@anthonynutt1 I know I have a facsimile reproduction of it. And its called the "Jefferson Bible" but the title given by Jefferson was "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth".
@bRizzle2009100 The bible was not about Jesus divinity, who repeatedly never claimed to perform miracles; but simply illustrate the illusion of our perceived reality. The Secret is hidden in plain sight: Anyone can perform the healing Jesus taught; it is God that is reality, those who are willing to challenge their mind can access the truth of the mind. Once this is experienced firsthand, God's left secrets are accessed: Einstein, Franklin, Jefferson, and Newton ALL followed. The Mind is Locked
@bRizzle2009100 It's quite annoying how intellectual deism is anything close to Atheism([1]Defiendum Wiki). "Deism" has no two individuals 'emulate' each other, we allow the transcendence Fundamental Human Flaw, Deists long know the self-conflicting Fallacy in Atheism (Ad-Ignorantum: Lack of 'Proofs' leaves erroneous (emotional) perception as evidence for the opposite, That is inherently false).
The closest 'follower' religion to truth are Christian Scientists; who prove the mind is immortal
I'm a deist, or so that is what we are labeled t individual thinker; I'm also labeled a Deism with the proper logical Definiens laid out by BEN FRANKLIN & THOMAS JEFFERSON. I'm constantly insulted by the simple minded thinking of atheists and intellectually self-dishonest Christians who refuse to understand that Deism requires an intellectually honest approach. We comprehend Aristotle's breakthrough: Atheism is based on a self-evident fallacy. Transcending above; unlocking the Individual
He did'nt believe in the supernatural aspects of the Christos and as Franklin was more inspired by the age of enlightenment's venture into science and social betterment rather than dwelling in a small little narrow minded middle-eastern desert cult/ religion.
@mxylpx Jefferson believed in God and his Divine Hand in human affairs. You can't say he doubted the supernatural. Religion was very important to him, his religion that is. He wasn't Christian. He resembled more of a Unitarian than anything.
why would a physical sacrifice matter when the only thing that matters is the state of your soul? If God is truth and love and light, then ill go directly to the source and that source refuses me, then he is not truly love or light. I have nothing but contempt for your view of spirituality. Its one thing to believe, its another to blindly eat up whatever you read. Christianity and its doctrine were tainted almost from the start by the Roman empire.Buddha and Christ said many congruent things fyi
@runelord37 The Bible is the inspired, infallible and inherent Word of God. Buddha did not die for your sins. Jesus did. He died to save your soul. He died so that you could have everlasting life.
@runelord37 "why would a physical sacrifice matter when the only thing that matters is the state of your soul?" They both matter runelord. You get your body back, your body is very spiritual and important to your experience as a being. It is sacred.
@runelord37 "If God is truth and love and light, then ill go directly to the source and that source refuses me, then he is not truly love or light." You don't understand Christianity which is why you have this good question. God does not reject you. You however CAN reject God. Your freewill is guaranteed, and if you exercise it & you reject God then he will allow you to be far from him. You in effect create that distance (hell or whatever you want to call it). He honors your will.
@jmm1233 If it weren't for that "religious majority" the country wouldn't have ever have been born nor would have survived as long as it has. Its the religious ppl in this country that keep it afloat. You remove all expressions of religion and the religious ppl in tis country, it goes down. Religion and morality are indispensable supports to political prosperity. Read Washington's 1796 Farewell Address.
Recommended Films: "Freedom to Fascism", "The Obama Deception", "The Secret of Oz", and "Don't Tread On Me".
Please don't forget to share them. It will help everyone get up to speed as to what is at stake, what's behind it, and most importantly, how to fix it for good. Peace!
RON PAUL 2012! Please Cut and Paste this EVERYWHERE!
@renaissanceman21c I know. I say that in the video. However, if you watch part 2, there is evidence to suggest that later on in his life he may have changed his mind.
He said in a letter (1826):
"If no action is to be deemed virtuous for which malice can imagine a sinister motive, then there never was a virtuous action; no, not even in the life of our Saviour Himself. But He has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them."
@bRizzle2009100 You understand that a man of reason and spiritual philosophy may make a statement like that without declaring himself as exclusively Christian. No i think it much more likely that he moved towards a clean spiritualism with an agnostic flavor. and regarding Jesus calling himself the son of god...is there anywhere in the bible that Jesus refers to others as daughters or sons to himelf? your suggesting a hierarchy. i dont recall passages where jesus refers to his followers thus.
@runelord37 1.) Jefferson wasn't agnostic. He firmly believed in God and that the world was actively governed by His hand. The reference to "I am a Christian..." isn't what it looks like. He did believe himself to be a "Christian" but his "version" of Christianity was not the traditional version. He believed Jesus never claimed to be divine for instance. That strikes at the heart of the message of the New Testament but in Jefferson's mind this was the "true" version of Christianity.
@bRizzle2009100 i think you misrepresent a true philosophers mind, and i respectfully disagree. agnosticism doesnt preclude belief. and the reason i asked if you knew an instance where Jesus referred to anyone as his children, knowing there wasnt one. this puts the nail in the coffin of the divinity of Jesus.He therefore believed everyone to be sons and daughters of god and saw everyone else as his brothers and sisters. since there is not place in the Bible where he declares himsefl the sole son
@runelord37 Well Jesus does say he IS the Son of God and that no one goes thru the Father but thru Him. He tells his disciples that he will be resurrected and will come again. But Jefferson believed lines like that were added later and Jesus really didn't say that.
However, I think in the 1824 quote I showed u, I think Jefferson implies Jesus had Divinity and its possible he could have changed his mind just before his death in 1826.
@bRizzle2009100@bRizzle2009100 he say we are all brothers and sisters and son and daughters of god. that makes him no different than us.he may have been a prophet and a highly evolved soul, but to say he was the one and only son of god makes no sense if he Father to us all. And yes, they may very well have added that line to emphasize or subtly hint at that division. the truth is that upon close inspection Jesus and Buddha and Krisna have a lot in common. truth and love are universal
@runelord37 Jesus said I am the way, the truth and light. He said no one comes to the Father but thru me. Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved. Buddha and Krisna are nothing like Christ. Buddha and Krisna did not give themselves up to die to redeem mankind. Jesus Christ gave himself up so that we could have eternal life.
Truth and love are not universal. Truth and love come about with Biblical Christianity. The secular world knows nothing about truth and love.
@bRizzle2009100 you seriously believe that some indegenous person who has never heard of Christ is damned? If you dont believe in the love and universality of that love that i can honestly say you dont understand anything that Christ taught. And give himself up for our sins? please. You can only forgive yourself, and if god chooses to forgive you through direct prayer than so be it. I believe that the passage you quoted was a part of the franchise advertising. and the physical body is nothing
@runelord37 RE: "you seriously believe that some indegenous person who has never heard of Christ is damned?" No, this isn't true and a common misconception. You can receive the gospel in the afterlife, hence why Jesus went there to minister after his death, for ex. Also, those that die without hearing the gospel in some cases can go straight to heaven, for example children. God is rediculously fair and gives tons of chances to make up your mind on who and what you want to follow.
@runelord37 Also, I should add that his physical death on the cross was to show that we all get our physical bodies back. That is God's gift to us ALL. You've got to seriously and deeply reject god to lose that gift. However his taking on the sins of may was the second part of his "atonement" which was to pay our debt since we're all liers, cheaters, theives, etc. Almost everyone will be in heaven however not everyone will inherit the same things there. Some will inherit more.
@runelord37 "that makes him no different than us.he may have been a prophet and a highly evolved soul, but to say he was the one and only son of god makes no sense if he Father to us all." You are right about this. He isn't that different than us. We are all children of God, and we all have the potential to be just like Jesus. BUT, he was the ONE that was chosen tom come here to save us. He's the only "Begotten" son, not the only son.
@runelord37 Jesus has little to nothing in common with Krishna and Buddha. Some people and films propegate that like "Zeitgeist" but it's flat false. Interestingly he and his claims are very unique in history. This is also the opinion of historical scholars. Be careful what you believe from the Zeitgeist/New Age crowd when it comes to Christ.
@runelord37 2.) Now later on in his life he made statements that suggested he could have changed his mind.
"If no action is to be deemed virtuous for which malice can imagine a sinister motive, then there never was a virtuous action; no, not even in the life of our Saviour Himself. But He has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them."
And I'm not sure what you're asking me. To my knowledge Jesus doesn't call anyone his children.
(3) "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever"
He's is saying that right come from God and that no one but God can take this liberties away, "they are not to be violated but by his wrath"....
(2) As I have stated time and time again, a DEIST is one who believes in God but does not believe in Divine Revelation or Divine Providence. Jefferson DID believe in those things. He does to fit the 18th/early 19th century definition of a Deist. He went to church, prayed, carried a prayer book with him TO church, started church in the US Capital Building, released many prayer proclamations as Governor of Virginia. He even said things like...
(1) Webster's 1828 Dictionary states Deism is, "The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures."
1) The 1828 Webster's dictionary,written by very religous people that had a particular reason for including the Phrase, implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures."
