Off-topic discussion and flame fest from the Founders and atheism thread

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

http://zalandria.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/housemate_atheist.jpg

[LibertyEagle]

Grimnir, is that your opinion of Atheists, because I would think that would be offensive to our members who are.

[BeFranklin]

Grimnir, is that your opinion of Atheists, because I would think that would be offensive to our members who are.

I took it that he was just satirizing the thread. Although my thread title is intentionally designed for attention, I obviously don't think that. Everyone starts out as an atheist or agnostic in life, not knowing God.

[yongrel]

And the Puritans who founded this country hated Christmas.

I really don't care.

[nate895]

And the Puritans who founded this country hated Christmas.

I really don't care.

The Puritans didn't found this country.

[BeFranklin]

And the Puritans who founded this country hated Christmas.

I really don't care.

FYI: The puritans were right about that too.

Also, they liked Thanksgiving. :p

[gls]

I doubt I would've been an atheist pre-Darwin, either, although you don't need to know anything about biology to see the glaring inconsistencies found in every man-made religion.

[Josh_LA]

what's next? blacks? women? Asians? Jews?

[LibertyEagle]

what's next? blacks? women? Asians? Jews?

What's next? Christians? Oh, that's right, we've already been there; done that.

Since some have chosen to twist the words of our Founders with regard to their faith, it's appropriate that this misinformation be shown for what it is.

[BeFranklin]

What's next? Christians? Oh, that's right, we've already been there; done that.

Since some have chosen to twist the words of our Founders with regard to their faith, it's appropriate that this misinformation be shown for what it is.

Yeah, Josh, what about that? You were always first in line when it came to Christians. Why are you running from historical fact now that the founders of this country were Christians?

[tonesforjonesbones]

It seems that many are running from these wonderful posts! I love them. Tones

[Josh_LA]

Yeah, Josh, what about that? You were always first in line when it came to Christians. Why are you running from historical fact now that the founders of this country were Christians?

I never ran from the fact our founding fathers were Christians.
I am however, proud to share different religious views as them.
I am also more than proud to embrace the racist, sexist and selfish bigotry they held.

[Josh_LA]

Grimnir, is that your opinion of Atheists, because I would think that would be offensive to our members who are.

luckily most atheists are far more tolerant than Christians when it comes to ridicule.

[LibertyEagle]

luckily most atheists are far more tolerant than Christians when it comes to ridicule.

Not if this forum is any example.

[Josh_LA]

FYI: The puritans were right about that too.

Also, they liked Thanksgiving. :p

Let's talk about other great things founding fathers never talked about.

TECHNOLOGY!

TROLLS!

INTERNETS!

Guess they don't like them either!

[Josh_LA]

Not if this forum is any example.

this forum isn't representative of anything other than Ron Paul nutjobs.

[LibertyEagle]

Let's talk about other great things founding fathers never talked about.

TECHNOLOGY!

TROLLS!

INTERNETS!

Guess they don't like them either!

Do you hate our Founding Fathers, Josh?

[LibertyEagle]

this forum isn't representative of anything other than Ron Paul nutjobs.

Interesting. So, I take it that you're saying you are not an advocate of Ron Paul?

[heavenlyboy34]

this forum isn't representative of anything other than Ron Paul nutjobs.

Speak for yerself. I only agree with him on certain issues (enough to consider him the best candidate for pres).

[Josh_LA]

Do you hate our Founding Fathers, Josh?

No, I love them

I love men who murder other men to get what they want.
I love men who are not afraid or ashamed of lynching blacks and enslaving them for their own good.
I love men who believe in freedom (as long as it works in their favor).

I may not share their religious convictions, just as I do not share religious convictions with Ron Paul, Adolf Hitler or Albert Einstein, but I love them for what they did.

[Josh_LA]

Speak for yerself. I only agree with him on certain issues (enough to consider him the best candidate for pres).

same here, what did you think I meant?

[Josh_LA]

Interesting. So, I take it that you're saying you are not an advocate of Ron Paul?

No, what makes you think saying nutjob means I disagree with somebody or it is negative? I am proud to be a Ron Paul nutjob.

[Kludge]

Not if this forum is any example.

I think it was http://www.kristinlindquist.com/FlashingStar.gifhttp://www.kristinlindquist.com/FlashingStar.gifTONEShttp://www.kristinlindquist.com/FlashingStar.gifhttp://www.kristinlindquist.com/FlashingStar.gif who said the "The Founders didn't think much of..." weren't attracting much dissent.

[Josh_LA]

I think it was http://www.kristinlindquist.com/FlashingStar.gifhttp://www.kristinlindquist.com/FlashingStar.gifTONEShttp://www.kristinlindquist.com/FlashingStar.gifhttp://www.kristinlindquist.com/FlashingStar.gif who said the "The Founders didn't think much of..." weren't attracting much dissent.

I don't speak for anybody here, but Tones don't speak for me.

[LibertyEagle]

No, I love them

I love men who murder other men to get what they want.
I love men who are not afraid or ashamed of lynching blacks and enslaving them for their own good.
I love men who believe in freedom (as long as it works in their favor).

I may not share their religious convictions, just as I do not share religious convictions with Ron Paul, Adolf Hitler or Albert Einstein, but I love them for what they did.

I am not aware of our Founders murdering ANYONE. Nor have I seen anything about them lynching blacks.

Stop twisting things, Josh, in an effort to make your own racism more palatable.

[Josh_LA]

I am not aware of our Founders murdering ANYONE. Nor have I seen anything about them lynching blacks.

Stop twisting things, Josh, in an effort to make your own racism more palatable.

Our founding fathers lead command to murder British soldiers in order to get us an independent union (I don't call that self defense, they deliberately disobeyed the law). They enslaved blacks for their benefit, and they may not have directly lynched blacks for the record, but they certainly opened a country where it was acceptable.

If blacks didn't need to wait until 1960s to get "civil rights", I'd shut up. But aside from that don't pretend like most of America's history wasn't dependent on racism (and don't be ashamed of it).

[Kludge]

No, I love them

I love men who murder other men to get what they want.
I love men who are not afraid or ashamed of lynching blacks and enslaving them for their own good.
I love men who believe in freedom (as long as it works in their favor).

I may not share their religious convictions, just as I do not share religious convictions with Ron Paul, Adolf Hitler or Albert Einstein, but I love them for what they did.

What's love?

[Josh_LA]

What's love?

Admiration. Respect.

I was asked if I "hate" them, I certainly don't.

I'm not a *** and I don't want to sleep with dead old white men, but I admire them, their spirit and their great work.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Good grief...but i like the letters! TONES :)

[tonesforjonesbones]

Love is never having to say you're sorry. tones

[Josh_LA]

Good grief...but i like the letters! TONES :)

nigga you gay if you like rainbow

[Josh_LA]

Love is never having to say you're sorry. tones

word!

[BeFranklin]

Let's talk about other great things founding fathers never talked about.

TECHNOLOGY!

TROLLS!

INTERNETS!

Guess they don't like them either!

You've often talked about "immutable laws of nature", by which you've supported eugnics, racism, and who knows what else.

The founders believed in immutable laws too, immutable laws written by Almighty God. Spiritual laws. I've yet to see anything from you even suggesting anything spiritual.

Adams to Jefferson, June 28, 1813:

1813, June 28: Adams to Jefferson
The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite . . . . And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty,are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say,consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.
Adams to Jefferson, June 28, 1813
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:FIam4Ag0NuEJ:nationalhumanitiescent er.org/pds/livingrev/religion/text3/adamsjeffersoncor.pdf+June+28,+1813%3B+Letter+to+T homas+Jefferson+adams&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us


"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, [Page 418] as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.
Samual Adams, Rights of the Colonists

[Josh_LA]

You've often talked about "immutable laws of nature", by which you've supported eugnics, racism, and who knows what else.

The founders believed in immutable laws too, immutable laws written by Almighty God. Spiritual laws. I've yet to see anything from you even suggesting anything spiritual.



The difference is.

My belief and respect for nature are laws NEVER VIOLATED ONCE throughout history, even our fathers had to obey them. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

Our founders might've been nice to entertain extra compassion and extra care out of their own generosity, but they too had to answer to a gun if it was every available. It is very nice to be able to convince other human beings civilly how to respect liberty and nature, but only as good as they're willing to respect you. If they decide to use force, good luck (guess what they said to the crown when they chose not to play ball?).

I don't believe in spiritual laws, so your point is?

[BeFranklin]

The difference is.

My belief and respect for nature are laws NEVER VIOLATED ONCE throughout history, even our fathers had to obey them. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.

Our founders might've been nice to entertain extra compassion and extra care out of their own generosity, but they too had to answer to a gun if it was every available. It is very nice to be able to convince other human beings civilly how to respect liberty and nature, but only as good as they're willing to respect you. If they decide to use force, good luck (guess what they said to the crown when they chose not to play ball?).

I don't believe in spiritual laws, so your point is?

You can stop saying our founders. You clearly don't share or believe in the same founders.

[Josh_LA]

You can stop saying our founders. You clearly don't share or believe in the same founders.

yes I do, you are in denial of the fact our founders had to murder people to achieve their goals. (and sadly, you are ashamed of them doing what was both right and necessary) They didn't talk it out like civilized men (because it wasn't and option and they were not retarded). They didn't bend over and let them f- them in the ass (because they were not ****).

If you know so much, how about you dig out some history if you have any on how our fathers didn't like racism or didn't like sexism (something other than "all men are created equal")? What did they say about slaving negroes or equality for Jews who denied their savior?

[Kludge]

Why bother with civilization at all, Josh?

[Josh_LA]

Why bother with civilization at all, Josh?

because it's nice to be civil when you can afford to be.

there's a difference between something being permissible and desirable.
there's a difference between something being necessary and preferable.

[tonesforjonesbones]

bump again for the Founders! tones

[wizardwatson]

People always confuse religion with a belief in God. They then further confuse the word 'God' when someone uses it, for their own interpretation of some God of some religion they themselves don't follow or practice and then assume that is the 'thing' or 'concept' to which the speaker is referring.

Somewhere along the line, someone codified this ignorance into a belief system and called it atheism.

God has no religion. -Gandhi

[Josh_LA]

People always confuse religion with a belief in God.

I don't consider any being who can't tell the difference "people"

[Josh_LA]

All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor.
B Franklin

Not enough that they didn't need to help themselves.

[tonesforjonesbones]

bumpity bump

[tonesforjonesbones]

Most of you hate the Founders...you are not Ron Paulians. you are from another PLANET! Tones

[asimplegirl]

I agree, Tones... how can you be a libertarian, someone who stands for liberty for all, and true justice, when you do not respect the first people to make it okay for you to have those rights at all?

[tonesforjonesbones]

What people are you talking about? I'm a Christian conservative Ron Paul Republican. I love the Founders...Christians and Patriots. tones

[asimplegirl]

Oh, it was general you, lol..not you, you. sorry...

[Ozwest]

I'm an Atheist. So what?

My parents and family still love me. I love them.

None of them voted for George Bush.

I still love them.

[Ozwest]

I'll bet some of you "God Fearing" people voted for George Bush and Dick Cheney twice.

Straight to He (double hockey sticks).

[tonesforjonesbones]

Oh ok asimple..i gotcha.

Oz..what does voting for bush have to do with the Founders being Christians? tones

[LibertyEagle]

I'll bet some of you "God Fearing" people voted for George Bush and Dick Cheney twice.

Straight to He (double hockey sticks).

NOPE. Try again. :)

Note: Oz, I think you know that I could care less what someone's faith is. But, IMO, this thread was warranted to set the record straight, because of the massive amount of BS that was being posted on this forum about our Founders not being what they were --- Christians. I mean, let's just be truthful here. The fact that they were Christians does not change the fact that I would stand up for others' right to have a faith different from that, or none at all, for that matter. I just want the lies to stop.

[Ozwest]

Oh ok asimple..i gotcha.

Oz..what does voting for bush have to do with the Founders being Christians? tones

Nothing mate,

I love your founding fathers ( lived in U.S. for 17 years ), but you guys are stunted by the endless debate about abortions and homosexuality.

And yes...

You elected Bush and Cheney for 8 years, with support from freakazoids.

[LibertyEagle]

You elected Bush and Cheney for 8 years, with support from freakazoids.

I doubt many here voted for Bush and Cheney and those who did, probably would not do it again. So, I'm not sure what tree you are barking up here.

