians ignore the atrocities of the Old Testament?

Read it yourself, and you'll see it doesn't say what he said it says.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Not much gets by you, does it, Brainiac?

If only you knew how truly you speak.

No one who is constitutionally literate and at least minimally aware of the history of American jurisprudence is much impressed by the example set by SCOTUS, hth.

No you just misquoted it.

No, YOU read it, and quote it properly.

 

Ah, a temper tantrum over the Treaty of Tripoli seems to be resulting in ad hominem attacks. Typical.

As for the founding fathers:
John Quincy Adams was sworn in on a book of laws, having refused to use the Bible.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." - Thomas Jefferson
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." - James Madison
"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" - John Adams
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." and "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." - Benjamin Franklin
"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." - Thomas Paine

By the way:
"The greatest achievement ever made in the cause of human progress is the total and final separation of church and state. If we have nothing else to boast of, we could lay claim with justice that the first among the nations we of this country made it an article of organic law that the relations between man and his maker were a private concern, into which other men have no right to intrude. To measure the stride thus made for the Emancipation of the race, we have only to look back over the centuries that have gone before us, and recall the dreadful persecutions in the name of religion that have filled the world." [David Dudley Field (1805-1894) in describing "American Progress in Jurisprudence," as quoted in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church And State In The United States Vol I, p. 37]

"The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent -- that of total separation of church and state. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his maker after his own judgement ... Such is the great experiment which we have tried; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.", [President John Tyler, 10th US President and supporter of state-church separation]

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him." [President John F. Kennedy]

"The twin doctrines of separation of church and state and liberty of individual conscience are the marrow of our democracy, if not indeed America's most magnificent contribution to the freeing of Western man." [Clinton Rossiter, American historian]


Still think we're founded on Christianity? Pop quiz: what motivated the pilgrims to depart England in the first place?

 

Bellieve me, I get it: you're hoping nobody will read it and find out you're lying.

Hell of it is, in the case of the PF atheistard contingent, you might be right.

 

Quite the opposite, here's the link to the file in the library of congress: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac2&fileName=009/llac009.db&recNum=341
Article 11 is in the bottom of the left column.

Care to call me a liar again?

 

Actually, I do think I'm better fit to judge than God. I have proof of my existence as well as an operating brain. What proof is there of God? Until he makes his presence known, his opinions shouldn't be given the time of day.

As for God's killing, it is senseless. Those children murdered by his followers did nothing to deserve their punishment. If God is love, then he acted against his own ethics by committing those crimes against humanity. It doesn't matter if Jesus came or not to fulfill the law. Until God says he's sorry, he has blood on his hands.

But since God has yet to show his face, it's safe to assume that he doesn't exist.

 

Good question. I'm not sure. I guess the way God currently does it.

Whats your thoughts on it?

- - - Updated - - -

 

Could a triangle have just 2 sides?
Sometimes something IS simply because it IS.

 

I think the idea that it is impossible to know anything about god is kind of odd; it could , if it exists, speak up in a loud clear voice any time it wished.

Likewise with batboy.

 

Seriously. these people whose idea of a discussion of ideas is to say "if it makes you feel good" or, "if it satisfies your ego", and think that constitutes a clever or meaningful thing to say are pretty tiresome and lame, generally not worth a second go round on any topic, they've shown that.

 

Do you think its possible for "it" to speak to individuals, and not corporately?

 

correct, any blasphemy laws still on the books should be removed

 

Do you realize how insanely circular reasoned and non-answer that response is?

 

Well, saying "I don't know" is a good way to tell a person you don't know something, and seeing as to how I'm not omniscient, there are going to be things I just don't know.

But, to answer your question, Do you realize how much I'm unconcerned with your judgment of said statement? I'm mean really.......you're just hilarious! LOL!!!

 

Then why don't you quote it verbatim? Hmmmmmm?

 

IF it existed, sure.

However, as every last religion that ever was appears to be based on someone's claim to having gotten a special "message', I see no reason to believe one more than another.

I asked a mormon one time how he could beleive such a ridiculous story. He said he prayed till god told him its true. Maybe if he'd kept at it, god would have told it it wasnt true.

Where do you think all these "messages" come from?

If you are gonna say the true ones come from god, the rest from evil spsirits, I guess we are done.

If not, try this. Pray to god for a yes or no; was there really-really a world wide flood?
Noah and all, the whole thing is true?

If you get a "yes", it aint from "god". If its a no, you still are in the ring. Try it.

 

I believe some of the message come from God, and yes, some do come from those that aren't from God. Sorry, it is what it is.

Do you not believe, if evil spirits exist, that they can't also communicate?

Now about the flood, as I've already stated, some believe the flood existed, and some don't. Both have viewed the same data, so its up to an individual, as to how its interpreted, correct?

Now, does God answer prayers, in our time frame?

 

Gods actions are not at all excused, God is endlessly under accusation and on trial even by those to whom he does not exist. What amazes me is how mans actions have been tolerated for so long. Yes sure once in a while we will get a good collective beating like a global flood or a burning mountain from the heavens or a particularly brutal dictator but generally these too come as a consequence of human malignancy. And yes we can always question God just don't dare question religion or academia.

 

I'm sure it does, as long as such "disagreement and questioning" is directed towards self-evident truth rather than at the moral subjectivity which pervades modern academia, and as long as any challenge to the latter can be rendered ineffectual by sophistry.

 

If you have no answer, I don't see how you could possibly come to the conclusion that God is Good.

 

I gave you an answer, just one you didn't like.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, its called judgment.

 

That's because your answer doesn't give any justification, at all. It's just "It is how it is!" Well, how do you know how it is?