2) in 1823, "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. "
@seekertrth (1) "The 1828 Webster's dictionary,written by very religious people"
Yea that religious person was Noah Webster a founding father of the United States.
Your 1823 quote is irrelevant. I've already acknowledged Jefferson didn't believe in Jesus' Divinity.
Yes there were church services. Annals of Congress p. 797 December 4, 1800. The Chaplains proposed "Divine services" in the House Chamber and the Speaker and President of the Senate agreed.
@bRizzle2009100 Funny! 1a) Webster WAS religous,very. 1b) w/o belief in Christ's divinity,not Christian. 1c)Jefferson didn't "start" them,as u claim. 2) Historical records,letters/family,etc,etc. Again,u fail to look @ anything other than what u want to believe. 4) I AM going by the Founders words,THEIR records,Jefferson's words AND every scholar,PAST AND PRESENT!! Monticello,last time I was there,agreed he was Diest. I was raised in the church,u obviously don't even know what "secular" means.
@seekertrth 1a) That's what I said. Where is the disagreement? 1b) Correct. Jefferson went thru many periods of his life where he changed his mind about things as he researched more into them. In the letter he says Jesus ALONE can see into a person's heart. What does that imply exactly? 1c) Go to the Library of Congress' online exhibit "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" VI. Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 to see about Jefferson and the church services....
@bRizzle2009100 You didn't check the DETAILS of ur "exihibtion, did u? It is a piece from an OUTSIDE source,accepted as an OPINION piece,titled "exihibtion. Origin: radical,right-wing think tank that's well known for changing facts.
@seekertrth 4.) How's about this for the founder's own words?
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. 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." - John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
I assume your gonna find away around this one too huh? Kind of hard to do that though.
@bRizzle2009100 re: 4, As opposed to the quote from Madison,Founding Father,President,Father/Constitution+Bill/Rights,Jefferson's words,on+on+on. Jefferson's lsat letter took PIRDE in the separation! btw,stop trying to change the subject 'cause u lost this 1. I have established,beyond doubt,on ur other video"A Nation Founded on the Christian Faith," that there is OVERWHELMING evidence of separartation/church/state.
@seekertrth 1. Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter, if read correctly doesn't mean religion should be kept out of the public square. It simply means the federal government cannot establish a national religion. It doesn't mean that individuals are restricted from expressing religion in public or the states are to be kept secular. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." a restriction on Congress, not individuals and not states.
@bRizzle2009100 "Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter, if read correctly doesn't mean religion should be kept out of the public square. It simply means the federal government cannot establish a national religion. It doesn't mean that individuals are restricted from expressing religion in public or the states are to be kept secular." That is EXACTLY what it means, DUH! U change the meaning of things,illogically + say I don't understand. Nope,don't understand crazy
@seekertrth 2. The Adams quote was to show u that the the founder's themselves said Christianity had a huge impact and influence in the founding of America. But u again, go around as if it wasn't even said and keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
3. The exhibition is in the Library of Congress buddy. So I guess the Library of Congress is a "radical religious right-wing" institution bc it says something contrary to what u say? U make excuses for every piece of info I give u.
@seekertrth 4. No one ever said there wasn't a "wall of separation of church and state". There is. U just have to take the correct definition of it. The "wall" was put in place to protect individuals and their right to freely exercise religion from the federal government. It was not to limit religion. The "wall" was put in place in the Constitution when it prohibited the federal government from establishing a federal denomination and limiting an individual's free-exercise of religion.
@bRizzle2009100 there are exhibitions on "I love Lucy" and on liberal points, hahahahhahahaaaaaaaaa...ur claiming THAT!!! as a source....too DAMN! F!U!N!N!Y!!!!!!!
@seekertrth 1) Like I said, i present solid evidence to you and you just pretend like it was never even said or pretend like it doesn't mean anything and continue to tote the same line. This is not an opinion piece buddy. It's not outside of the Library of Congress, it IS an online exhibit posted by the Library of Congress. Everything in the exhibit is backed up with original documents posted in the exhibit itself. Where do you see that this is an opinion piece at? Are you just making this up?..
@seekertrth 2) The Library of Congress is one of THE most reliable sources of historical information as it has in its possession millions of original documents and historical artifacts from United States and North American History, everything from politics, government, economics, religion, philosophy, military and pop culture. To mock the Library of Congress and say its not a reliable source is like a Christian mocking the Bible or a Muslim mocking the Koran saying its not a reliable source...
@bRizzle2009100 Also, re: "Tribute:" the LIbray presents ONLY facts,not opinion or draws conclusions,1 way / other. Ur "Tribute" does EXACTLY that. Nor is there an attributation,something the Library ALWAYS includes. Combined w/ an OUTSIDE home link, the fact that's it's listed as an exihibition by the Library, wrong format,etc,etc.
As I said,u fail to accept FACTS that contridict ur ideology. Then u say that's what I do,that's called "transference" (basic pyschology).
@seekertrth 3) I have a serious question for you. Are you searching for the truth? Are you willing to listen to the truth and let it take you wherever it takes you? Or do you already have a set ideological mind set on how YOU want things to be without even searching for the truth? If you are searching for the truth and let the pieces fall where they may, you will find you are wrong on a lot of these issues. Continuing to reject the truth does not change the truth. There is ONLY one truth.
@bRizzle2009100 re 3) u just described urself. Library of Congress ALSO! presents OUTSIDE works. ur tribute is listed on their EXIHIBITION PAGE< RIGHT NEXT TO "I LOVE LUCY" The format is NOT! Library style, it directly contridcts FACTS on the actual HISTORICAL pages: it is an OPINION,NOT a historical document. Check it's home link: it is NOT the Library of Congress. Keep trying. ur arguements lack logic and u ignore anything that doesn't fit ur pre-convieved ideas,then try to turn it around. sad
@seekertrth "Check Jefferson family corrospondence + other records: Jefferson only attended church as a political/social tool."
Oh really? A letter by his grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph to Henry S. Randall about Thomas Jefferson mentions "He was regular in his attendance at church, taking his prayer book with him. He drew up the plan of the Episcopal church in Charlottesville, was one of the largest contributors to its erection, and contributed regularly to the support of its minister."
@seekertrth (3) I am still anxious to see what outside organization created that exhibition in the Library of Congress. At the top of the page, it clearly states "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" then under that it says "Library of Congress". Not to mention the URL has the LOC URL so its still on the LOC website. If this isn't a Library of Congress exhibition then who's exhibition is it and why does the LOC claim its theirs on their website and in the exhibition itself?!!
@seekertrth (3) I am still anxious to see what outside organization created that exhibition in the Library of Congress. At the top of the page, it clearly states "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" then under that it says "Library of Congress". Not to mention the URL has the LOC URL so its still on the LOC website. If this isn't a Library of Congress exhibition then who's exhibition is it and why does the LOC claim its theirs on their website and in the exhibition itself?!!
@seekertrth (3) I am still anxious to see what outside organization created that exhibition in the Library of Congress. At the top of the page, it clearly states "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" then under that it says "Library of Congress". Not to mention the URL has the LOC URL so its still on the LOC website. If this isn't a Library of Congress exhibition then who's exhibition is it and why does the LOC claim its theirs on their website and in the exhibition itself?!!
@bRizzle2009100 What is wrong w/ u?!? Look it up!!! THE HOME page for the EXHIBIT (which is EXACTLY how it is defined by the Library/Congress!!!!, on the same page as I love lucy,etc) is NOT,N!O!T! the the Library,it's page format is NOT Library format,it presents conclusions and draws OPINION,which is NOT! how the Library does. There is no attributation which is always included in LIbrary format,on+on+on. Not to mention it directly contridicts ACTUAL historical records and direct quotes!
@seekertrth 1) Where and what does it say on the home page of the exhibit that suggests the exhibits were done by an outside organization and is only an opinion? I don't see what u are talking about. U keep saying its there but have failed to copy and paste it onto the comment strip....
@bRizzle2009100 PRT 1 Go to the Library,search "exhibits,ur "tribute" is listed there, plainly+clearly as exactly that. If u go to the "tribute" and click their "home" it does not take u to the Library.The page format is very,VERY clearly not the Library's format. It draws conclusions and tells the reader what these things mean,that's not Library style...the contents flatly ignores all historical records that draw a different picture.
@bRizzle2009100 PRT 2 The Library lists all authors the tribute does not.t Library does NOT write essays, which this is. It goes on + on....THe bottom line is this: Ur tribute bears no resemblance to anything that the Library ACTUALLY does, does things they don't and r clearly listed as on their exhibtion page...What part of all of that do u not understand...Or,more to the point don't WANT to accept it b/c it conrtadicts ur radical ideology
@bRizzle2009100 tell u what, look up how the evanalicans / fedralists were Viciously! atacking Jefferson's religous beliefs @ the time. They were almost rabid (similiar to todays version) in attacking his beliefs + it threatened his political carreer. Of course, there were others (some of whom u seem to hold in high regard). That was his motivation. Speak to the MOTIVATIONS of what he did, not the ACTIONS he took.