[Ozwest]

I doubt many here voted for Bush and Cheney and those who did, probably would not do it again. So, I'm not sure what tree you are barking up here.

I dunno know Liberty Eagle, what tree could I possibly be barking up?

Go figure...

Or are you going to give me some righteous spiel?

Nobody elected Bush and Cheney.

Nobody supported attacking Iraq.

[Ozwest]

Nobody forgot about the Constitution?

[Ozwest]

Nobody forgot about torture?

[Ozwest]

Phone tapping, illegal arrest and detainment?

[Ozwest]

Habeas Corpus?

[LibertyEagle]

I dunno know Liberty Eagle, what tree could I possibly be barking up?

Go figure...
Don't know.


Or are you going to give me some righteous spiel?
How often have you seen me do that?


Nobody elected Bush and Cheney.

Nobody supported attacking Iraq.
Sure they did, but I doubt many here, did. Do you honestly think otherwise?

I'm honestly not getting where you're trying to go with this? Is this some kind of frustration on your part, because this thread is about our Founders being Christians and you're irritated with the fact that so many so-called Christians, supported Bush? If that's the case, I am too, as I would suspect most are, who are Ron Paul supporters.

[tonesforjonesbones]

Oz...the argument is that there are those right here in this room who would go up against the Constitution and be in favor of amendments to the constitution forcing abortion rights and gay marriage rights when those issues are to be left to the states per the 10th amendment. tones (I am defending the Constitution by arguing FOR the 10th amendment, leave it to the states and to the people) tones

[Ozwest]

What The?

[LibertyEagle]

Nobody forgot about torture?

Phone tapping, illegal arrest and detainment?

Habeas Corpus?

Nobody forgot about the Constitution?

Sure people did. But people HERE didn't. :rolleyes: Remember us, Oz, Ron Paul supporters? Why do you think we supported him? We all hate that crap.

[mediahasyou]

that is what franklin thought...

[LibertyEagle]

Oz...the argument is that there are those right here in this room who would go up against the Constitution and be in favor of amendments to the constitution forcing abortion rights and gay marriage rights when those issues are to be left to the states per the 10th amendment. tones (I am defending the Constitution by arguing FOR the 10th amendment, leave it to the states and to the people) tones

Huh? That wasn't the point of this thread at all.

[Ozwest]

Oz...the argument is that there are those right here in this room who would go up against the Constitution and be in favor of amendments to the constitution forcing abortion rights and gay marriage rights when those issues are to be left to the states per the 10th amendment. tones (I am defending the Constitution by arguing FOR the 10th amendment, leave it to the states and to the people) tones

You are a Patriot.

I am saddened to see the country that I love and the principles it stood for be so easily discarded.

[tonesforjonesbones]

LOL...sorry..there are so many threads on gay marriage..i'm just responding to it everywhere LOL... i just realized I did it. Tones

[Ozwest]

And that has nothing to do about gays and abortion!

[tonesforjonesbones]

I guess it is because oz said we are too focused on abortion and homosexuality...that's why my response popped out. tones

[Ozwest]

LOL...sorry..there are so many threads on gay marriage..i'm just responding to it everywhere LOL... i just realized I did it. Tones

I do the same. (Lol).

You are a champion.

[tonesforjonesbones]

:p

[Ozwest]

Serious as shit, I miss America. Especially at Christmas time.

For all you lucky Mother Fu%$*ers out there experiencing snow...

I'm taking out my jet-ski tomorrow Lol.

I'd trade it for my F250 heading up into the Rockies right now...

[Andrew-Austin]

Most of you hate the Founders...you are not Ron Paulians. you are from another PLANET! Tones

Take me to your leader.


http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/2174/marsattacksswgt0.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[Ozwest]

As an Atheist, I am awaiting the remission of sin imparted by yourselves, with the condition that the rest of us be forgiven by you...

[axiomata]

nm

[Ozwest]

BeFranklin,

That was one Piss-Ant answer.

[Ozwest]

I hate outside authority and would prefer to be self-reliant.

You "dribblers" destroy change.

Cause it's like shooting fish in a barrel

I donated over 26,000 to Ron Pauls campaign

Only to have it shot down by you die-hard wankers.

Good luck to ya. .

[Ozwest]

As an atheist I give up!

You righteous pricks lock up your daughters.

I'm listening to some BB. King (666 Devils music).

[Ozwest]

Nine years in Chicago.

Makes me a Chicago Blues Boy.

Gotta love the Blues at X-Mas.

BB Style!

[BeFranklin]

Nine years in Chicago.

Makes me a Chicago Blues Boy.

Gotta love the Blues at X-Mas.

BB Style!

Sorry you're singing the blues at christmas.

[Ozwest]

Sorry you're singing the blues at christmas.

Haven't you heard...

The Blues is God!

[Ozwest]

Sorry, GOOD.

Arghhh

[hypnagogue]

Stupid thread. I couldn't care less about the founders' religious beliefs. I can use Euclidean geometry without worshiping Zeus. I think I'll stick with the philosophy of liberty, something which can be fully explained without the use of dogma, and dump the religious baggage it has accumulated over the years.

Stupid, terrible thread.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sorry you're singing the blues at christmas.

FYI, not all blues is sad. It's a very diverse style, and every area does it differently. :D

[Mesogen]

Oz...the argument is that there are those right here in this room who would go up against the Constitution and be in favor of amendments to the constitution forcing abortion rights and gay marriage rights when those issues are to be left to the states per the 10th amendment. tones (I am defending the Constitution by arguing FOR the 10th amendment, leave it to the states and to the people) tones

Amending the constitution is left to the states as well.

Remember there was an amendment banning alcohol for pete's sake.

[asimplegirl]

Hey, I voted for Bush..and am not afraid to admit it... who was I gonna vote for? Kerry? nope. And, a vote for an independent, would've been a lost vote, so I decided to vote AGAINST Kerry. And, though I do not think BO is going to be THAT horrible, if he does decide to make all kinds of Clinton-like gun laws, and place caps on where and what you can say, I would not be afraid to say I would rather another 8 years of Bush in comparison to that. Would you?

AND...I am Christian, and personally VERY conservative, but, politically, I don't see why we are arguing over how homosexuality and abortion is wrong or right... government is not a moral authority...obviously...and though I voted for Bush, I disagree with ALOT of what he did, and continues to do...

You should maybe look into the fact that over here, alot of times, we have to vote on the lesser of the two evils, not exactly who we *wish* would win, because we know at that moment it is a lost cause.








**I think I responded in the wrong thread, also. I *think*, lol.

[asimplegirl]

Nothing mate,

I love your founding fathers ( lived in U.S. for 17 years ), but you guys are stunted by the endless debate about abortions and homosexuality.

And yes...

You elected Bush and Cheney for 8 years, with support from freakazoids.

AHA! I did not respond to the wrong thread...just WAAAAAY late. :)

[AutoDas]

I just saw Religioulous and Maher was fucking hilarious. :D

[yongrel]

From the Introduction to "Jon Stewart's America," written by Thomas Jefferson:

"Not that we weren't awesome. We wrote the Constitution in the time it takes you nimrods to figure out which is the aye butting and which is the nay button. But we weren't gods. We were men, We had flaws. Adams was an unbearable prick and squealed girlishly whenever he saw a bug. And Ben Franklin? If crack existed in our day, that boozed-up snuff machine would weigh 80 pounds and live outside the Port Authority. And I had slaves. Damn, I can't believe I had slaves!"

[asimplegirl]

Some should note that while making your point, being a complete asshat will result in people purposely making threads just to disprove you, and if you are not completely truthful, and overstate things, you will be seen as a pushy fool.

Sorry, BEFranklin, I am a Christian, as well, and you make me almost ashamed. Please guys do not assume all of us are so full of ourselves.

It is pretty obvious that no matter what you find that our founding fathers may have said, someone else will find 30 other things that are opposite those said by you...and it is also PAINFULLY obvious that while they very well may have thought what you do, they didn't agree with acting as you do, since they didn't do it, and quite frankly, people would have listened more closely to them than to you.

Moral of the story: Being an ass gets you nowhere, not even with people that could have agreed with you otherwise.

[LibertyEagle]

Some should note that while making your point, being a complete asshat will result in people purposely making threads just to disprove you, and if you are not completely truthful, and overstate things, you will be seen as a pushy fool.

Sorry, BEFranklin, I am a Christian, as well, and you make me almost ashamed. Please guys do not assume all of us are so full of ourselves.

It is pretty obvious that no matter what you find that our founding fathers may have said, someone else will find 30 other things that are opposite those said by you...and it is also PAINFULLY obvious that while they very well may have thought what you do, they didn't agree with acting as you do, since they didn't do it, and quite frankly, people would have listened more closely to them than to you.

Moral of the story: Being an ass gets you nowhere, not even with people that could have agreed with you otherwise.

Whoa. How is he being an ass? He is posting historical information. What's the deal? :eek:

[BeFranklin]

Some should note that while making your point, being a complete asshat will result in people purposely making threads just to disprove you, and if you are not completely truthful, and overstate things, you will be seen as a pushy fool.

Sorry, BEFranklin, I am a Christian, as well, and you make me almost ashamed. Please guys do not assume all of us are so full of ourselves.

It is pretty obvious that no matter what you find that our founding fathers may have said, someone else will find 30 other things that are opposite those said by you...and it is also PAINFULLY obvious that while they very well may have thought what you do, they didn't agree with acting as you do, since they didn't do it, and quite frankly, people would have listened more closely to them than to you.

Moral of the story: Being an ass gets you nowhere, not even with people that could have agreed with you otherwise.

The majority of what I've posted are just quotes in context. I've ignored most of the insult posts, the 2-3 additional threads generated, and so on.

I'd ignore this as well too, but God says to tell you that he will answer how you have acted.

[BeFranklin]

Whoa. How is he being an ass? He is posting historical information. What's the deal? :eek:

Ignore it. I'm use to every tactic being used to prevent the truth being posted, including the I'm really a friend treason one.

From the bible, I have no reason to believe this person is a Christian, when their first profession of it is to use it to cuss at someone who is, and is posting documents from others in history.

Jesus Christ himself was cussed at, and by people who claimed to be his own religion. That is the guide I follow for how people act.

[asimplegirl]

I'd ignore this as well too, but God says to tell you that he will answer how you have acted.

Wow...originally, I though you were just misguided..now, I feel that you are insane. God actually tells YOU his punishments for OTHER people? Are you, by any chance a member of Westboro Baptist?


Jesus Christ himself was cussed at, and by people who claimed to be his own religion. That is the guide I follow for how people act.

You never cease to amaze me... now you compare yourself to Christ? pfft.


Whoa. How is he being an ass? He is posting historical information. What's the deal?

See that is my exact question...what is the big deal? Why do we care what religion the founding fathers were? They OBVIOUSLY didn't care what anyone was politically, and didn't agree with their views being forced on those that did not agree with them.

Why must he place hate speech about Jews and such in this thread to prove his point? Does this:


The letter that was being quoted about the flaws of the Jewish system and how horrendous it was. Jefferson definitely looked down on the Jewish system.

prove that he was a Christian? I thought Christians were not judgmental and didn't think others disdain to themselves??? Who knows...maybe I am not the same brand of Christian as some others?


From the bible, I have no reason to believe this person is a Christian, when their first profession of it is to use it to cuss at someone who is, and is posting documents from others in history.

So, the bible itself mentions this exact situation?? Or did God himself come and tell you this, too? See, here's the thing...I don't care what YOU think.. and here's something alot of us Christians don't seem to get...what happens with me, is between me and MY God.

In case you didn't know, you are not judged by words alone... actions matter, too... and since when is saying ass enough to make me not a Christian?? I would appreciate if you would refrain from deciding my religious affiliations for me.

[BeFranklin]

Wow...originally, I though you were just misguided..now, I feel that you are insane. God actually tells YOU his punishments for OTHER people? Are you, by any chance a member of Westboro Baptist?

You never cease to amaze me... now you compare yourself to Christ? pfft.

Yes. God answers prayers. The bible is a guide for how to act and discerning others. God is not mocked. The bible says the pupil is not above the master.

[asimplegirl]

He also says that man does not know the answers. I thought you didn't know better than GOd?

He does not *actually* talk. This is why people think we Christians should be locked up somewhere... in your case, I am getting closer and closer to agreeing.

If you are talking of the bible telling you that *I* will be punished for calling you an ass, you are mistaken...Thous shalt not call BEFrankiln an ass was not a commandment, sorry.