@seekertrth 2) Many did attack him in the 1800 election and after about his beliefs. Jefferson never publicly expressed his beliefs and rarely did he do it in private either. He never responded to their attacks bc he felt it was unnecessary. Many nasty and false things were said about Jefferson like him having an alleged affair with one of his slaves. Many ppl said Obama was a socialist and born in Kenya during his election. Now I presume u don't believe those claims now do u?
@bRizzle2009100 "Jefferson revealed that he hoped to accomplish two things by replying to the Danbury Baptists. One was to issue a "condemnation of the alliance between church and state." Those words r from an article posted by the CURATOR OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS!! Read it.
@bRizzle2009100 Actually,u handed me an ace;the entire country,in Jefferson's time knew + accepted the fact he was Diest. These r the people most familiar w/ his speeches,actions,etc.
U r,basically,picking through a haystack,findinga few straws,then stand in front of the entire stack screaming about how the few straws comprise the entirety.
@seekertrth 1) I read the article u referenced. Very interesting indeed. Especially this part of the article, "Since the Library plans to display Jefferson's handwritten draft of the Danbury Baptist letter in its forthcoming exhibition "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,"...." Soooo the LOC AGAIN affirms that the exhibit IS theirs lol. It's funny the article u use to try to prove me wrong winds up proving me right lol.
@seekertrth 2) With regards to separation of church and state, I and the LOC are saying the EXACT same thing. When Jefferson refers to the Sep of Ch & St, he is refers to the federal government's inability to establish a national religion or prohibit an individual's free exercise of religion. The 1st amdmt and the Sep of Ch & St phrase limits ONLY the GOVT not the individual or the church for that matter. Thats why it says "Congress shall make no law...".......
@seekertrth 2 cont).... nowhere in Jefferson's letter nor in the Constitution does it limit religion's influence in the public arena. It restricts the federal govt, again: "Congress shall make no law..." Not the church, not the individual, not religion, CONGRESS. Jefferson says in his letter the "legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Restriction on GOVT.
@seekertrth 3) With regards to his church attendance. The LOC article says that his attendance two days after he wrote his "wall of separation" letter may have been politically motivated yes. And maybe it was, could very well have been politically motivated. However, u also forgot to mention this part of he article (see next comment for the quote from the article)
"Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. (see nxt cmt)
@bRizzle2009100 Your "Scholars...all come from religious schools,universities, etc. Guess what, there is FAR MORE scholars acroos the world and through history,not to mention ALL of the people in Jefferson's time, disagree w/ that but do agree it's an attempt to creat a Christian theology/dictatorship. period
@seekertrth (3) They are not "my scholars" they're scholars referenced by the Library of Congress. Apparently the LOC trusts them enough to include them in the article that YOU referenced me. No one is saying we want a Christian dictatorship. The founders didn't care what religion u were. They wanted EVERYONE to be able to worship in public without interference from the federal govt.
@bRizzle2009100 "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man "
"...those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, endeavored to crush your well earnt, & well deserved fame." - Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, Washington, March 21, 1801
"Those who live by mystery & _charlatanerie_, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, -- the most sublime & benevolent, but most
perverted system that ever shone on man"
He says the Christian philosophy is the most "sublime and benevolent" meaning excellent and charitable/kind. But also the most "perverted". Jefferson believed the doctrines of Christianity were perverted over time. Idk what ur trying to say here.
@bRizzle2009100 The quote shows that Jefferson favored the PHILOSOPHY, not the religious view, of Chist's teachings. So does the articel. U try to turn it into a religious view b/c u can't understand the difference. U couple the words of the quote w/ his writings,late/life, clearly shows no difference in opinion.
Also, the LOC references scholars that hold an oppossing view, another ignored fact by u. Just as I showed in the previous post, Jefferson did NOT support religion in schools, period!
@bRizzle2009100 Why u have no credibility,1st u say Jefferson Christian,then un orthodox,then u never said that,once proved u did,twist words,then say something else,then back to being Christian,etc, etc.
Once u start/lose any debate,change the subject,refer to an article EXIHIBITED by but NOT written/produced by the LOC+try to present it as though it were. U have been repeatedly shown to twist words (religion in the public arena IS religion in politics,among others),take words out/context,etc
@seekertrth 1) It was written by the Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library Congress who used documents obtained by the Library of Congress (which he oversees obviously bc he is the CHIEF OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION). It is listed on their website as an official exhibit buddy. U can buy the book version online for $10 and it says in the book that it was PUBLISHED BY THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. U are the most dishonest person I have ever met in my entire life, seriously.
@bRizzle2009100 1) REALLY!? I'll check into that b/c that's not how I see it listed. As far as being dishonest, I have PROVEN you a flat out liar on several occasion. Like saying Jefferson STARTED the church services; didn't. U say u didn't say something,no u did,no, it was something else, etc.
@seekertrth 1) "As far as being dishonest, I have PROVEN you a flat out liar"
"Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" by James Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division in the Library of Congress, Published by the Library of Congress.
The documents listed in it are all in possession of the Library of Congress. It's not an opinion by anyone. They have the documents.
You refuse to acknowledge this bc it dismantles your theory and u continue to lie.
@bRizzle2009100 Really, explain how there is a 13:1 ratio of documents supporting my position, not yours? U have what now, 1 document out of a possible 14 that supports ur claim. How does that make me dishonest.
@seekertrth 1.) Where is this 13:1 ratio from? lol. Did u just make this up lol.
The Constitution supports my claim, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, Northwest Ordinance, Treaty of Paris, etc. Thats all you really need.
@bRizzle2009100 The Declaration notes the "God of Nature," which,if u look it up is a common Diest reference for the period, the Constitution directly contradicts ur claims, as does the Bill of Rights, Northwest Ordinance has a religous notation in it,yes,SMALL,slipped in(like it's done now), there are also several treaties, documentation and,as I posted on ur other video,quotations from the Founding Fathers, 1st Attorney General suggested putting up a "brass wall to keep out the Catholics."
@seekertrth 4) Lol why don't you look up the origin of the phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". It was used by John Locke and William Blackstone. They define the "Law of Nature" as the Bible and that human laws must be in accordance with natural law i.e. the Bible. Jefferson plagiarized the Declaration from Locke's Two Treatises on Government which contains those phrases. Read Locke and Blackstone's work and you'll see.
@bRizzle2009100 Congress passes laws for the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just for itself....r u that freaking desperate + pathetic or just insane + brain dead? Do u understand anything at all?
Tell u what, go back to just flat out lying, u weren't any better @ it but it was more entertaining.
@bRizzle2009100 Also, in a past post u claim that the religious attacks on Jefferson were related to his presidential campaign. Explain why they began long before + continued well after. When he wanted to help re-build the Library,religious leaders(political/clergy) said nothing from such a "Godless man. Some of them went to church w/ Jefferson...Interesting that those that were there completely disagree w/ ur claims.
@seekertrth 3) Do u believe the claims bestowed on Obama in the campaign and even after it that Barack Obama is a Muslim? Do u believe he was born in Kenya? I mean according to your logic if somebody is accused of something it must be true. Just bc Jefferson was accused of being an atheist and anti-religious doesn't mean it was true.
@seekertrth 2) Jefferson said "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
He says that the FEDERAL LEGISLATURE cannot establish a NATIONAL RELIGION or STOP THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. It is a restriction on the FEDERAL GOVT not anybody or anything else.
@bRizzle2009100 2) Exactly! ur so confusded about things u don't realize that is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along; a seperation of church/state. U think it means allowing "religion in the public arena," which IS shurch + state cfoming together. Just like people like u think there's a law against prayer in school. There's not, only that the school must remain nuetral and uninvolved in it. U don't even understand the basic logic or reality of the thing.
@seekertrth 2) No it does not. It doesn't mean that you cannot express your religious views or worship in public. It RESTRICTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Individuals who wish to pray or worship in public, who want to express their religious opinions in public is PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL to do so. STATES ARE NOT BOUND BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT EITHER. The First Amendment says, "CONGRESS". It says nothing about SCHOOLS, STATES, INDIVIDUALS, NOTHING! ONLY "CONGRESS".
@bRizzle2009100 Schools r federal, boy. Also, stop trying to twist words, the religious attacks on Jefferson started well before + continued well after. That is what I mean by u have no credibility; u can only make a case by cherry-picking info, twisting things, ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary and flat-out lying....I'm done w/ u, child. Any1 who looks through this + checks the info will see the truth. Good luck, boy.
What?! Public schools are state govts not federal. The Constitution doesn't even mention education and leaves education up to the states. The federal dept of education is not granted in the Constitution. They have local school boards and districts for a reason.
The states always did fund schools but it was the churches who ran them. It wasn't until the mid 19th century when states started taking full control bc churches could no longer support them.
@bRizzle2009100 Since u want to go schools; FEDERAL MONEY GOES TO SCHOOLS, do u not know the basics, even?! Apparently not. Furthermore, as proven, Jefferson,which this is supposed to be about (before u started losing more of the debate + changed the subject,again) dissaproved of religion in schools, as I have proven w/ a previous post.