Phelps, Hitler, Extremist Terrorists....they all claim that God tells them through his word what another's punishments will be, and that they deserve punishment....this is why God tells us to leave the judging up to him- I suggest you take that advice.

[asimplegirl]

So, talking down on Jews, and claiming that I am not Christian, as well as claiming that God himself says to me that I will be punished....is that against some rule somewhere? Is that not insulting or antagonizing? Or is it only when we disagree with the village nutcase that we are reprimanded? 'Cause I have seen some pretty harsh language here, and *this* is enough to get a mod out of hiding?

[LibertyEagle]

You were warned three times.

Goodbye.

[hypnagogue]

LibertyEagle, your bias is showing. Have some decency and cover up.

[LibertyEagle]

LibertyEagle, your bias is showing. Have some decency and cover up.

Nope. Only following forum guidelines. The poster in question was warned several times not to name-call, but she kept on anyway. While there is much more tolerance for established forum members, it is simply not tolerated from new forum members.

Thanks.

[Mini-Me]

Nope. Only following forum guidelines. The poster in question was warned several times not to name-call, but she kept on anyway. While there is much more tolerance for established forum members, it is simply not tolerated from new forum members.

Thanks.

Normally I might agree, but asimplegirl was not entirely unprovoked before all of her posts. Lines like this are bound to incite a verbally violent reaction, and with cause:

I'd ignore this as well too, but God says to tell you that he will answer how you have acted.

Not that my vote counts for anything, but if it did, I'd vote to have asimplegirl reinstated.

[Dr.3D]

Not that my vote counts for anything, but if it did, I'd vote to have asimplegirl reinstated.

Same here, but she was pretty much trying to derail this thread. I don't believe calling someone an ass is really that bad. I've been called worse on these forums and the people who did the name calling are still here.

Sometimes it is better to just read and not say anything. (this post may have been one of those times)

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well...the chick only had 125 posts..was relatively new and already tryin to run things LOL...tones

[tonesforjonesbones]

I'm not trying to derail this thread because I love this thread and think it is a great reference source..and i thank BeFranklin for pulling this information together. I did stumble upon this little essay. I think this minister has a fun and laid back approach. Tones

A Wild and Crazy Guy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.”
“Dear woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.”
His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water” ; so they filled them to the brim.
Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”
This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.
—John 2:1-11, NIV

This passage is associated with Epiphany in both eastern and western Christianity and is traditionally read and expounded upon at that time.

A number of years ago, I had to preach at a Roman Catholic wedding. Now you may be surprised that I, a non-Catholic, was able to do that, but you won’t be any more surprised than I was at the time! Anyway, before the service, the priest got out his Bible and his service books and went over the service with me. In Roman Catholic church services, like most other churches, there are two or three Bible readings which are supposed to set the tone for the service and the topic for the sermon. The priest explained to me that in the Roman Catholic church, the normal gospel reading for weddings is the present passage about the wedding at Cana, but he conceded that it really wasn’t a very good choice, because the wedding was not the topic of the passage, but just an incidental background detail. The real topic was the changing of water into wine. So he told me that if I wanted to use a different passage, I could select one and he would read that instead.

I told him that I was a guest in his church and that I would not insist on any changes, and that the wedding at Cana would be just fine. Then I told him that the reason the passage was assigned for weddings even though it really only sideswipes the topic is because it is the only wedding in the New Testament; and then the action doesn’t really take place at the wedding, but at the wedding reception. There are no wedding ceremonies in the Bible.

The priest was somewhat taken aback, because he had never realized that before!

So now you know a good trivia question about the Bible.

Getting back to the scripture at hand, it appears to me that the incident did not take place at the wedding proper, but at the equivalent of the reception. So I want you to think about the following things that I notice about this passage.

Jesus went to a party.
Now I am not a party animal, and it would suit my sensitivities just fine if Jesus were a sourpuss and a party-pooper who shunned frivolous social gatherings, like some deeply spiritual but stern church people do. However, Jesus did go to a party, and there is no record here that He disapproved of the frivolity or the revelry, or that He sat with a frown in a corner like I do. Obviously, the people were having a roaring good time, presumably it was all clean fun; Jesus didn’t mind a bit and didn’t criticize it.

So I conclude from this that a dour life of denying oneself frivolous pleasures is indeed a good thing, but there’s no harm in parties either. I don’t like parties because I really don’t know what to do with myself. Someone always tells me to “loosen up” and “just be myself” and I always reply that I am naturally stodgy and wooden! I also don’t like parties because I have difficulties picking out only one conversation from the din. I spend all my time saying “Pardon me?” and “Huh?” and trying to keep my mind from drifting into other conversations. So I end up sitting by myself, lonely and bored.

So it would be real easy for me to take my own inadequacies and transform them into virtues. I could decide that the reason I don’t like parties is because I am such a holy Christian and as such I eschew superficial pleasures and find my joy in more serious one-on-one spiritual conversations, Bible study, and worship. Oh, if I worked on it real hard, I could work myself into a real sanctimonious lather!

But then I read about how Jesus went to a party and everybody had a good time, and I am rebuked in my sinful pride.

Jesus allowed Himself to be convinced to work a miracle that He wasn’t inclined to do.
You notice that Jesus worked the miracle even though He objected to it at first. His objection was not to the wine or to the party, but to the timing. He did not say, “But mother, they shouldn’t be drinking wine!” and He did not say, “But mother, they shouldn’t be partying like this!” What He said was, “It isn’t time for miracles yet.”

So this makes me wonder if we cannot upon occasion change God’s mind. I wonder (but I won’t make a dogmatic statement because I am not sure) if we cannot through prayer actually convince God to work His will a slightly different way. Well, in any event, I think this teaches us that we should persist in prayer, even against all odds. You never know. Maybe it is God’s will for Aunt Matilda to die on Thursday, but because of your prayers, He decides to delay it to Saturday so Cousin Fred can come and say good-bye.

By turning the water into wine, he prolonged the party.
Now if I do get hornswoggled into going to a party, I do attempt to join in the fun, but eventually I find that I can’t follow any of the conversations and I am left standing alone in the room. So I sit down by the side and envy everyone else. The host comes by, offering me refreshments and I turn them down. So they immediately become very solicitous, concluding from my wallflower seat and my refusal of alcohol that I might whip out a two-ton Bible and start assaulting the guests! I always have to explain that my reason for not drinking alcohol is because it gives me a horrible belly-ache and a splitting headache, and I that I’m always ill at ease at parties. And yes, I am religious, but no, I don’t sit in judgment over the party, I’m really wishing wistfully that I could have fun too, but I can’t. They don’t believe me and that compounds my social handicap, so you can see why I avoid parties.

So here is where Jesus really rubs it in. I mean, from the standpoint of a person like me who finds parties intimidating at best and threatening at worst, it’s bad enough He went to a party, but did He have to supply refreshments so the revelry could be increased and prolonged? Clearly I am left to reconsider myself and my attitudes. Jesus, once again, won’t allow me to make my shortcomings into virtues or to wallow in sanctimonious pride.

When Jesus did agree to make the wine, He didn’t mess around. He made the very best the bartender had ever tasted!
So treasure the gifts that God gives you. It might not be immediately apparent, as it was at Cana, but when God gives you something, it is the very highest quality—and I assure you that He didn’t get it off the bargain rack, it comes custom-made, special order, with all the options, and at a high cost. You should be more grateful, perhaps.

Problems and Objections
Why wine, of all things?
In the United States, the religious movements that evangelized the west have a tradition of abstinence from alcohol. This is because alcoholism was a major social problem there in the nineteenth century. The crusaders against the ‘demon rum’ were not overreacting; they understood the problem and their actions were completely appropriate to their situation. So many of us come from backgrounds that still condemn alcohol consumption even in moderation. This business with the wine is a problem for some of us, but not for the people at the wedding reception in Cana. The social problems of the nineteenth century still lay far in the unimaginable future. Jesus, being fully incarnate in the first century, acted within the first-century context.

Wasn’t it disrespectful for Jesus to call His mother “woman” ?
There is really no way to translate this to convey the same effect that it has in the Greek. In our culture, addressing a man as “man” is chummy (as in, “Hey man, what’s happenin?” ) but addressing a woman as “woman” is definitely not. I can’t explain this oddity, but I know it is not the case in Greek. Actually, Jesus calling His mother “woman” had no more and no less affection in it than if His mother had called Him “son.”

[tonesforjonesbones]

bump for Christmas! tones

[heavenlyboy34]

bump for Christmas! tones

I especially like this part "Wasn’t it disrespectful for Jesus to call His mother “woman” ?
There is really no way to translate this to convey the same effect that it has in the Greek. In our culture, addressing a man as “man” is chummy (as in, “Hey man, what’s happenin?” ) but addressing a woman as “woman” is definitely not. I can’t explain this oddity, but I know it is not the case in Greek. Actually, Jesus calling His mother “woman” had no more and no less affection in it than if His mother had called Him “son.” "

This illustrates why it's difficult to make perfect, solid decisions about the text in any way without understanding the language they were written in-as I've always felt. :)

(maybe someday I'll pick up hebrew, greek, and aramaic when I finish my Russian lessons :D) Nice post for both critics and fans of literal translations.

Merry Christmas, Tones! ~hugs~

[asimplegirl]

I have one off topic question:

Can you show me where I was warned more than once?

[Mod Note: Yes, I can, but, that would require me posting your infractions and the PMs I sent you. Check your in-box.]

BTW, seems to me, one is entitled to an opinion if they have a certain number of posts, which hardly seems fair. Luckily, there are some in this forum, who like Dr. Paul *and* our founding fathers, see that everyone has the right to be treated fairly.
[Mod Note:
+ Any form of antagonizing other members is not allowed by non-established members.
+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner. It is possible to discuss your points as to why you feel the way you do, ideally you should include alternate suggestions or acknowledge you have none.]
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

Now, back to the topic at hand:


Why do we have to um accept now that all the founders were Christian? This just gets stupider and stupider, they came from a variety of faiths. I don't think anyone has ever claimed they were secretly atheists. Unless you somehow group deism with that, wtf? Though I've seen you quote Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson together as some sorta support they clearly each differed a bit from eachother with their beliefs. Personally I think most people just wanna give this argument to you cuz it's inane.

I agree that this is crazy, but, hey, we already know that, right?


The cherry picked Thomas Jefferson quotes are pointless you'll notice, he framed them as a question.... "?" He was very independent in his religious thinking and philosophy something worth considering looking into applying to yourself if you wanna throw his words around. The Adams were very religious and in my personal opinion not my favorite founders anyway. Henry and Franklin were very devout as well....so um cool. Washington's quote you picked for him is much more philosophical than religious. He's seeing the moral element of religion as the indispensable teaching, and he sees the religious element as connected. Few would argue that moral element in religion is the most important teaching it offers. Once again it's a question, and he's framing it more in support of religion than against it. You'll notice it's not Christian specific either.


All of the founding fathers were very good at this, and I do believe it is because they, unlike many today, believed it okay not not agree with them, and didn't think it of the highest regard to prove their faith and constantly use it as leverage. They obviously thought that they were right, as anyone, but also could see that questioning their beliefs was all part of being human... I have no time to look it up right now, but my favorite Jefferson quote says something along the lines of "If there is a God, he would want you to question his existence" or something like that..come on, BE, I know you know the one I am talking about.

[tonesforjonesbones]

asimplegirl..if you are a christian why do you fight against it? There has been an overwhelming amount of evidence on this thread that they were Christians. Many of you want to spin it or ignore it. I have said myself over and over if we don't have a moral society...we can't get moral judges and politicians. Religion, particularly Christianity...is the last little wee thread holding this Constitution UP...for if you shills succeed with the gay marriage nonsense...and the gays close the churches....you will NOT be happy and you will have no constitution at all left. You really should be thinking about what your doing. Be careful what you ask for...you might get it. tones

[asimplegirl]

I am not fighting against *Christianity*..I am fighting against BeFranklin's apparent brand of Christianity.. the whole hellfire and brimstone, you're damned to hell for saying a stupid word that means nothing, everyone in history who mattered was just like me, shove this in your pipe, brand...that's all...

I don't think we need "moral" judges and politicians...I think morality has no place in the government...it's not their job. and gays CANNOT close churches, that's just dumb.

All I am asking for is for people to be far and treat each other as the fragile beings we are. You may not realize it, but there are alot of people that support our causes that you would shun in a heartbeat if you didn't know their political affiliations- I have seen it happen. Alot.

I want people to grow up and see that just because we see something as right does not mean it is the only way...and that just because we don't agree, doesn't mean we cannot understand, and do so respectfully.

Doing it this way makes us Christians seem less than palatable to nonbelievers, who are told by those like them that we are, guess what? JUST THE WAY WE PRESENT OURSELVES. JUST LIKE THIS. Get a grip. You wanna win people over? Do so by showing the the partof Christianity that is God's right hand: his love, grace, kindness, tenderness, understanding, faith...and leave his left hand alone for five minutes.

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

[tonesforjonesbones]

You say there should be no morality in government? Are you 12 years old? i'm weary of the kids on this forum. I think you should have to be 21 to be on it. tones

[asimplegirl]

i am not 12...lol...haven't been for a longtime..and, no I do not think morality has a place in government. IT should be small and protect three things:

life of born citizens, property, and freedom...that's all. Everything else is personal choice, and opinion..Everyone's idea of what is moral and right differs. I think that anyone who assumes they know what is morally right for everyone, and wants to enforce it is childish, so kiss that. :)

[tonesforjonesbones]

If there is no moral society you get an immoral government...can you not see that we have an immoral government? Of course there MUST be morality in government...now , if you are talking about legislating morality..such as amending the constitution on moral issues or issues not within their limited power, I can understand that. Leave it to the states and to the people...per the 10th amendment, which is exactly what happened in California and florida. The people spoke. Tones

[bojo68]

The founders were right. Without religion, morality declines and the free republic dies.

No it doesn't, my life is proof.

[BeFranklin]

No it doesn't, my life is proof.

You are the republic? You haven't read a darn thing, that very question was addressed a number of times in their writings.

[bojo68]

You are the republic? You haven't read a darn thing, that very question was addressed a number of times in their writings.

Obviously I am not the republic, but the precipice that was founded upon, fails, so then does it. No apology for not reading anything past that either, because it's all hogwash from there out.

[BeFranklin]

Obviously I am not the republic, but the precipice that was founded upon, fails, so then does it. No apology for not reading anything past that either, because it's all hogwash from there out.

No it didn't. They addressed what you called proof right there in their writings. You ought to read it and then come back and discuss it if you wish.

[asimplegirl]

<<<doesn't really CARE what founding fathers(or Theocrat for that matter) thought about atheists, fact of the matter is the constitution is what it is, therefor there is a separation of church and state.

Amen!


ROFL, sure, uh-huh. So, according to you, they were so shortsighted that they couldn't fathom that that is inconsistent right out of the box, and further, because of this you have the right to assault everybody with YOUR brand of fallacy, while others are prohibited. Your dementia is amusing. See the above if you ever wonder why Christians are viewed with disrespect.

Even some of us Christians don't agree with this brand of Christianity- I for one am totally against it. I would appear that certain folks have no problem with you having your own opinion, as long as it odes not differ from theirs.

Well, from a Christian who follows God's word, and does not pick and choose, I say to you, good job, He would be proud of you to stand up for what you believe in against someone who goes against everything He teaches with this tactic.

[bojo68]

Amen!



Even some of us Christians don't agree with this brand of Christianity- I for one am totally against it. I would appear that certain folks have no problem with you having your own opinion, as long as it odes not differ from theirs.

Well, from a Christian who follows God's word, and does not pick and choose, I say to you, good job, He would be proud of you to stand up for what you believe in against someone who goes against everything He teaches with this tactic.

For the record, I'm not prejudiced against ALL christians, just most of them. I have friends I've known for decades that have said I'd make a better christian than the people they go to church with, but that doesn't make me want to be one!:) I even put up with my sister's bible thumping up to a point. She knows when she reaches that point, and what will happen if she continues also.(she won't have a brother anymore)

Simple, you seem to have a head on your shoulders...:)

[BeFranklin]

...

[tonesforjonesbones]

It is so sad that the agenda has been 90% accomplished. i was listening to the woman who wrote The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. She was advisor for the Board of Education...and for about 100 years...the powers have been working on it. It's no wonder all these kids are atheists...they have been conditioned to be so. There's been a whole lot of brainwashing going on. All I can say..is try to resist. Tones

[LibertyEagle]

Well, from a Christian who follows God's word, and does not pick and choose, I say to you, good job, He would be proud of you to stand up for what you believe in against someone who goes against everything He teaches with this tactic.

He is posting words from our Founders (in context) to rebut the many claims on these forums for month on end, that our Founders were not Christians, but Deists and Atheists. You have only been a member for about 10 days, so you probably aren't aware of that history.

[BeFranklin]

For the record, I'm not prejudiced against ALL christians, just most of them. I have friends I've known for decades that have said I'd make a better christian than the people they go to church with, but that doesn't make me want to be one!:) I even put up with my sister's bible thumping up to a point. She knows when she reaches that point, and what will happen if she continues also.(she won't have a brother anymore)

Simple, you seem to have a head on your shoulders...:)

How about getting over your vanity, and actually post something that is readable.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I have one question. Do most of you believe we are heading toward a one world government? Tones

[LibertyEagle]

It is so sad that the agenda has been 90% accomplished. i was listening to the woman who wrote The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. She was advisor for the Board of Education...and for about 100 years...the powers have been working on it. It's no wonder all these kids are atheists...they have been conditioned to be so. There's been a whole lot of brainwashing going on. All I can say..is try to resist. Tones

Yes, but the Christians who supported Bush's warmongering, aren't helping the situation either.

[tonesforjonesbones]

ahhh but they were also brainwashed. tones

[heavenlyboy34]

I have one question. Do most of you believe we are heading toward a one world government? Tones

I do, but I doubt it's as simple as you make it sound. :(

[BeFranklin]

ahhh but they were also brainwashed. tones

Maybe, but I see the tendancy to go back to Rome in them. Tones are you a catholic? At least one of our founders were which I quoted, but in Europe the NWO movement over there is being blamed on Rome.

[tonesforjonesbones]

My point is, the Book of Revelation talks about one world government. tones

[BeFranklin]

My point is, the Book of Revelation talks about one world government. tones

Maybe, but I read it differently. A lot of it has already happened.

[asimplegirl]

The first few messages you posted were to cuss at me.
I said ass...if you considerthat cussing.. i cannot help you. you are worse off than I thought.


You said you weren't going to post on these threads again earlier today, which is now a lie.



I never said would not post, I said I would not argue, and I haven't...I said I would *try* not to post... picking and choosing again, eh?



You haven't even apologized for the previouis behavior.

And, guess what?? I am not going to...you deserved much worse.



There is no reason to think you are a Chrisitan from these posts.

Good thing it's not up to you to decide if I am Christian, huh?


You have now switc hed tactics to encouraging others to do wrong, as oposed to simply ecouraging the posting of facts and actual reasoning. Even Jesus Christ had a Judas, but not on Christmas day.

hahahahahah!

So, since I oppose your opinion, and encourage other people to stand up for themselves, I am encouraging wrong doing.... wow! you really are full of yourself...simmer down, dude. Don't worry, Jesus loves you, right?

[asimplegirl]

He is posting words from our Founders (in context) to rebut the many claims on these forums for month on end, that our Founders were not Christians, but Deists and Atheists. You have only been a member for about 10 days, so you probably aren't aware of that history.

no, though I haven't been a member long, I have been a lurker for awhile..I have no qualms over his defending what he thinks is right...I *do* however have a problem with his tactics...and how he uses them in the name of God.

[BeFranklin]

Good thing it's not up to you to decide if I am Christian, huh?


I said there was no reason for me to think you are a Christian. Salvation includes both accepting him as your savior and your Lord. You don't seem inclined to the things he said to do.

8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. 10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
James 3:8-10

35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
John 13:35

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21

[BeFranklin]

...

[BeFranklin]

no, though I haven't been a member long, I have been a lurker for awhile..I have no qualms over his defending what he thinks is right...I *do* however have a problem with his tactics...and how he uses them in the name of God.

Yes, how dare I post the actual history and documents of the founders! How dare they use the name of God within them :rolleyes:

You are way too silly, and you're cluttering the thread. I think tones was right when he questioned your age.

[asimplegirl]

Look, I am not going to argue...you know I am opposed to the way you present this.... But, I *will* let people know that not all of us are like you.


"A clever man will always tell you answers. He will tell you things you may not even care about. His purpose is to impress. To be more accurate his purpose is, like that of Narcissus, to see himself reflected in the reaction of your face.

It may be arrogance, hubris, or insecurity that causes him to seek a reaction from you. You are the fulfillment of the need of a clever man. You are the audience that satisfies his need.

The wise man will not try to convince you of anything. A wise man is trying to build himself, not to build you. He asks questions because he wants to learn more. He needs to learn because he is aware of how little he knows about so many things. He is aware less of wehat he knows than of what he does not yet know.

A wise man will not proselytize you. If you are willing and eager he may guide you to find your own answers. He will not push you because he is on his own quest.

Then we have those who are neither clever, wanting to convey to us how much they know, nor wise. They do not ask questions. They wish to give the impression that they know as much as they need to know.

They have learned from the ethics of business that they should "never let them see you sweat". Never give the impression that you don't know. When you don't know, fake it. Pretend. Most times others wont know that you don't know.

While that is the apparent ethic of business, it is not a real one. The person who doesn't ask questions and who doesn't know will never rise against the competition because deep down others know the truth. The ones who know will reach where they want to go.

The ones who don't ask questions don't try to learn. They remain ignorant. Comfortably ignorant, as they persuade even themselves that they know as much as they need to know.

Yet they are always poor. Poor of spirit because they think of themselves first. Poor of intellect because they close the doors of opportunity to learn. Poor of character because they deceive even themselves, thus having no hesitation of deceiving others.

A wise man will share what he knows. But you will have to ask. Otherwise he will be busy. He has his own quest, he will assume you have your own.

Bill Allin
Turning it Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems, Striving to Show the Difference.



Please just chew on that awhile.

[asimplegirl]

Normally I might agree, but asimplegirl was not entirely unprovoked before all of her posts. Lines like this are bound to incite a verbally violent reaction, and with cause:


Not that my vote counts for anything, but if it did, I'd vote to have asimplegirl reinstated.



Same here, but she was pretty much trying to derail this thread. I don't believe calling someone an ass is really that bad. I've been called worse on these forums and the people who did the name calling are still here.

Sometimes it is better to just read and not say anything. (this post may have been one of those times)

I just saw these, and thank you guys for seeing what was happening in an unbiased way, even if you do not agree with what I did or why. I really appreciate it.


Simple, you seem to have a head on your shoulders...:)

Well, I sure hope so! ;)

Thank you.

[BeFranklin]

Look, I am not going to argue...you know I am opposed to the way you present this.... But, I *will* let people know that not all of us are like you.

Thats the problem, "you will".

I *did not* attack you or even address you. You started repeatadly cussing at me. I will never do that, or attack another Christian who is in good faith doing what the Lord commands him.

May that be the difference people know between you and me.

Now stop cluttering up the thread with off topic posts :p

[asimplegirl]

But, I *will* let people know that not all of us are like you.

Thats the problem, "you will".

Is this not my right? To stand up for what *I* believe to be truth? And , tell that you are not some sort of authority in this arena as you make yourself appear to be? Or are only YOU allowed to stand up for YOUR beliefs? I thought that the point of being a person who stands up for liberty was that EVERYONE got the same liberties?


I will never do that, or attack another Christian who is in good faith doing what the Lord commands him.



Originally Posted by BeFranklin View Post
I'd ignore this as well too, but God says to tell you that he will answer how you have acted.

Ever think maybe the Lord does not lead two people the same way?


I *did not* attack you .

Once again:


Originally Posted by BeFranklin View Post
I'd ignore this as well too, but God says to tell you that he will answer how you have acted.

Threatening me with God's wrath, and telling me that what I believe is wrong, is attacking.


Now stop cluttering up the thread with off topic posts

This is ON TOPIC. You are presenting your case in a way that makes all of us, who may even agree with your argue look like fools.

I don't even know why I respond you to you...if your answers can't be copied and pasted, they make no sense. It is a constant cysle of you opening your mouth and inserting your foot.

[LibertyEagle]

Please report posts that do not follow the forum guidelines, these include:

+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner.

+ Any form of antagonizing other members is not allowed by non-established members.

+ No promoting of campaign tactics or other activity that grossly counter the morals or ethics of Dr. Paul.