It wasn't that the churches couldn't support the schools (as the churches/always>money than most governments),their role was reduce by the STATE for good reason
@seekertrth 1) "Jefferson... dissaproved of religion in schools"
Thats why Jefferson told the Professor of Ethics at his University of Virginia, "the proofs of the being of a God – the Creator, Preserver, and Supreme Ruler of the Universe – the Author of all the relations of morality and of the laws and obligations these infer – will be within the province of the Professor of Ethics." (Report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia)
@bRizzle2009100 Art. 1 + 10,Jefffrerson's Drft/Act/Est/Elementary Schools; CLEARLY STATE NO RELIGION!!!! DUH!!!!!! His University,1) trhere was NO RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT FOR TEACHERS + all the phrases u quote r DIEST!!!!! DUH!!!!!!!!!! Jefferson was interested ONLY in subjegating the Natives,check history,used the most effeficent means;Christianity,DUH! Yeah, so fedrl money should go to schools, but not have any rules? U r freaking nuts!!!
@seekertrth 2) Jefferson said, “provision…was made for giving instruction in…the earliest and most respected authorities of the faith of every sect [denomination] and for courses of ethical lectures developing those moral obligations in which all sects agree.” (Board of Visitors, Minutes, October 7, 1822).
Jefferson's University of Virginia taught God and Religion. Again, your opinions are contrary to historical fact.
@bRizzle2009100 Love the part about Congress only passing laws for itself,gotta share that w/ teachers @ work. Thnx 4 the HUGE! Lagh.
Also,Jefferson's language about “courses of ethical lectures developing those moral obligations in which all sects agree.” Proves he ETHICS teaching, from ALL religions; as in COMPARATIVE RELIGION, NOT ENDORSING CHRISTIANITY ALONE!! The launguage is all classic Diest,btw.
@bRizzle2009100 A good part of ur problem is that ur so narrow minded and prejudiced that u think any reference to God means urs. Diests used the word God, the language he uses all classically Diest.
Go ahead, bring out some more quotes from him that match the HISTORICAL RECORDS of Diest language / actions. LOVE IT!
@bRizzle2009100 "Diest Language" is the use of key words,phrases and combinations thereof that comprise what is typically seen,noted and recorded of / by known Diests. It is usually used in conjuction w/ actions, lack thereof and key behaviors.
@seekertrth Sorry I should have been more specific. Give me some examples of Deistic Language.
Deism has evolved over the last 200+ years also. An 18th century deist isn't necessarily the same as a 21st century deist. So applying modern deist doctrine too the beliefs of individuals over 200 years ago, is, in my mind an inaccurate assessment of their beliefs bc those beliefs in large part did not exist back then.
@bRizzle2009100 look, ur just trying to find some wiggle room. btw,on 1 hand,modern Diesm doesn't allow an understanding of 200 hundred yrs ago, on the other,u DO understand better than any1 else 200 hundred yrs ago.
I have, over the course of posts,explained Diest terminology (which is amore accurate term than "language").
@seekertrth A deist in the 18th and early 19th centuries in America was one who believes in God but that he separated himself after he created the universe. Deists don't believe in praying for instance bc they believe that God doesn't intervene in the world today. Typically they do believe in some form of moral code that the Creator laid down. I do understand Deism in the context of the founding era.
@seekertrth A deist in the 18th and early 19th centuries in America was one who believes in God but that he separated himself after he created the universe. Deists don't believe in praying for instance bc they believe that God doesn't intervene in the world today. Typically they do believe in some form of moral code that the Creator laid down. I do understand Deism in the context of the founding era.
@bRizzle2009100 I will make this easy to understand:u keep trying to define what is/isn't Diest by church doctrine,that's ur mindset. I can understand that b/c I went to church when I was younger. U can't understand Diesm. I know/understand it b/c I am. So,u c,when u try to define it to me,define/or not it in some1 else and/or tell me I misunderstand;it's funny. I would have thought u had figured it out by now. As ome1 who definitely knows what it is,I can tell u;Jefferson,w/o doubt,was. Ta,ta.
@seekertrth 3) Federal money does go to schools but that doesn't mean schools are or should be controlled by the Federal govt. The states control public schools. Jefferson used federal money to pay for missionaries for the Indians. It's not unconstitutional. The Constitution prohibits a national religion being established by law. Federal money being sent somewheres doesn't establish a national religion.
@bRizzle2009100 Churches had the money,which is why they ran many of the schools,when states had enough money + infrastructure in place, the churches lost control,as they could no longer BUY! their way in. They were NEVER short of money,that's been repeatedly proven to be propaganda from the churches +their political allies. Everytime u open ur mouth,ur so sure u have a point but only prove more/more u have no idea. ur a radical, indoctrinated,probably from birth,by those that betray God/country
@bRizzle2009100 I justt looked at ur article;I see nothing listed on it nor related to it that supports ur claim. Furthermore,I am seeing FAR!! more references to Jefferson keeping religion OUT of the "public arena,"as u call it.
@bRizzle2009100 btw, just found an article Hutson also wrote that Muslims were given every legal right and acceptance as Christianity in early America.Hmmmm,so basically ur man seems to feel that ALL religions were welcome and equal in their American attributes, not JUST Christianity. That would seem to indicate that, according to the logic u use, Islam is ALSO included in the mix of religion + politics. Instead of just looking for narrow prospects supporting ur cliams, try the WHOLE truth. lol
@seekertrth 2.) All religion were accepted buddy. Nobody said they weren't. Thats a Christian nation. About 90% or so in the colonies were Christian but Muslims and Jews did exist in Colonial America and did get the same rights as the Christians when they declared independence and established the Constitution. That's kinda the whole point of the second part of the First Amendment "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". No one ever suggested that non-Christians shouldn't have rights.
@bRizzle2009100 Now that I'm done logically dismantling ur ridicuously pathetic attempt to change the subject (using a truly warped version of history) the overwhelming evidence is that Jefferson was,indeed,Diest + that he in no way intended to support "religion in the public arena,"as u try to say. Pray in school,sure,school lead it,no. u have no real arguement,only propaganda. It is designed to make people feel persecuted where there is no such thing. Use of lies,bigotry,hate,fear is religion
@seekertrth 3) About 95% of the Founders were Christian and the 5% were either deists or something else. We did have jewish and muslim founding fathers. Look up John Randolph of Roanoke. He was a Muslim and he converted to Christianity later on in his life. No one is saying that just Christians should have rights while everyone else should be stripped of theirs. Read your history.
@bRizzle2009100 sates had LIMITED money + few actual teachers, the church provided what the states didn't. Also, the Constitution DOES makea provision for the well being of the people +, in keeping w/ nearly EVERY Founding Father,education IS part of the well being. It's like people saying that the fedral tax is unconstitutional,that's why Washington,personallyu rode against the Whiskey Rebellion (who didn't want to paya tax on their income) Such a TWISTED! view of history u have...
@seekertrth o,to add to this; The Consitution could possibly mention EVERY single detail, which is why radicals like u punce + say "it doesn't mention this" It also doesn't mention God in our government. hmmmm,so even ur own (kinda twisted) logic betrays u for what u r.
@bRizzle2009100 Almost forgot, the Treaty of Paris,written 4 yrs before the Constitution (and it's legal impact), was worded to end the war + made concessions to the religous views of Brits + the French.Also, if u believe in Relgious Freedom,as u say;the rights and beliefs of Diests,agnostics and athiests r also protected, therefore by virtue of fairness, proves that Christian nation wouldn't work from that view point either.
....Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government."
So the LOC confirms what I have been saying all along too that Jefferson did support the influence of religion in govt. But u were also correct in that his attendance on Jan. 3rd was politically motivated. We were both right.
@bRizzle2009100 u r sssoooo sad. u just don't deal w/ reality."religion in the public areana" is a bs term for injecting religion into politics, the Founding Fathers,considered it a TYRANNY!!! seen that it has never, ever, in human history resulted in anything but that. u refuse to accept reality and keep twisting facts around; u r ill.
btw: yes, religion IS! limited in the public arena. Guess what, ur arguements and behaviour are the same as every other religious,radical,dictator in history.
@seekertrth ""religion in the public areana" is a bs term for injecting religion into politics, the Founding Fathers,considered it a TYRANNY!!!"
Thats why Church services were help in PUBLIC buildings right? Thats why Jefferson as president urged local govts to put aside public property for churches? (See letter to John Carroll Sept. 3, 1801 in LOC) Thats why prayer and thanksgiving proclamations were issued by the governors of states (including Jefferson), president's Washington, Adams etc....
@bRizzle2009100 1817,Draft of an Act to Esablish Elementary Schools,Article 1,referring to those in charge, "not being of the gospel of any denomination." Article X, ""no religious reading, instruction or exercise.." Letter/Pres. Monroe, ""continued by teh lawless Alliance, calling itself Holy." Lettr,Weightman,1826,(incomplete due to space), "the light/science /laid open to/every view/palpable truth/mankind not born w/ saddles/ few booted + spurred/by the grace/God" Using God to run government
@seekertrth (2).... thats why clergy taught in public schools right? Thats why many churches ran the public schools right? Jefferson made this statement, "[The] liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will [is] a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." So Jefferson says religion is the BEST support of GOOD GOVERNMENT.