Source: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

Thanks!

[asimplegirl]

Well, I would like to report that being told I am not a Christian, being told that God himself told BeFranklin that I was wrong, and saying that I am not yet an adult are all ways of insulting me.

May it also be said that once he was called out that maybe "the Lord was calling me" to defend the right way to show your case as a Christian, he now refuses to answer, and I assume, from your showing up, is playing the victim.


I have no problem with Be ignoring me, as a matter of fact, appreciate it, but would love it if he could be called on his actions, and not me be the only one forced to abide by rules.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, I would like to report that being told I am not a Christian, being told that God himself told BeFranklin that I was wrong, and saying that I am not yet an adult are all ways of insulting me.

May it also be said that once he was called out that maybe "the Lord was calling me" to defend the right way to show your case as a Christian, he now refuses to answer, and I assume, from your showing up, is playing the victim.

I have no problem with Be ignoring me, as a matter of fact, appreciate it, but would love it if he could be called on his actions, and not me be the only one forced to abide by rules.

If you want to report something, the way to do it is to use the http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/report.gif button to report the post to the Moderators.

[BeFranklin]

Well, I would like to report that being told I am not a Christian, being told that God himself told BeFranklin that I was wrong, and saying that I am not yet an adult are all ways of insulting me.

Nope, I said I have no reason to think you are a Christian. It was in response to you saying you were a Christian in several messages and using it as a means to cuss at me at the very same time. I have no reason to think anyone is actually a Christian who is doing wrong in the very act of proclaiming it.

If the thread bothers you, you don't have to read it. It is intended to post actual historical quotes in context of the founders and facts. It is not intended as a debate over what you personally think about someone or other drama that takes away from reasoning.

[LibertyEagle]

Is this not my right? To stand up for what *I* believe to be truth? And , tell that you are not some sort of authority in this arena as you make yourself appear to be? Or are only YOU allowed to stand up for YOUR beliefs? I thought that the point of being a person who stands up for liberty was that EVERYONE got the same liberties?

As long as you are within forum guidelines, you are free to post whatever you wish. However, this particular thread's intention is to post historical quotes of our Founders with enough context to understand their message. You are free to start a thread of your own, as off-topic posts are subject to deletion or moving.

Thanks.

[asimplegirl]

Just so both of you guys know, as I have stated before, I have *no* problem with the thread or even the point of the thread, but the way BeFranklin is presenting this *is* a problem. And, as I was temporarily banned for saying ass, I think that it is offensive for him to insult my intelligence, to claim I am not christian, and to damn me to hell, saying that God himself told him. THAT actually is insulting.


And, Be, my religion is not up for debate. So, just don't go there.

[LibertyEagle]

Please let this thread stay on-topic. If you want to have an off-topic personal discussion, please take it to Private Messages.

Thanks.

[Kludge]

Please let this thread stay on-topic. If you want to have an off-topic personal discussion, please take it to Private Messages.

Thanks.

It's in the "Off Topic" subforum..... >.>

[asimplegirl]

correct, kludge. See, it doesn't take a "mod" to know how to read.

[LibertyEagle]

It's in the "Off Topic" subforum..... >.>

lol. True. But the forum guideline pertains to the intent of a THREAD.

+ Off-topic posts - Posts that do not relate to the threads intent are subject to being deleted.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

[tonesforjonesbones]

...not to mention you are making the athiests and haters of Christianity crawl into the corner in the fetal position...hehe. Tones

[Sheepdog11]

...not to mention you are making the athiests and haters of Christianity crawl into the corner in the fetal position...hehe. Tones

Ouch, my worldview! :rolleyes:

[asimplegirl]

Huh I personally don't believe in the good old days type of outlook. We have had a slew of crappy presidents as far I can tell going back to atleast the civil war. If you look into the history of our politicians there were scandals and infidelity from the beginning. I think the biggest issue is just how accepted it really has become. Anyway all our politicians have been religious as far as I can tell and it hasn't helped shit. The presidential oath has always been to the constitution not God or anything else. Anyway I think even Ron Paul is wrong about the secularism of our politics. It just has become more PC to accept even more religious groups. I see Obama and Bush invoking God all the time and other politicians. People in congress say religious stuff all the time just watch C-Span. It's not like constant and it shouldn't be but it's there.

I could not agree with you more. I am told by people on the TeamSarah forums constantly (hey! I get lonely sometimes, okay?!) that I am not Christian for thinking this, but in truth, I just know how to separate my religion and my politics.

And BeFranklin:


A politician is unfaithful in his office? Well, most people are unfaithful to their spouse, most people cheat, and 40% of the kids are being raised out of wedlock. The second is worse then the first, it gaurantees we have less than a generation left. It seems religion really did effect morality. Its not even debatable, that is what happened in the last 40 years.

So, all those kids being raised out of wedlock... that just means not married in the state. Is that any less married if that is done in the church as mine was? I mean technically it could be called wedlock, but is that bad? Nope.

And, the peopel that are raising kids "out of wedlock" may have a better chance with their kids than parents that marry then divorce..after all the statistics for that is for kids who are raised in one parent homes that turn out all wonky.

Atleast they are together. Is it any better to have the child in a marraige that will fail anyway? I think not.

[BeFranklin]

So, all those kids being raised out of wedlock... that just means not married in the state. Is that any less married if that is done in the church as mine was? I mean technically it could be called wedlock, but is that bad? Nope. And, the peopel that are raising kids "out of wedlock" may have a better chance with their kids than parents that marry then divorce..after all the statistics for that is for kids who are raised in one parent homes that turn out all wonky. Atleast they are together. Is it any better to have the child in a marraige that will fail anyway? I think not.

No. The statistic is 40% in single family homes. I could point to countless other examples. If someone is swiming in sin, they may not see it. No, that is not addressed to anyone in paticular.
It doesn't necessarly mean one's own sin either - but the society's sin.

[asimplegirl]

I am NOT swimming in sin, I am married in the eyes of God, through a church, and have had my union blessed as such. Just because I do not vow my union to the government, who, if you would open your eyes would see, is NO moral authority does not make my marraige a sin.

Maybe you should step down from your high horse long enough to realize that your "Christian" attitude, is nothing like it should be- and is, indeed, more offensive than I have heard ANY atheist EVER speak to ANYONE.

[BeFranklin]

I am NOT swimming in sin,.

I wasn't talking about you in particular. Reported.

[asimplegirl]

Yes, you did have it addressing me, and I DID reportit, only for you to edit.

[Cowlesy]

Please refrain from personal shots (everyone), and if you're going to be in any fashion vague and it gets reported, I'm probably going to redact to save a headache.

Take it to PM's. Thanks!

[asimplegirl]

Thank you.

I still want to know your answer BeFrankiln, that is why my original post was made.

Is it any worse for a child to be born into a marraige of good people, that stay together and raise the child to be happy and healthy than it is for a couple to marry and have a child then divorce only for the child to be shuffled back and forth?

Or would you agree that in this instance the state recognized marraige holds no water?

Wouldn't you agree that it is more important for a child to have two parents together than to have two parents married?

[BeFranklin]

This can be more general and precise. If a society is filled with sin, not only will the members of it have a hard time seeing it, but they are likely to attack anyone who points it out.

This is the historic view, why the founders and others have frequently said that the foundation have to be protected. Likewise, if you remove the foundation, you don't have a stable support - People judge themselves by their own individual standards instead of an objective outside standard. This again makes it hard for anyone who is surrounded by sin to see what is going on, because they don't have an objective standard. Vanity would predispose the temptation to judge themselves well.

Psalms 11:3 If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?

[asimplegirl]

I am not asking about sin, or the founding fathers. Answer the question- or am I correct? If you cannot copy and paste the answer you do not have one?


Is it any worse for a child to be born into a marraige of good people, that stay together and raise the child to be happy and healthy than it is for a couple to marry and have a child then divorce only for the child to be shuffled back and forth?

Or would you agree that in this instance the state recognized marraige holds no water?

Wouldn't you agree that it is more important for a child to have two parents together than to have two parents married?

[yongrel]

Please refrain from personal shots (everyone), and if you're going to be in any fashion vague and it gets reported, I'm probably going to redact to save a headache.

Take it to PM's. Thanks!

Cowlesy, you tyrant. You sebaceous fat ass of a fascist insect who preys upon the people. You nazi, you brownshirt, you autocrat.

You go girl!

[Ozwest]

Who were these some? There doesn't appear to be any of the founders who weren't devote Christians, and only one figure of that time that was a deist.

This particular thread is on the founders as atheists. During the revolution, most of the constitutions passed by the founders would have forbidden atheists from holding public office.

I very much doubt that even some of the founders were atheists, because they wouldn't have been able to hold office by their own laws. America was a Christian nation, and the development of its history before and after can not be understood but by knowing that.

The facts are most of the Founding Fathers were not Christian Fundamentalists or modern Humanists, but rather Unitarians. No one doubts that most of them were Christians, but they were deist, not theist.

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

Thomas Jefferson ---

[Ozwest]

Give it up BeFranklin.

Why do you find it necessary to define others by affiliation and a set pattern of belief based upon subjective teachings appropriate to your social orientation?

[BeFranklin]

Give it up BeFranklin.

Why do you find it necessary to define others by affiliation and a set pattern of belief based upon subjective teachings appropriate to your social orientation?

I'm quoting original documents in context. The founders define themselves when you read everything in context.

[Ozwest]

Guess you got it figured oracle...

Do you derive a sense of superiority being a member of such a elite group of one?

[Ozwest]

Can't help it BeFranklin, I refuse to kneel down or prostrate myself before someone or something whose existence never can be proved.

I prefer self - reliance.

[LibertyEagle]

Stop trolling, Oz.

He is posting documents from our Founders. The fact that you apparently don't like what they show, doesn't change the facts.

[LibertyEagle]

The facts are most of the Founding Fathers were not Christian Fundamentalists or modern Humanists, but rather Unitarians. No one doubts that most of them were Christians, but they were deist, not theist.

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

Thomas Jefferson ---

No, they were not Diest. Go read this thread and find that out.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=173113

[Ozwest]

Stop trolling, Oz.

He is posting documents from our Founders. The fact that you apparently don't like what they show, doesn't change the facts.

That's a tough call Liberty.

I've said all I want to say on this thread anyway.

I'll leave you with your similarily minded bretheren.

[LibertyEagle]

Well Oz, that is your choice. Our Founders were very clear as to what they believed and what they did not. What I find particularly interesting in what BeFranklin is posting is that he is posting enough of a document to show exactly what the Founders were talking about. Instead of the conveniently plucked out quote that some have so often used to attempt to make their point.

I honestly do not understand why this is so difficult for some people to accept. It's not like anyone's suggesting the church run the government. Far from it. In fact, that would be against the Founders' intent also.

So why are people balking so much? It's not scary or anything.

[BeFranklin]

The facts are most of the Founding Fathers were not Christian Fundamentalists or modern Humanists, but rather Unitarians. No one doubts that most of them were Christians, but they were deist, not theist.


Ok. We've gone from the founders were really atheists, to they were really deists, to they were really liberal Christians and Unitarians.

Our founders during the Revolution could not have been unitarians. Unitarianism did not even exist then in any measurable form. It became popular after the war.

Our founders were of all different shades of denominations and doctrines. However, of the few that may have been liberal Christians, does not make most. If you want to use the word most, name who the most were. Name names, make lists. Let your allegations be made known!

Most of you would have called the founders fundamentalists (deserved or undeserved), and vowed your undying enmity of them. They had church services in government buildings. They published government documents proclaiming the Sovereignty of God. They used public resources to publish bibles. They passed laws against gambling (I probably don't support this). They required office holders to believe the divine inspiration of scripture (ie Benjamin Franklin), and their pastors were called the equivlent of "bible thumpers" and members of the "black regiment" by mocking Torries (previously cited). And almost as a whole, they said religious education was necessary for a free country.

[BeFranklin]

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

Thomas Jefferson ---

This quote doesn't appear to be in any of Jefferson's papers I can find. I found the last part of it though. It appears to be a chop, taken out of context, with the first two lines added. If you don't look things up, you will be fooled. It also looks quite a bit different if you even read the two lines following it. Whoever chopped it, it wasn't an accident.

Here is the original in full. In context, its about religious persecution, and does not sound different from what would appear in Foxe's Book of Martrys, Roger Williams Bloody Tenant, or the more modern "trail of blood". In a protestant society, this was standard belief.