@bRizzle2009100 u r so full of ****, to put it bluntly. ur "facts" r nothing more than supposition + wishful thinking. btw, explain why in his last years, if he became Christian, never seen a preist for last rites or any other Christian practice...Dude, u just don't get it b/cur brainwashed
@seekertrth (4) Im not full of anything. U showed me an article to try to prove me wrong and it winds up proving me right and now u are ticked off about it lol. Its actually quote funny. The article u showed me says yes he attended on Jan 3rd prob for political reasons but it also says its bc he had a more favorable view of religion and Christianity at that time. U apparently want to focus on the political part but not the religious part. U want to exclude the part where it references religion.
@bRizzle2009100 O, another thing, u say that "Many nasty and false things were said about Jefferson like him having an alleged affair with one of his slaves." U DO know that has been proven through DNA of the decsendants, right? Not allegedly, proven fact. It's also a proven fact the people in his time KNEW he was a Diest. So many facts, so much trying to re-write them...
@bRizzle2009100 Start w/ 1796, pamphleteers were so venomous and persistent in attacks on Jefferson, many seen him as an "infidel." The cleregy,thoughout New England attacked his bid to become president on the grounds he was an athiest...etc,etc
@bRizzle2009100 They attacked Jefferson's deist beliefs w/ "writes aghast the truths of God's words;who makes not even a profession of Christianity;who is without Sabbaths; without the sanctuary,and without so much as a decent external respect for the faith and worship of Christians."
And: "Murder,robbery,rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes."
@bRizzle2009100 It's funny that the same groups that attacked + slandered a great man during his time, now try to re-cast him as 1 of their own. The height of both disrespect and hypocrisy.
Of course, it takes the re-writing of history to do so.
@seekertrth 3) So your argument against the exhibit is that the format is not the same as the LOC format and that in your view it is obviously historically inaccurate so it couldn't have been from the LOC.
On the exhibit's page it says LIBRARY OF CONGRESS on it. Look at the bottom and top of the page! It has the "Library of Congress" "Contact Us" "Library of Congress Home Page" etc. At the top "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" below the title: "Library of Congress"
@bRizzle2009100 O, "Separation of Church and State is the name of the article, date: June, 1998, re: Danbury letter, Jefferson.
If u want to continue on the Library of Congress thing, please do. I can't tell u HOW MUCH I AM SO VERY! V! E! R! Y!!!! MUCH!!!!!!!!!!! LOOKING FORWARD TO IT. :)
@bRizzle2009100 As far as the attended church, as I said, check Jefferson family corrospondence, etc and other records: strictly for political/social reasons.
Talk about refusing to accept facts in favor of ideology!
@bRizzle2009100 Also, check the family that was ACTUALLY in contact w/ Jefferson at the time, his opinions never changed and the historical records of the time remain on my side. Also, Jefferson's last letter clearly indicated that Jefferson CONTINUED HIS SUPPORT OF SEPARATION!!!!
@seekertrth 2) I have provided a letter from his grandson whom lived with Jefferson in the last 20+ years of his life. He says something COMPLETELY different from what u said. But apparently we are not to trust the guy who actually lived with Jefferson but the guy who lived nearly 200 years after him. U continue to ignore the facts.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do him attending church. He supported it but personally exercised his right to practice his religion.
@bRizzle2009100 Whaen did I say ANYTHING ABOUT some1 200 hundred yrs later?!? I stated to check more records...Besides which is the fact that Jefferson also gave support to Rabbis, donated money and helped w/ other things There u go, distorting facts again. All his grandson states is that Jefferson worked at what he was doing...MOTIVATIONS! Check the records: Jefferson was under attack from religionists at the time. Also, his last letter contradicts u,his own words, NOT CHRISTIAN!
@seekertrth U try to say 200 hundred yrs later, which had NOTHING TO DO W/ ANYTHING I SAID, flat out lying aND distorting facts again. It's all u have.
@seekertrth 1) U never said anything about someone 200 years later. I cited a letter from his grandson that lived with him for the last 20+ years of his life that said Jefferson was a regular attendee at this local Episcopal church. U said Jefferson wasn't a regular attendee. But someone who lived with Jefferson for 20+ years would know more than someone living 200 years after him (you). So I trust the person who lived with him not the person who lived 200 years after. Thats basic logic.
@bRizzle2009100 As I said,u refuse to see facts +twist things,1) never said take my word for it (2ooyrs later) 2) I said that he didn't START THE SERVICES but U DID! 3) I DID say,he didn't attend them until AFTER the attacks on his religous beliefs began (btw,the religionists @ the time seen him as Diest,so they would know better than u,2ooyrs later)+that was his motivation:not religous belief,corrosponding w/ his public and personal views of the church/services (his own words,repeatedly).
@bRizzle2009100 I went to church regularly as a kid,found that the lessons,religious and political lacked real facts (propaganda). I have sought the truth since. It is u that fails to look at anything other than what u want.
furthermore,ur tribute lists Madison as supporting church involvement,DIRECTLY contridicts his quote on it,it tries to say Jefferson meant to delete "wall of separation, he was throughl enough to have done so if the wanted + contridicts other historical facts. As does urs
@bRizzle2009100 challenged me to show where the Supreme court, pre 1947, supported Separation of Church/State. I did and included, in random order, quotes from Founding Fathers, Pesidents and other governent officials from the time of the Founding up to the middle of the 20th century. Which,btw,is when radicals like you began a very ugly and lie-filled re-writing of history and attack on the very foundation of this country. Such as putting "God" onto currency + the Pledge of Alliegance.
@bRizzle2009100 Madison also stated that everyone "benefitted greatly from the total separation of church and state. ALso vetoed giving church a hand in public education,tax money, land. Jefferson stated that giving tax money to a church is like forcinga man and is "a form of tyranny." Stated their involvement in politics + same thing.
@seekertrth (2) Like I said, "separation of church and state" means the federal government cannot pass a law that establishes a national religion or a state run church. Church services in the Capital did not establish by law a federal religion or a federally ran church. Their was no coercion by the federal government so Jefferson AND Madison were fine with Services in the Capital Building AND even ATTENDED them REGULARLY.
@bRizzle2009100 Also, ur quote simply states that "general principles" are the same and eternal, NOT that religion and politics should mix. Also, those general principles r found in ALL religions.
O, another thing about ur "exihibition; check to see the "DONATIONS" (read bribe) it took to get it approved. lol
He was in a political war w/ the religous politicians who were casting him as being "anti-God" So,if u would bother to look at facts,he attended church to keep his political life alive. Note that EVERYONE was SHOCKED,including his own family, that he went. You confuse the language of the day w/ how we would phrase things today. Diests were often cast as being anti-God. Check the opinions of the religous right of that era,they HATED Jefferson for that reason.
@seekertrth (2) "He was in a political war w/ the religous politicians who were casting him as being "anti-God" So,if u would bother to look at facts,he attended church to keep his political life alive. Note that EVERYONE was SHOCKED,including his own family, that he went."
Where is your evidence of this?
And by the way, most religious people loved Jefferson bc he fought for religious freedom for all. Check out the letter the Danbury Baptists sent him (the one before his "wall" letter).
U have yet to present ANYTHING that contridicts the over all facts, not opinions of virtually EVERY historical expert/scholar (aside from the religous right,which often lies to achieve it's goals). Also, considering if u have such overwhelming evidence of this: u would be famous...U aren't b/c it won't stand to scientific method/scrutiny. Take ur claim to Monticello. Get laughed out the door!
@seekertrth (3) "U have yet to present ANYTHING that contridicts the over all facts, not opinions of virtually EVERY historical expert/scholar"
U trust modern secular scholars and I trust the founders' own words. I don't read a book unless the Bibliography is mostly original sources from that era. I don't trust books that quote books from 1960 or 1980.
Monticello? U should check out what they have to say about Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter. They say ppl like U are wrong and Im right.
There is a book called The Jefferson Bible which is his abridged version of the New Testament
anthonynutt1 6 days ago
@anthonynutt1 I know I have a facsimile reproduction of it. And its called the "Jefferson Bible" but the title given by Jefferson was "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth".
bRizzle2009100 4 days ago
@bRizzle2009100 The bible was not about Jesus divinity, who repeatedly never claimed to perform miracles; but simply illustrate the illusion of our perceived reality. The Secret is hidden in plain sight: Anyone can perform the healing Jesus taught; it is God that is reality, those who are willing to challenge their mind can access the truth of the mind. Once this is experienced firsthand, God's left secrets are accessed: Einstein, Franklin, Jefferson, and Newton ALL followed. The Mind is Locked
SvenBenson 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bRizzle2009100 It's quite annoying how intellectual deism is anything close to Atheism([1]Defiendum Wiki). "Deism" has no two individuals 'emulate' each other, we allow the transcendence Fundamental Human Flaw, Deists long know the self-conflicting Fallacy in Atheism (Ad-Ignorantum: Lack of 'Proofs' leaves erroneous (emotional) perception as evidence for the opposite, That is inherently false).
The closest 'follower' religion to truth are Christian Scientists; who prove the mind is immortal
SvenBenson 1 week ago
I'm a deist, or so that is what we are labeled t individual thinker; I'm also labeled a Deism with the proper logical Definiens laid out by BEN FRANKLIN & THOMAS JEFFERSON. I'm constantly insulted by the simple minded thinking of atheists and intellectually self-dishonest Christians who refuse to understand that Deism requires an intellectually honest approach. We comprehend Aristotle's breakthrough: Atheism is based on a self-evident fallacy. Transcending above; unlocking the Individual
SvenBenson 1 week ago
He did'nt believe in the supernatural aspects of the Christos and as Franklin was more inspired by the age of enlightenment's venture into science and social betterment rather than dwelling in a small little narrow minded middle-eastern desert cult/ religion.
mxylpx 2 weeks ago
@mxylpx Jefferson believed in God and his Divine Hand in human affairs. You can't say he doubted the supernatural. Religion was very important to him, his religion that is. He wasn't Christian. He resembled more of a Unitarian than anything.
bRizzle2009100 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
SvenBenson 1 week ago
why would a physical sacrifice matter when the only thing that matters is the state of your soul? If God is truth and love and light, then ill go directly to the source and that source refuses me, then he is not truly love or light. I have nothing but contempt for your view of spirituality. Its one thing to believe, its another to blindly eat up whatever you read. Christianity and its doctrine were tainted almost from the start by the Roman empire.Buddha and Christ said many congruent things fyi
runelord37 1 month ago
@runelord37 The Bible is the inspired, infallible and inherent Word of God. Buddha did not die for your sins. Jesus did. He died to save your soul. He died so that you could have everlasting life.
bRizzle2009100 1 month ago
@runelord37 "why would a physical sacrifice matter when the only thing that matters is the state of your soul?" They both matter runelord. You get your body back, your body is very spiritual and important to your experience as a being. It is sacred.
phadrus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@runelord37 "If God is truth and love and light, then ill go directly to the source and that source refuses me, then he is not truly love or light." You don't understand Christianity which is why you have this good question. God does not reject you. You however CAN reject God. Your freewill is guaranteed, and if you exercise it & you reject God then he will allow you to be far from him. You in effect create that distance (hell or whatever you want to call it). He honors your will.
phadrus 1 month ago
the religious majority will tell all sorts of lies to make sure their in the right
you can qoute me on that one . oh does that make me a christian now? trolololo
jmm1233 1 month ago
@jmm1233 If it weren't for that "religious majority" the country wouldn't have ever have been born nor would have survived as long as it has. Its the religious ppl in this country that keep it afloat. You remove all expressions of religion and the religious ppl in tis country, it goes down. Religion and morality are indispensable supports to political prosperity. Read Washington's 1796 Farewell Address.
bRizzle2009100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Recommended Films: "Freedom to Fascism", "The Obama Deception", "The Secret of Oz", and "Don't Tread On Me".
Please don't forget to share them. It will help everyone get up to speed as to what is at stake, what's behind it, and most importantly, how to fix it for good. Peace!
RON PAUL 2012! Please Cut and Paste this EVERYWHERE!
1tonykirk 1 month ago
Jefferson did not believe that Jesus was the son of god.
renaissanceman21c 1 month ago
@renaissanceman21c I know. I say that in the video. However, if you watch part 2, there is evidence to suggest that later on in his life he may have changed his mind.
He said in a letter (1826):
"If no action is to be deemed virtuous for which malice can imagine a sinister motive, then there never was a virtuous action; no, not even in the life of our Saviour Himself. But He has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them."
bRizzle2009100 1 month ago
@renaissanceman21c I apologize, the letter I quoted was actually written in 1824, 2 years before Jefferson died. Not 1826.
bRizzle2009100 1 month ago
@bRizzle2009100 You understand that a man of reason and spiritual philosophy may make a statement like that without declaring himself as exclusively Christian. No i think it much more likely that he moved towards a clean spiritualism with an agnostic flavor. and regarding Jesus calling himself the son of god...is there anywhere in the bible that Jesus refers to others as daughters or sons to himelf? your suggesting a hierarchy. i dont recall passages where jesus refers to his followers thus.
runelord37 1 month ago
@runelord37 1.) Jefferson wasn't agnostic. He firmly believed in God and that the world was actively governed by His hand. The reference to "I am a Christian..." isn't what it looks like. He did believe himself to be a "Christian" but his "version" of Christianity was not the traditional version. He believed Jesus never claimed to be divine for instance. That strikes at the heart of the message of the New Testament but in Jefferson's mind this was the "true" version of Christianity.
bRizzle2009100 1 month ago
@bRizzle2009100 i think you misrepresent a true philosophers mind, and i respectfully disagree. agnosticism doesnt preclude belief. and the reason i asked if you knew an instance where Jesus referred to anyone as his children, knowing there wasnt one. this puts the nail in the coffin of the divinity of Jesus.He therefore believed everyone to be sons and daughters of god and saw everyone else as his brothers and sisters. since there is not place in the Bible where he declares himsefl the sole son
runelord37 1 month ago
@runelord37 Well Jesus does say he IS the Son of God and that no one goes thru the Father but thru Him. He tells his disciples that he will be resurrected and will come again. But Jefferson believed lines like that were added later and Jesus really didn't say that.
However, I think in the 1824 quote I showed u, I think Jefferson implies Jesus had Divinity and its possible he could have changed his mind just before his death in 1826.
bRizzle2009100 1 month ago
@bRizzle2009100 @bRizzle2009100 he say we are all brothers and sisters and son and daughters of god. that makes him no different than us.he may have been a prophet and a highly evolved soul, but to say he was the one and only son of god makes no sense if he Father to us all. And yes, they may very well have added that line to emphasize or subtly hint at that division. the truth is that upon close inspection Jesus and Buddha and Krisna have a lot in common. truth and love are universal
runelord37 1 month ago
@runelord37 Jesus said I am the way, the truth and light. He said no one comes to the Father but thru me. Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved. Buddha and Krisna are nothing like Christ. Buddha and Krisna did not give themselves up to die to redeem mankind. Jesus Christ gave himself up so that we could have eternal life.
Truth and love are not universal. Truth and love come about with Biblical Christianity. The secular world knows nothing about truth and love.
bRizzle2009100 1 month ago
@bRizzle2009100 you seriously believe that some indegenous person who has never heard of Christ is damned? If you dont believe in the love and universality of that love that i can honestly say you dont understand anything that Christ taught. And give himself up for our sins? please. You can only forgive yourself, and if god chooses to forgive you through direct prayer than so be it. I believe that the passage you quoted was a part of the franchise advertising. and the physical body is nothing
runelord37 1 month ago
@runelord37 RE: "you seriously believe that some indegenous person who has never heard of Christ is damned?" No, this isn't true and a common misconception. You can receive the gospel in the afterlife, hence why Jesus went there to minister after his death, for ex. Also, those that die without hearing the gospel in some cases can go straight to heaven, for example children. God is rediculously fair and gives tons of chances to make up your mind on who and what you want to follow.
phadrus 1 month ago
@runelord37 Also, I should add that his physical death on the cross was to show that we all get our physical bodies back. That is God's gift to us ALL. You've got to seriously and deeply reject god to lose that gift. However his taking on the sins of may was the second part of his "atonement" which was to pay our debt since we're all liers, cheaters, theives, etc. Almost everyone will be in heaven however not everyone will inherit the same things there. Some will inherit more.
phadrus 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@runelord37 "that makes him no different than us.he may have been a prophet and a highly evolved soul, but to say he was the one and only son of god makes no sense if he Father to us all." You are right about this. He isn't that different than us. We are all children of God, and we all have the potential to be just like Jesus. BUT, he was the ONE that was chosen tom come here to save us. He's the only "Begotten" son, not the only son.
phadrus 1 month ago
@runelord37 Jesus has little to nothing in common with Krishna and Buddha. Some people and films propegate that like "Zeitgeist" but it's flat false. Interestingly he and his claims are very unique in history. This is also the opinion of historical scholars. Be careful what you believe from the Zeitgeist/New Age crowd when it comes to Christ.
phadrus 1 month ago
@runelord37 2.) Now later on in his life he made statements that suggested he could have changed his mind.
"If no action is to be deemed virtuous for which malice can imagine a sinister motive, then there never was a virtuous action; no, not even in the life of our Saviour Himself. But He has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them."
And I'm not sure what you're asking me. To my knowledge Jesus doesn't call anyone his children.
bRizzle2009100 1 month ago
Comment removed
seekertrth 2 months ago
hahahahahaa THIS IS JUST too funny!!!
seekertrth 2 months ago
(4) Impying Divine Providence..... thanks for proving my point
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
(3) "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever"
He's is saying that right come from God and that no one but God can take this liberties away, "they are not to be violated but by his wrath"....