The present state of our laws on the subject of religion is this. The convention of May 1776, in their declaration of rights, declared it to be a truth, and a natural right, that the exercise of religion should be free; but when they proceeded to form on that declaration the ordinance of government, instead of taking up every principle declared [290] in the bill of rights, and guarding it by legislative sanction, they passed over that which asserted our religious rights, leaving them as they found them. The same convention, however, when they met as a member of the general assembly in October 1776, repealed all acts of parliament which had rendered criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, the forbearing to repair to church, and the exercising any mode of worship; and suspended the laws giving salaries to the clergy, which suspension was made perpetual in October 1779. Statutory oppressions in religion being thus wiped away, we remain at present under those only imposed by the common law, or by our own acts of assembly. At the common law, heresy was a capital offence, punishable by burning. Its definition was left to the ecclesiastical judges, before whom the conviction was, till the statute of the 1 El. c. 1. circumscribed it, by declaring that nothing should be deemed heresy but what had been so determined by authority of the canonical scriptures, or by one of the four first general councils, or by some other council having for the grounds of their declaration the [291] express and plain words of the scriptures. Heresy, thus circumscribed, being an offence at the common law, our act of assembly of October 1777, c. 17 gives cognizance of it to the general court, by declaring that the jurisdiction of that court shall be general in all matters at the common law. The execution is by the writ De hæretico comburendo. By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the christian religion denies the being of a God, or the trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father’s right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands. This is a summary view of that religious slavery [292] under which a people have been willing to remain who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws.1 But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.1 But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If it be said his testimony in a court of justice cannot be relied on, reject it then, and be the stigma on him. Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure [293] them. Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only. Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry, christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free inquiry been indulged, at the æra of the reformation, the corruptions of christianity could not have been purged away. If it be restrained now, the present corruptions will be protected, and new ones encouraged. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potatoe as an article of food.1 Government is just as infallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. This error however at length prevailed, the earth became a globe, and Descartes declared [294] it was whirled round its axis by a vortex. The government in which he lived was wise enough to see that this was no question of civil jurisdiction, or we should all have been involved by authority in vortices. In fact the vortices have been exploded, and the Newtonian principles of gravitation is now more firmly established, on the basis of reason, than it would be were the government to step in and to make it an article of necessary faith. Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desireable? No more than of face and stature. Introduce the bed of Procrustes then, and as there is danger that the large men may beat the small, make us all of a size, by lopping the former and stretching the latter. Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor morum over [295] each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned: yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. Let us reflect that it is inhabited by a thousand millions of people. That these profess probably a thousand different systems of religion. That ours is but one of that thousand. That if there be but one right, and ours that one, we should wish to see the 999 wandering sects gathered into the fold of truth. But against such a majority we cannot effect this by force. Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these, free inquiry must be indulged; and how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse it ourselves. But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. “No two, say I, have established the same.” Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments? Our sister states of Pennsylvania [296] and New York, however, have long subsisted without any establishment at all. The experiment was new and doubtful when they made it. It has answered beyond conception. They flourish infinitely. Religion is well supported; of various kinds indeed, but all good enough; all sufficient to preserve peace and order: or if a sect arises whose tenets would subvert morals, good sense has fair play, and reasons and laughs it out of doors, without suffering the state to be troubled with it. They do not hang more male-factors than we do. They are not more disturbed with religious dissentions. On the contrary, their harmony is unparallelled, and can be ascribed to nothing but their unbounded tolerance, because there is no other circumstance in which they differ from every nation on earth. They have made the happy discovery, that the way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true we are as yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution for heresy, or a three years imprisonment for not [297] comprehending the mysteries of the trinity. But is the spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Is this the kind of protection we receive in return for the rights we give up? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecuter, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion. [298]



Thomas Jefferson, The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5). Vol. 4. Chapter: QUERY XVII The different religions received into that state?

Accessed from http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/756/86251/1988414 on 2008-12-30

[Kludge]

http://www.forumspile.com/Misc-Im_using_the_internet.jpg

[BeFranklin]

Can't help it BeFranklin, I refuse to kneel down or prostrate myself before someone or something whose existence never can be proved.

I prefer self - reliance.

http://reaganquotes.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/george-washington-prayer.png

[BeFranklin]

That's a tough call Liberty.

I've said all I want to say on this thread anyway.

I'll leave you with your similarily minded bretheren.

You're never going to be free if you can't even admit facts in history that goes against your beliefs.

The quote you quoted by the way appears to be a forgery. Its not there in the original letter.

[BeFranklin]

Still looking around for a source for the rest of the chop, and I see another athiest site has declared Pascal was an athiest :rolleyes:

One of the things Pascal is famous for is Pascal's wager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

[asimplegirl]

Okay, BE, I am going to assume that I am right, then. You cannot find a copy and paste answer to my question and therefor have no response, that is why you keep ignoring it. If you want to prove yourself, answer:

I am not asking about sin, or the founding fathers. Answer the question- or am I correct? If you cannot copy and paste the answer you do not have one?


Is it any worse for a child to be born into a marraige of good people, that stay together and raise the child to be happy and healthy than it is for a couple to marry and have a child then divorce only for the child to be shuffled back and forth?

Or would you agree that in this instance the state recognized marraige holds no water?

Wouldn't you agree that it is more important for a child to have two parents together than to have two parents married?

[hypnagogue]

This is getting to be too much. Are you going to continue to hide behind this charade or are you going to come out and tell us what you really think, BeFranklin. It's painfully obvious.

[hypnagogue]

...this particular thread's intention is to post historical quotes of our Founders with enough context to understand their message. Don't be so blind. It must be willful. The intent of BeFranklin's threads are to condemn atheists and people he doesn't believe are being proper christians, and he's using the founders of our country, people who are rightly respected, faults and all, to do so. He's hiding behind some fake objectivity in order to demean those who don't share his views. It couldn't be more apparent.

We could get this over with if he'd just come out and state his bigoted, ignorant position, so we could tear it down on it's own merits rather than dance around these historical quotes.

[yongrel]

Don't be so blind. It must be willful. The intent of BeFranklin's threads are to condemn atheists and people he doesn't believe are being proper christians, and he's using the founders of our country, people who are rightly respected, faults and all, to do so. He's hiding behind some fake objectivity in order to demean those who don't share his views. It couldn't be more apparent.

We could get this over with if he'd just come out and state his bigoted, ignorant position, so we could tear it down on it's own merits rather than dance around these historical quotes.

+1

[asimplegirl]

LE is BeFranklin's personal protector. Your statements will not even be left in the thread if you threaten to damage his argument. Don't feel bad, I got banned and got two infractions for saying the same.

[LibertyEagle]

Don't be so blind. It must be willful. The intent of BeFranklin's threads are to condemn atheists and people he doesn't believe are being proper christians, and he's using the founders of our country, people who are rightly respected, faults and all, to do so. He's hiding behind some fake objectivity in order to demean those who don't share his views. It couldn't be more apparent.


Actually, there were a plethora of claims on this forum that our Founders were mostly Deists, others claimed they were Atheists and still others claimed that most were Unitarians. Over and over, I saw these things posted, with selective quotes used as an attempt to back up their claims.

BeFranklin clearly stated that he was going to post quotes from the Founders, within context, so people could truly see what they ACTUALLY believed and clear up the misconceptions. He has and is doing a fine job of that, in my opinion. And while he did it, he debunked a multitude of claims that were thrown at him. Some were quotes that people clearly plucked off of some website, without checking to see if it really was in the original document and many weren't, in fact. Others were taken completely out of context. There has also been a pretty fair amount of bashing, rude comments and for the most part, he has maintained his composure FAR longer than I would have been able to.

Look folks, if we do not know what our country was founded upon and why, then we don't even have a basic understanding of much of anything. A lot of people on the board right now seem much more versed in Rothbard than they do our Founders. Don't you think we should also study them and discover the best we can WHY they made the decisions they did? Just maybe, we might learn something. I mean, we have complained all the time, or we did during the campaign, how badly the kids today are taught in school. How they weren't taught about the principles upon which this country was founded and how if they didn't understand that, they wouldn't understand what could happen if they closed their eyes to government encroachment on our liberty. Well here we are now and we seem to be complaining because someone is taking the time to show us where we had in FACT, erred, over and over again, with regard to our Founders. What's up with that?

BeFranklin has studied our Founders quite a bit and has spent an inordinate amount of time entering and sourcing all this information for us. I would think that instead of accusing him of all kinds of hateful things, we might just thank him for his effort.


We could get this over with if he'd just come out and state his bigoted, ignorant position, so we could tear it down on it's own merits rather than dance around these historical quotes.
This is what I see. I see a bunch of people that don't like the fact that BeFranklin has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that our Founders were Christians. Not Atheists; not Deists (besides Paine) and not Unitarians -- all things that have been claimed on here with much fervor, over and over again.

I don't see why this is so scary. Our Founders didn't believe in the church running the government and I don't think anyone here does either.

So, if you respect our Founders, like you say you do, maybe, just maybe, people might want to reconsider bashing Christians, even fellow Ron Paul supporters, so incessantly. Because when you do bash Christianity, you are also bashing our Founders and those principles that are reflected in our founding documents and the form of government they designed for us.

We have freedom of religion in this country. Not just for Atheist and Agnostics, but ALSO for Christians. I know I am not the only one who has repeatedly asked that we respect each other's religious beliefs, but up to this point in time, that seems to be impossible. If we can't even figure this out, well, I don't have much hope of us successfully spreading a message of liberty, because clearly we don't understand it ourselves.

Either we remember what we came here to do and get busy doing it, or we need to live with the fact that did nothing when we had a glimmer of a chance. Until we are sitting in a gulag, there is always hope. Even then, I don't plan on giving up. Somehow I hope we figure out how to work TOGETHER, or everything we have done thus far is going to be for naught. The bad guys are well-organized and keep heading toward their goal, while we sit here ripping each other to shreds. I find it to be very sad. :(

[LibertyEagle]

LE is BeFranklin's personal protector. Your statements will not even be left in the thread if you threaten to damage his argument. Don't feel bad, I got banned and got two infractions for saying the same.

No, you received infractions and were banned, because you were repeatedly insulting and antagonistic towards an established forum member. As you were a forum member of less than 2 weeks at the time, there is very little leeway given for such behavior. Even so, you were warned about it multiple times, to no avail.

Oh, by the way, no posts will be moved from this thread, as this is the off-topic discussion and flame fest thread. Posts that were off-topic from the intent of the main thread were moved to this new thread, as mentioned in the primary thread. We do this sometimes when a rather large thread is being derailed. That way, both discussions can continue on, but the thread the person started is not trashed.

Related forum guideline:
+ Off-topic posts - Posts that do not relate to the threads intent are subject to being deleted
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

[asimplegirl]

No, you received infractions and were banned, because you were repeatedly insulting and antagonistic towards an established forum member. As you were a forum member of less than 2 weeks at the time, there is very little leeway given for such behavior. Even so, you were warned about it multiple times.


Really?? Let's see what the other members think, shall we?



12-25-2008, 03:22 AM
Dear asimplegirl,

You have received an infraction at Liberty Forest.

Reason: Forum Guidelines Violation
-------
Please use care to not violate the forum guidelines by insulting other members. Since political forums of our nature can get out of hand easily we appreciate that people explain why they have a position rather than just make potentially offensive comments.

Here are the guidelines:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22


Please note: infractions are a private way for users to be notified of a guideline violations that prevents other moderators from addressing the same issue over and over. No other users know what's going on and other users get infractions as well for violating the guidelines.

Thank you.
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.


Original Post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1881875
Quote:
He also says that man does not know the answers. I thought you didn't know better than GOd?

He does not *actually* talk. This is why people think we Christians should be locked up somewhere... in your case, I am getting closer and closer to agreeing.

If you are talking of the bible telling you that *I* will be punished for calling you an ass, you are mistaken...Thous shalt not call BEFrankiln an ass was not a commandment, sorry.
All the best,
Liberty Forest



__________________________________________________ _______________
12-26-2008, 11:10 PM


Dear asimplegirl,

You have received an infraction at Liberty Forest.

Reason: Forum Guidelines Violation
-------
This is your final warning. As a new forum member, there is very little tolerance for insulting and antagonizing established members.

Please read the forum guidelines.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

Thanks.
-------

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.