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
(2) As I have stated time and time again, a DEIST is one who believes in God but does not believe in Divine Revelation or Divine Providence. Jefferson DID believe in those things. He does to fit the 18th/early 19th century definition of a Deist. He went to church, prayed, carried a prayer book with him TO church, started church in the US Capital Building, released many prayer proclamations as Governor of Virginia. He even said things like...
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
(1) Webster's 1828 Dictionary states Deism is, "The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths, in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures."
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bRizzle2009100 prt 1
1) The 1828 Webster's dictionary,written by very religous people that had a particular reason for including the Phrase, implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures."
2) in 1823, "And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. "
3) he did NOT start church services, proven fact.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth (1) "The 1828 Webster's dictionary,written by very religious people"
Yea that religious person was Noah Webster a founding father of the United States.
Your 1823 quote is irrelevant. I've already acknowledged Jefferson didn't believe in Jesus' Divinity.
Yes there were church services. Annals of Congress p. 797 December 4, 1800. The Chaplains proposed "Divine services" in the House Chamber and the Speaker and President of the Senate agreed.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Funny! 1a) Webster WAS religous,very. 1b) w/o belief in Christ's divinity,not Christian. 1c)Jefferson didn't "start" them,as u claim. 2) Historical records,letters/family,etc,etc. Again,u fail to look @ anything other than what u want to believe. 4) I AM going by the Founders words,THEIR records,Jefferson's words AND every scholar,PAST AND PRESENT!! Monticello,last time I was there,agreed he was Diest. I was raised in the church,u obviously don't even know what "secular" means.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 1a) That's what I said. Where is the disagreement? 1b) Correct. Jefferson went thru many periods of his life where he changed his mind about things as he researched more into them. In the letter he says Jesus ALONE can see into a person's heart. What does that imply exactly? 1c) Go to the Library of Congress' online exhibit "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" VI. Religion and the Federal Government, Part 2 to see about Jefferson and the church services....
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 You didn't check the DETAILS of ur "exihibtion, did u? It is a piece from an OUTSIDE source,accepted as an OPINION piece,titled "exihibtion. Origin: radical,right-wing think tank that's well known for changing facts.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 4.) How's about this for the founder's own words?
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. 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." - John Adams to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
I assume your gonna find away around this one too huh? Kind of hard to do that though.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 re: 4, As opposed to the quote from Madison,Founding Father,President,Father/Constitution+Bill/Rights,Jefferson's words,on+on+on. Jefferson's lsat letter took PIRDE in the separation! btw,stop trying to change the subject 'cause u lost this 1. I have established,beyond doubt,on ur other video"A Nation Founded on the Christian Faith," that there is OVERWHELMING evidence of separartation/church/state.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth At best,u say Jefferson was a heretic
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 1. Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter, if read correctly doesn't mean religion should be kept out of the public square. It simply means the federal government cannot establish a national religion. It doesn't mean that individuals are restricted from expressing religion in public or the states are to be kept secular. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." a restriction on Congress, not individuals and not states.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bRizzle2009100 "Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter, if read correctly doesn't mean religion should be kept out of the public square. It simply means the federal government cannot establish a national religion. It doesn't mean that individuals are restricted from expressing religion in public or the states are to be kept secular." That is EXACTLY what it means, DUH! U change the meaning of things,illogically + say I don't understand. Nope,don't understand crazy
seekertrth 2 months ago
Comment removed
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 2. The Adams quote was to show u that the the founder's themselves said Christianity had a huge impact and influence in the founding of America. But u again, go around as if it wasn't even said and keep repeating the same thing over and over again.
3. The exhibition is in the Library of Congress buddy. So I guess the Library of Congress is a "radical religious right-wing" institution bc it says something contrary to what u say? U make excuses for every piece of info I give u.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 the "tribute" came from OUTSIDE the Library of Congress, not inside.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 4. No one ever said there wasn't a "wall of separation of church and state". There is. U just have to take the correct definition of it. The "wall" was put in place to protect individuals and their right to freely exercise religion from the federal government. It was not to limit religion. The "wall" was put in place in the Constitution when it prohibited the federal government from establishing a federal denomination and limiting an individual's free-exercise of religion.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Ur definition is completely insane; changing the meaning doesn't make u right, only foolish
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 triburte lists Madison as supporting church involvement in state,contrary to direct quotes from him
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 ur tribute is an EXHIBITION!!!!! It IS NOT From the Library, it is an OPINION piece...check the facts
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 there are exhibitions on "I love Lucy" and on liberal points, hahahahhahahaaaaaaaaa...ur claiming THAT!!! as a source....too DAMN! F!U!N!N!Y!!!!!!!
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 1) Like I said, i present solid evidence to you and you just pretend like it was never even said or pretend like it doesn't mean anything and continue to tote the same line. This is not an opinion piece buddy. It's not outside of the Library of Congress, it IS an online exhibit posted by the Library of Congress. Everything in the exhibit is backed up with original documents posted in the exhibit itself. Where do you see that this is an opinion piece at? Are you just making this up?..
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@seekertrth 2) The Library of Congress is one of THE most reliable sources of historical information as it has in its possession millions of original documents and historical artifacts from United States and North American History, everything from politics, government, economics, religion, philosophy, military and pop culture. To mock the Library of Congress and say its not a reliable source is like a Christian mocking the Bible or a Muslim mocking the Koran saying its not a reliable source...
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Also, re: "Tribute:" the LIbray presents ONLY facts,not opinion or draws conclusions,1 way / other. Ur "Tribute" does EXACTLY that. Nor is there an attributation,something the Library ALWAYS includes. Combined w/ an OUTSIDE home link, the fact that's it's listed as an exihibition by the Library, wrong format,etc,etc.
As I said,u fail to accept FACTS that contridict ur ideology. Then u say that's what I do,that's called "transference" (basic pyschology).
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 3) I have a serious question for you. Are you searching for the truth? Are you willing to listen to the truth and let it take you wherever it takes you? Or do you already have a set ideological mind set on how YOU want things to be without even searching for the truth? If you are searching for the truth and let the pieces fall where they may, you will find you are wrong on a lot of these issues. Continuing to reject the truth does not change the truth. There is ONLY one truth.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 re 3) u just described urself. Library of Congress ALSO! presents OUTSIDE works. ur tribute is listed on their EXIHIBITION PAGE< RIGHT NEXT TO "I LOVE LUCY" The format is NOT! Library style, it directly contridcts FACTS on the actual HISTORICAL pages: it is an OPINION,NOT a historical document. Check it's home link: it is NOT the Library of Congress. Keep trying. ur arguements lack logic and u ignore anything that doesn't fit ur pre-convieved ideas,then try to turn it around. sad
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth btw, given the overwhelming evidence when r u going to admit that Jefferson was not a Christian, unorthodox or otherwise. He was a diest.
...O, that's right! u see it, just don't want to admit it so u change the subject.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth Check Jefferson family corrospondence + other records: Jefferson only attended church as a political/social tool.
Ur "tribute" ignores these facts,btw. Something the Library/Congress doesn't.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth "Check Jefferson family corrospondence + other records: Jefferson only attended church as a political/social tool."
Oh really? A letter by his grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph to Henry S. Randall about Thomas Jefferson mentions "He was regular in his attendance at church, taking his prayer book with him. He drew up the plan of the Episcopal church in Charlottesville, was one of the largest contributors to its erection, and contributed regularly to the support of its minister."
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@seekertrth (3) I am still anxious to see what outside organization created that exhibition in the Library of Congress. At the top of the page, it clearly states "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" then under that it says "Library of Congress". Not to mention the URL has the LOC URL so its still on the LOC website. If this isn't a Library of Congress exhibition then who's exhibition is it and why does the LOC claim its theirs on their website and in the exhibition itself?!!
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@seekertrth (3) I am still anxious to see what outside organization created that exhibition in the Library of Congress. At the top of the page, it clearly states "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" then under that it says "Library of Congress". Not to mention the URL has the LOC URL so its still on the LOC website. If this isn't a Library of Congress exhibition then who's exhibition is it and why does the LOC claim its theirs on their website and in the exhibition itself?!!
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@seekertrth (3) I am still anxious to see what outside organization created that exhibition in the Library of Congress. At the top of the page, it clearly states "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" then under that it says "Library of Congress". Not to mention the URL has the LOC URL so its still on the LOC website. If this isn't a Library of Congress exhibition then who's exhibition is it and why does the LOC claim its theirs on their website and in the exhibition itself?!!
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 What is wrong w/ u?!? Look it up!!! THE HOME page for the EXHIBIT (which is EXACTLY how it is defined by the Library/Congress!!!!, on the same page as I love lucy,etc) is NOT,N!O!T! the the Library,it's page format is NOT Library format,it presents conclusions and draws OPINION,which is NOT! how the Library does. There is no attributation which is always included in LIbrary format,on+on+on. Not to mention it directly contridicts ACTUAL historical records and direct quotes!