Original Post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1883248
Quote:
Quote:
But, I *will* let people know that not all of us are like you.
Quote:
Thats the problem, "you will".
Is this not my right? To stand up for what *I* believe to be truth? And , tell that you are not some sort of authority in this arena as you make yourself appear to be? Or are only YOU allowed to stand up for YOUR beliefs? I thought that the point of being a person who stands up for liberty was that EVERYONE got the same liberties?

Quote:
]I will never do that, or attack another Christian who is in good faith doing what the Lord commands him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeFranklin View Post
I'd ignore this as well too, but God says to tell you that he will answer how you have acted.
Ever think maybe the Lord does not lead two people the same way?

Quote:
I *did not* attack you .
Once again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeFranklin View Post
I'd ignore this as well too, but God says to tell you that he will answer how you have acted.
Threatening me with God's wrath, and telling me that what I believe is wrong, is attacking.

Quote:
Now stop cluttering up the thread with off topic posts
This is ON TOPIC. You are presenting your case in a way that makes all of us, who may even agree with your argue look like fools.

I don't even know why I respond you to you...if your answers can't be copied and pasted, they make no sense. It is a constant cysle of you opening your mouth and inserting your foot.[/COLOR]
All the best,
Liberty Forest
__________________________________________________ _______________

Oh, yeah, before that, I got banned until I was asked back by someone else.

Now, please note the times these infractions were sent.

The first at 12-25-2008, 03:22 AM, the second at 12-26-2008, 11:10 PM.

Now, I was banned at 12-25-2008, 03:33 AM , exactly eleven minutes after my first infraction was received.




You were warned three times.

Goodbye.

The first and only warning I EVER received to this point was this:



Moderator Note

+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner.

+ Any form of...

This warning came at exactly 12-25-2008, 03:24 AM, nine minutes after my infraction, isn't that strange?

My second infraction came at 12-26-2008, 11:10 PM, exactly 20 hours after I had been banned.

So, to sum all this up, I received an infraction,then I was warned the first time, then banned after you claimed I was warned three times, then I received another infraction.

Again, here are the times so that you are not mistaken:


First Infraction: 12-25-2008, 03:22 AM
Warning Sent: 12-25-2008, 03:24 AM
Banned: 12-25-2008, 03:33 AM
Second Infraction:12-26-2008, 11:10 PM

Do you always send an infraction, then give the first warning, then ban??

And remember the first infraction was not for *calling someone a name*, because that was after he damned me to hell, but for this:


Original Post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1881875
Quote:
He also says that man does not know the answers. I thought you didn't know better than GOd?

He does not *actually* talk. This is why people think we Christians should be locked up somewhere... in your case, I am getting closer and closer to agreeing.

If you are talking of the bible telling you that *I* will be punished for calling you an ass, you are mistaken...Thous shalt not call BEFrankiln an ass was not a commandment, sorry.

And the second?



Original Post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1883248
Quote:
Quote:
But, I *will* let people know that not all of us are like you.
Quote:
Thats the problem, "you will".
Is this not my right? To stand up for what *I* believe to be truth? And , tell that you are not some sort of authority in this arena as you make yourself appear to be? Or are only YOU allowed to stand up for YOUR beliefs? I thought that the point of being a person who stands up for liberty was that EVERYONE got the same liberties?

Quote:
I will never do that, or attack another Christian who is in good faith doing what the Lord commands him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeFranklin View Post
I'd ignore this as well too, but God says to tell you that he will answer how you have acted.
Ever think maybe the Lord does not lead two people the same way?

Quote:
I *did not* attack you .
Once again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeFranklin View Post
I'd ignore this as well too, but God says to tell you that he will answer how you have acted.
Threatening me with God's wrath, and telling me that what I believe is wrong, is attacking.

Quote:
Now stop cluttering up the thread with off topic posts
This is ON TOPIC. You are presenting your case in a way that makes all of us, who may even agree with your argue look like fools.

I don't even know why I respond you to you...if your answers can't be copied and pasted, they make no sense. It is a constant cysle of you opening your mouth and inserting your foot.

Now, do you see anywhere in that second infraction where I even *called him a name? Insulted him? Threatened him?*Nope.

And what about those three warnings? I only got one. After my first infraction, right before I was banned.





Still stand beside the assumption that you are fair and just, and do not have any reason to stand up for BeFranklin, when EVERYONE else save *his and your* friends think you aren't?

Want to see some of the statements you made besides the ONE WARNING I received, and the one where you banned me and said that you had warned me three times, when I could not prove you to be a liar during this time?

Here they are:


Hear! Hear!


This thread, and the other one by BeFranklin, are in response to the many claims that our Founders were not in fact, Christians. They will serve as repositories for reference in the future whenever such claims need to be rebutted.


Fascinating information, BeFranklin. Thanks for posting.


You know what, LE? It almost looks like...no, it couldn't.....LIKE YOU ARE ON THE SAME SIDE AS HIM AND WHEN I DISAGREED YOU GOT MAD.

Now,want to know what some of the others that where commenting in the thread around the same time had to say?

Well, too bad as those who disagreed with you, and told you that you were wrong for banning me had their comments deleted from both the "atheists: thread and the "off topic atheists thread"... So odd, huh?

[hypnagogue]

Allow me to show why I think BeFranklin's endeavor to prove that the founders were fairly standard protestants is not really about historical accuracy, but about admonishing people for not sharing that belief and further suggesting that we can't pursue liberty without it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1884920#post1884920

The country is very immoral and must in less then 50 years disappear just because of that. The only morality most people believe in is morality is what I define it to be, therefore I am moral.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1884512#post1884512

here is absolutely nothing wrong with setting up a Christian country for Christians.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1883027#post1883027

The founders were right. Without religion, morality declines and the free republic dies.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1878781#post1878781

Reading the Founders beliefs and praise of God shows that they were on fire with a heavenly sent fire. It is this fire that will be needed for the second American revival.

Add it all up. I didn't even have to go very far through the post history. I'm sure there are many more gems of this type to be found if someone wanted to look further.

[asimplegirl]

Please don't bring his founding fathers crap here, you know he will want to defend it.....

[LibertyEagle]

Asimplegirl,

Warnings come in multiple forms. Infractions, private messages and posts in the thread itself. You received all three and refused to adjust your behavior. You left me little choice than to ban you.


Oh, yeah, before that, I got banned until I was asked back by someone else.
Do you honestly believe that I was not aware of this? ;) I am also aware that on Christmas when you were reinstated, that you were given ONE FINAL WARNING.

I'll just leave it at that.

You've been a member now for about 2 weeks, so hopefully by now you have had a chance to read the forum guidelines. If you have not, please do so ASAP. It is important that you do so, because it should come as no surprise that you are walking on thin ice here, as you have been banned by a Moderator and given ONE FINAL WARNING by an Admin.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

Note:

You know what, LE? It almost looks like...no, it couldn't.....LIKE YOU ARE ON THE SAME SIDE AS HIM AND WHEN I DISAGREED YOU GOT MAD.
Yes, I like the fact that he is posting documents from the Founders. I find it fascinating. I haven't pretended otherwise. As far as whether this is the reason you were banned, it was not. You broke the forum guidelines, over and over again and you were warned several times and shown the related forum guidelines, multiple times also.


Now,want to know what some of the others that where commenting in the thread around the same time had to say?

Well, too bad as those who disagreed with you, and told you that you were wrong for banning me had their comments deleted from both the "atheists: thread and the "off topic atheists thread"... So odd, huh?
Nothing has been deleted. All the comments are still there. You are probably looking in the wrong thread, if you cannot find them.

Now, wouldn't it have been easier to just ask, instead of making this innuendo? Especially, when you are flat out wrong.

[asimplegirl]

you never warned me three times- i got a warning after an infraction, then i was banned...can you read?

The proof is all there, yet you still lie?

[Kludge]

..... Sally?

[asimplegirl]

rules obviously don't effect your judgments, so don't take the moral high ground with me.

Accept that you only warned me once.

After you gave me an infraction.

Then I was banned.

Show me these three warnings. I dare you. I want times and dates, and they must be before you said you warned me three times and I got banned.

Oh, don't get mad now, LE, you started it. And I am not breaking any rules. I am only asking for your honesty, and in the right place.

This is the thread for off topics from that thread, right? Well, looks like I am home!

Just answer truthfully, and it will end.

[yongrel]

..... Sally?

... Dr. Steve?

[Kludge]

... Dr. Steve?

Dr. Who? :p

[hypnagogue]

Just answer truthfully, and it will end. Take off the hooded robe and step away from the red hot pokers. ;)

[asimplegirl]

Well, you know what?? I am mad.

It really ticks me off when people can sit and outright lie about something, and then claim it as truth when facts are in their face.

Oh, and I am to not direst my questions about it at 'em, because they are mods, and they can "get me in trouble"...like I am five or something.

I am a flippin, gosh darned libertarian, and when authority lies, I stand against it. No matter what trouble it may bring.

[Sandra]

I think to lump the founding fathers into a single religious mindset is like expecting members of this forum to believe the same. They probably argued the same points.

[LibertyEagle]

Asimplegirl,

I am not lying and I find it curious that you dare call me a liar, when the claims you made about the OTHER Admin were simply not true, as I personally checked with him.

I am really trying to be patient with you, but there are only so many times I am willing to count to 10.

Just do your best to follow the guidelines and you will be fine.

[asimplegirl]

The claims I made to th eotheradmin? all I said was that I emailed him all that you said.. and I did. Do I need to paste them?

And you AREN'T lying?

So, where are these three warnings with the times before my banning and my infraction? There aren't any.

My inbox is open for anyone to see if they think they are there. I will let anyone see.

I posted times, dates.

YOU GAVE ME AN INFRACTION, THEN YOU WARNED ME ONCE< THEN YOU CLAIMED YOU HAD WARNED ME THREE TIMES AND BANNED ME. ONLY TO GIVE ME ANOTHER INFRACTION FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT OFFENSIVE AT ALL.

You lied. You can admit it, everyone except you and your friends can see it.

I am following guidelines.

[Kludge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxsfUL6klzc

[LibertyEagle]

The claims I made to th eotheradmin? all I said was that I emailed him all that you said.. and I did.
Actually, you said HE HAD EMAILED YOU, which upon checking, I found out was not true at all. I have conferred with him on this issue and know his stand on it. Yet, you are still here.


Do I need to paste them?

And you AREN'T lying?

So, where are these three warnings with the times before my banning and my infraction? There aren't any.

Look, I MIGHT have taken the time to go find them for you if you had been the least bit courteous, but since you haven't, I'm not taking the time. Believe it or not, I need to pay attention to other areas of the board and not here with you playing patty cake.


My inbox is open for anyone to see if they think they are there. I will let anyone see.

I posted times, dates.

YOU GAVE ME AN INFRACTION, THEN YOU WARNED ME ONCE< THEN YOU CLAIMED YOU HAD WARNED ME THREE TIMES AND BANNED ME. ONLY TO GIVE ME ANOTHER INFRACTION FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT OFFENSIVE AT ALL.

You lied. You can admit it, everyone except you and your friends can see it.

No, I did not lie and I'm getting rather tired of you calling me a liar.


I am following guidelines.
It's fine and great to ask questions or to even bitch a little at the Mods. I guess it comes with the gig. But, when you start insulting other forum members, that's a different deal altogether. The reality is that you have not been following guidelines very much at all, since you joined the forums. As has been explained to you before, it's not ok to insult or antagonize forum members, ESPECIALLY if you're a new forum member. There is a great deal of latitude for long-time members, but not for newbies. Of which you are one, as a 2 week long member.

Here are the forum guidelines that you tend to break the most often. These are the same ones which you have been shown previously.

+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member. There is very little tolerance for violations, particular for new members. Reason: Insults lead to relational which often result in disruption, which dilute the resources of members and the intent of the forum.

+ Any form of antagonizing other members is not allowed by non-established members.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner. It is possible to discuss your points as to why you feel the way you do, ideally you should include alternate suggestions or acknowledge you have none.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=22

[asimplegirl]

Actually, you said HE HAD EMAILED YOU, which upon checking, I found out was not true at all. I have conferred with him on this issue and know his stand on it. Yet, you are still here.





Dec 26 (5 days ago)
Josh Lowry
to me, inkelywinkely

show details Dec 26 (5 days ago)


Reply



Hi. we have lifted the ban on your original asimplegirl account, please try your best to follow the forum guidelines by not using insulting labels on other members. It's still possible to make the same arguments without using them.


Thanks.

Any more?

[asimplegirl]

I have insulted no one. I am doing just as I have seen you do.

I told you you are lying. I then asked for you to prove what you are saying, and you can't...which proves that you are lying.

[asimplegirl]

I want you to debate this, LE, since you say I lied about it...c'mon, let em have it on this email.

You should atleast argue with an opinion, which cannot be proven one way or another.

Fact: Josh emailed me the email above.
Fact: You gave me and infraction, then warned me once, the banned me, then gave me another infraction- in that order.
Fact: You then claimed you warned me three times, which I have posted all of your comments, and there is only one during that time until I was banned.
Fact: You will not even try to prove that you are not lying.

Aw, c'mon now, don't be discouraged, no one believes facts anymore! You can still argue them.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, if that is really something he sent you, it looks like he did. All I know is what he told me, when I forwarded him your PM. I won't share the entirety of his comment but he did say he hadn't sent anything to you, or received anything from you. He probably just misunderstood what was said in your PM.

No, I warned you 3 times and then banned you. The Admins reinstated you on Christmas and gave you one final warning.

lol. You're wanting to play a game and I refuse to partake. I have been around here long enough that most people know that I may be a lot of things, but I am not a liar. So no, I'm not going to play your little games with you. :)

Note: BTW, the posts you claimed had been deleted are in THIS thread. ;)

[asimplegirl]

No, give me the three warnings with times... I have put all your comments you made before I was banned on here. I can put ALL my stuff out of my inbox, also if I need to.

I gave you times, and the exact things that happened.

Evidence presented to you shows that you first A) Gave me an infraction, secondly B) Gave me a warning, then thirdly, D) banned me.


First Infraction: 12-25-2008, 03:22 AM

This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.


Quote:
Original Post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1881875
Quote:
He also says that man does not know the answers. I thought you didn't know better than GOd?

He does not *actually* talk. This is why people think we Christians should be locked up somewhere... in your case, I am getting closer and closer to agreeing.

If you are talking of the bible telling you that *I* will be punished for calling you an ass, you are mistaken...Thous shalt not call BEFrankiln an ass was not a commandment, sorry.

All the best,
Liberty Forest

Warning Sent: 12-25-2008, 03:24 AM


Moderator Note

+ Insulting or personally attacking other users is not allowed by any member.

+ If you are to be critical of another users ideas or message please do so in a respectful manner.

+ Any form of...


Banned: 12-25-2008, 03:33 AM



You were warned three times.

Goodbye.


Second Infraction:12-26-2008, 11:10 PM



This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Quote:
Original Post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1883248
Quote:
Quote:
But, I *will* let people know that not all of us are like you.
Quote:
Thats the problem, "you will".
Is this not my right? To stand up for what *I* believe to be truth? And , tell that you are not some sort of authority in this arena as you make yourself appear to be? Or are only YOU allowed to stand up for YOUR beliefs? I thought that the point of being a person who stands up for liberty was that EVERYONE got the same liberties?

Quote:
I will never do that, or attack another Christian who is in good faith doing what the Lord commands him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeFranklin View Post
I'd ignore this as well too, but God says to tell you that he will answer how you have acted.
Ever think maybe the Lord does not lead two people the same way?

Quote:
I *did not* attack you .
Once again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeFranklin View Post
I'd ignore this as well too, but God says to tell you that he will answer how you have acted.
Threatening me with God's wrath, and telling me that what I believe is wrong, is attacking.

Quote:
Now stop cluttering up the thread with off topic posts
This is ON TOPIC. You are presenting your case in a way that makes all of us, who may even agree with your argue look like fools.

I don't even know why I respond you to you...if your answers can't be copied and pasted, they make no sense. It is a constant cysle of you opening your mouth and inserting your foot.
All the best,
Liberty Forest


No in between no nothing.

Josh emailed me as you said he didn't.


Dec 26 (5 days ago)
Josh Lowry
to me, inkelywinkely

show details Dec 26 (5 days ago)


Reply



Hi. we have lifted the ban on your original asimplegirl account, please try your best to follow the forum guidelines by not using insulting labels on other members. It's still possible to make the same arguments without using them.
Thanks.


Where is your proof? You not answering only proves you to be lying. C'mon, put your money where your mouth is.

[yongrel]

http://www.stimpco.com/carpix/arguingOnTheInternet.gif

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Lame, why do I have to be the de-facto creator of this abortion of a thread.

Fuck all of you. Even the people I agree with, fuck you too, just because.

[LibertyEagle]

Lame, why do I have to be the de-facto creator of this abortion of a thread.

Fuck all of you. Even the people I agree with, fuck you too, just because.

lol. Sorry man. :p

[asimplegirl]

Yes, it is, that is why I am stating facts, since LE claimed I was banned AFTER I got 3 warnings, which I only got one, and after I got an infraction I was nevr warned for.

She then claimed Josh never emailed me, which I proved was right by producing the email...copied and pasted right from my email.

I want her to tell me she lied, and that she was biased. I did not deserve to be banned, or to receive infractions, and would appreciate her not stating as a fact something that is not true.

[yongrel]

This thread sucks. You know what comes next.

[asimplegirl]

I think that is funny, I say ass and that is being rude and putting someone down, even though it was a response to them damning me to hell;, and saying God told them I would be punished, yet someone can say F**k you, and that's quite alright...

Na, you're not biased, oppression eagle.

[asimplegirl]

lol. Sorry man. :p

If you were sorry, you would not have come in here, and said a bold lie to me. You have been given facts. You have nothing.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, it is, that is why I am stating facts, since LE claimed I was banned AFTER I got 3 warnings, which I only got one, and after I got an infraction I was nevr warned for.

She then claimed Josh never emailed me, which I proved was right by producing the email...copied and pasted right from my email.

I want her to tell me she lied, and that she was biased. I did not deserve to be banned, or to receive infractions, and would appreciate her not stating as a fact something that is not true.

You appear to be right about Josh sending you an email when you were reinstated. But, that's ALL you are right about.

Again, I'm not going to play your games. But, by all means, keep knocking yourself out. :)

[Kludge]

This thread sucks. You know what comes next.

George riding in on a horse declaring that Billionaire is coming after you tune into his program?

[yongrel]

http://www.celebchefs.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/alton-brown-knives.jpg

[yongrel]

http://www.celebchefs.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/pudding-with-alton-brown.jpg

[yongrel]

http://www.hafif.org/imaj/makaleci/chef0126-big.jpg

[asimplegirl]

Keep knocking myself out?

I am posting in the thread I am supposed to, about the topic at hand, not threatening anyone, not being offensive...just posting facts and asking for yours, which you don't have because they don't exist.

I will post every single post you made during those two days in that thread and you will only get ONE warning.

C'mon, Oppression Eagle, where's those facts?

[yongrel]

http://www.guidepostsmag.com/media/images/article-images/Alton_Brown_0806.jpg

[LibertyEagle]

Asimplegirl,

You are a 2 week old member of this forum and you are quickly wearing out your welcome. You have been banned by a Moderator and given a FINAL WARNING by the Admins. You are skating on thin ice.

[yongrel]

http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/ABFP/Images/Cooks0106-AltonBrown-credit=PelosiAndChambersPhotography.jpg

[Kludge]

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/images/threads/000/171/058/2579728-alton_brown.jpg

[yongrel]

http://barnyardcreative.com/bon_app/Alton%20Brown_Salt.jpg

[asimplegirl]

I have only been given one warning, by YOU.

I have gotten no other warnings to date.

That is what I am asking you for!!

Show me these warnings and I will be more than happy to stop!!

Show them to me!

[asimplegirl]

Nope, nothing in the gmail inbox, nothing in the PM inbox, nothing here. Only one warning to date.

Show me these warnings. This is the whole point of this stupid issue.

I want to see where I was warned more than once.

[Kludge]

http://i32.tinypic.com/n4frl5.jpg

I'm quite fond of Brown, BTW. He has a nice individualist theme running in his programs. I've watched a couple episodes...

[yongrel]

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/Brown_Alton_1.jpg

[yongrel]

Nope, nothing in the gmail inbox, nothing in the PM inbox, nothing here. Only one warning to date.

Show me these warnings. This is the whole point of this stupid issue.

I want to see where I was warned more than once.
http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/imager/alton_brown_on_the_road_again/b/original/479240/b28e/arts_books5-1_01.jpg

[yongrel]

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2003/09/15/image573355x.jpg

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I see your
http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/Brown_Alton_1.jpg
and I raise you
http://blogs.thetimes.co.za/pendock/files/2008/05/mario.gif

[Kludge]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/4/4016190_9533710cd1.jpg

[yongrel]

http://www.nataliedee.com/032505/alton-brown.jpg

[asimplegirl]

It is only fair.

You claimed I was warned three times publicly, prove it publicly.

You start by reprimanded in public, finish it.

[Kludge]

http://www.richardgoodwin.com/wp/images/alton_brown_richard_lindsey.jpg

[LibertyEagle]

I have already answered you. I am not going to waste my time wading through hundred of posts and my PM outbox to play this little game of yours. I know what I sent you. Now, if you think you can have a flaming hissy fit, demanding that I do what you say and then be successful in your quest, well, that is where you're wrong.

Now, I am going back to my job and you can stay here if you want to and flail to your heart's content.

[yongrel]

BAM!

http://paxarcana.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/emeril.jpg

[Kludge]

Is Alton Brown related to Matt Collins??

http://www.foodieobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/SH06F100ALTONBROWN%5B1%5D.jpg

[yongrel]

http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/food/07/11/26_lagasse2_lgl.jpg

[yongrel]

Is Alton Brown related to Matt Collins??

http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/tvdecoder/posts/1107/emeril.jpg

[asimplegirl]

You have not answered me. You have never answered my initial question.

Where are these warnings?

I have never received them. You cannot PUBLICLY reprimand me, and claim that you warned me three times and not prove it.

You started this crap. Now clean it up.

[heavenlyboy34]

Is Alton Brown related to Matt Collins??

http://www.foodieobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/SH06F100ALTONBROWN%5B1%5D.jpg

An uncanny resemblence! :eek:

[Kludge]

http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/vel12/uploaded_images/v_1107Richards-724719.jpg

[asimplegirl]

Oh, your job??? Moderating???
Well, here is your chance to moderate.

Show me my three warnings, please Mrs. Moderator. It's really unfair for me to get punished when I never got warned. Can you show them to me, please?


Does that make you more inclined to do your job?

[yongrel]

You have not answered me. You have never answered my initial question.

Where are these warnings?

I have never received them. You cannot PUBLICLY reprimand me, and claim that you warned me three times and not prove it.

You started this crap. Now clean it up.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/ap_emeril_071108_mn.jpg

[Kludge]

http://o.aolcdn.com/gd-media/games/iron-chef-america-supreme-cuisine/wii/1.jpg

[yongrel]

http://o.aolcdn.com/gd-media/games/iron-chef-america-supreme-cuisine/wii/1.jpg

http://media.hamptonroads.com/media/content/pilotonline/2007/08/0826deena350x400.jpg

[Kludge]

http://www.geocities.com/blueeyedlightning/Mark_m_1.jpg

[Kludge]

http://josephmallozzi.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/dsc05670.jpg

[Kludge]

BAM!

http://paxarcana.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/emeril.jpg


Is Alton Brown related to Matt Collins??

http://www.foodieobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/SH06F100ALTONBROWN%5B1%5D.jpg


http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/food/07/11/26_lagasse2_lgl.jpg


http://www.nytimes.com/images/blogs/tvdecoder/posts/1107/emeril.jpg


http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/vel12/uploaded_images/v_1107Richards-724719.jpg


http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/ap_emeril_071108_mn.jpg


http://o.aolcdn.com/gd-media/games/iron-chef-america-supreme-cuisine/wii/1.jpg


http://media.hamptonroads.com/media/content/pilotonline/2007/08/0826deena350x400.jpg


http://josephmallozzi.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/dsc05670.jpg

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_IGcPoXkEPio/SEz1SJdChPI/AAAAAAAAJHE/hFWwKhSYMeQ/american_samurai_poster_01.jpg

[yongrel]

http://josephmallozzi.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/dsc05670.jpg

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2008/01/ironchef.jpg

[yongrel]

http://www.popcultureshock.com/wp-content/uploads/manga/kaga_takeshi_e.jpg

[yongrel]

http://www.vond.net/lisa/me/ironchef/kaga.gif

[Kludge]

http://www.ski-epic.com/2005_ErmaWilsonFuneral/p02b_pan_farmhouse.jpg