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 1) Where and what does it say on the home page of the exhibit that suggests the exhibits were done by an outside organization and is only an opinion? I don't see what u are talking about. U keep saying its there but have failed to copy and paste it onto the comment strip....
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 PRT 1 Go to the Library,search "exhibits,ur "tribute" is listed there, plainly+clearly as exactly that. If u go to the "tribute" and click their "home" it does not take u to the Library.The page format is very,VERY clearly not the Library's format. It draws conclusions and tells the reader what these things mean,that's not Library style...the contents flatly ignores all historical records that draw a different picture.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 PRT 2 The Library lists all authors the tribute does not.t Library does NOT write essays, which this is. It goes on + on....THe bottom line is this: Ur tribute bears no resemblance to anything that the Library ACTUALLY does, does things they don't and r clearly listed as on their exhibtion page...What part of all of that do u not understand...Or,more to the point don't WANT to accept it b/c it conrtadicts ur radical ideology
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 tell u what, look up how the evanalicans / fedralists were Viciously! atacking Jefferson's religous beliefs @ the time. They were almost rabid (similiar to todays version) in attacking his beliefs + it threatened his political carreer. Of course, there were others (some of whom u seem to hold in high regard). That was his motivation. Speak to the MOTIVATIONS of what he did, not the ACTIONS he took.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 2) Many did attack him in the 1800 election and after about his beliefs. Jefferson never publicly expressed his beliefs and rarely did he do it in private either. He never responded to their attacks bc he felt it was unnecessary. Many nasty and false things were said about Jefferson like him having an alleged affair with one of his slaves. Many ppl said Obama was a socialist and born in Kenya during his election. Now I presume u don't believe those claims now do u?
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 "Jefferson revealed that he hoped to accomplish two things by replying to the Danbury Baptists. One was to issue a "condemnation of the alliance between church and state." Those words r from an article posted by the CURATOR OF THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS!! Read it.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Actually,u handed me an ace;the entire country,in Jefferson's time knew + accepted the fact he was Diest. These r the people most familiar w/ his speeches,actions,etc.
U r,basically,picking through a haystack,findinga few straws,then stand in front of the entire stack screaming about how the few straws comprise the entirety.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 1) I read the article u referenced. Very interesting indeed. Especially this part of the article, "Since the Library plans to display Jefferson's handwritten draft of the Danbury Baptist letter in its forthcoming exhibition "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic,"...." Soooo the LOC AGAIN affirms that the exhibit IS theirs lol. It's funny the article u use to try to prove me wrong winds up proving me right lol.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@seekertrth 2) With regards to separation of church and state, I and the LOC are saying the EXACT same thing. When Jefferson refers to the Sep of Ch & St, he is refers to the federal government's inability to establish a national religion or prohibit an individual's free exercise of religion. The 1st amdmt and the Sep of Ch & St phrase limits ONLY the GOVT not the individual or the church for that matter. Thats why it says "Congress shall make no law...".......
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@seekertrth 2 cont).... nowhere in Jefferson's letter nor in the Constitution does it limit religion's influence in the public arena. It restricts the federal govt, again: "Congress shall make no law..." Not the church, not the individual, not religion, CONGRESS. Jefferson says in his letter the "legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Restriction on GOVT.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@seekertrth 3) With regards to his church attendance. The LOC article says that his attendance two days after he wrote his "wall of separation" letter may have been politically motivated yes. And maybe it was, could very well have been politically motivated. However, u also forgot to mention this part of he article (see next comment for the quote from the article)
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@seekertrth
"Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. (see nxt cmt)
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Your "Scholars...all come from religious schools,universities, etc. Guess what, there is FAR MORE scholars acroos the world and through history,not to mention ALL of the people in Jefferson's time, disagree w/ that but do agree it's an attempt to creat a Christian theology/dictatorship. period
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth (3) They are not "my scholars" they're scholars referenced by the Library of Congress. Apparently the LOC trusts them enough to include them in the article that YOU referenced me. No one is saying we want a Christian dictatorship. The founders didn't care what religion u were. They wanted EVERYONE to be able to worship in public without interference from the federal govt.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man "
"...those who live by mystery & charlatanerie, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, the most sublime & benevolent, but most perverted system that ever shone on man, endeavored to crush your well earnt, & well deserved fame." - Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, Washington, March 21, 1801
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth Here is the correct quote:
"Those who live by mystery & _charlatanerie_, fearing you would render them useless by simplifying the Christian philosophy, -- the most sublime & benevolent, but most
perverted system that ever shone on man"
He says the Christian philosophy is the most "sublime and benevolent" meaning excellent and charitable/kind. But also the most "perverted". Jefferson believed the doctrines of Christianity were perverted over time. Idk what ur trying to say here.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 The quote shows that Jefferson favored the PHILOSOPHY, not the religious view, of Chist's teachings. So does the articel. U try to turn it into a religious view b/c u can't understand the difference. U couple the words of the quote w/ his writings,late/life, clearly shows no difference in opinion.
Also, the LOC references scholars that hold an oppossing view, another ignored fact by u. Just as I showed in the previous post, Jefferson did NOT support religion in schools, period!
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Why u have no credibility,1st u say Jefferson Christian,then un orthodox,then u never said that,once proved u did,twist words,then say something else,then back to being Christian,etc, etc.
Once u start/lose any debate,change the subject,refer to an article EXIHIBITED by but NOT written/produced by the LOC+try to present it as though it were. U have been repeatedly shown to twist words (religion in the public arena IS religion in politics,among others),take words out/context,etc
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 1) It was written by the Chief of the Manuscript Division of the Library Congress who used documents obtained by the Library of Congress (which he oversees obviously bc he is the CHIEF OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISION). It is listed on their website as an official exhibit buddy. U can buy the book version online for $10 and it says in the book that it was PUBLISHED BY THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. U are the most dishonest person I have ever met in my entire life, seriously.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 1) REALLY!? I'll check into that b/c that's not how I see it listed. As far as being dishonest, I have PROVEN you a flat out liar on several occasion. Like saying Jefferson STARTED the church services; didn't. U say u didn't say something,no u did,no, it was something else, etc.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 1) "As far as being dishonest, I have PROVEN you a flat out liar"
"Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" by James Hutson, Chief of the Manuscript Division in the Library of Congress, Published by the Library of Congress.
The documents listed in it are all in possession of the Library of Congress. It's not an opinion by anyone. They have the documents.
You refuse to acknowledge this bc it dismantles your theory and u continue to lie.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Really, explain how there is a 13:1 ratio of documents supporting my position, not yours? U have what now, 1 document out of a possible 14 that supports ur claim. How does that make me dishonest.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 1.) Where is this 13:1 ratio from? lol. Did u just make this up lol.
The Constitution supports my claim, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, Northwest Ordinance, Treaty of Paris, etc. Thats all you really need.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 The Declaration notes the "God of Nature," which,if u look it up is a common Diest reference for the period, the Constitution directly contradicts ur claims, as does the Bill of Rights, Northwest Ordinance has a religous notation in it,yes,SMALL,slipped in(like it's done now), there are also several treaties, documentation and,as I posted on ur other video,quotations from the Founding Fathers, 1st Attorney General suggested putting up a "brass wall to keep out the Catholics."
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 4) Lol why don't you look up the origin of the phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". It was used by John Locke and William Blackstone. They define the "Law of Nature" as the Bible and that human laws must be in accordance with natural law i.e. the Bible. Jefferson plagiarized the Declaration from Locke's Two Treatises on Government which contains those phrases. Read Locke and Blackstone's work and you'll see.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Congress passes laws for the ENTIRE COUNTRY, not just for itself....r u that freaking desperate + pathetic or just insane + brain dead? Do u understand anything at all?
Tell u what, go back to just flat out lying, u weren't any better @ it but it was more entertaining.
seekertrth 2 months ago
Comment removed
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Also, in a past post u claim that the religious attacks on Jefferson were related to his presidential campaign. Explain why they began long before + continued well after. When he wanted to help re-build the Library,religious leaders(political/clergy) said nothing from such a "Godless man. Some of them went to church w/ Jefferson...Interesting that those that were there completely disagree w/ ur claims.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 3) Do u believe the claims bestowed on Obama in the campaign and even after it that Barack Obama is a Muslim? Do u believe he was born in Kenya? I mean according to your logic if somebody is accused of something it must be true. Just bc Jefferson was accused of being an atheist and anti-religious doesn't mean it was true.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@seekertrth 2) Jefferson said "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
He says that the FEDERAL LEGISLATURE cannot establish a NATIONAL RELIGION or STOP THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. It is a restriction on the FEDERAL GOVT not anybody or anything else.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 2) Exactly! ur so confusded about things u don't realize that is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along; a seperation of church/state. U think it means allowing "religion in the public arena," which IS shurch + state cfoming together. Just like people like u think there's a law against prayer in school. There's not, only that the school must remain nuetral and uninvolved in it. U don't even understand the basic logic or reality of the thing.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 2) No it does not. It doesn't mean that you cannot express your religious views or worship in public. It RESTRICTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Individuals who wish to pray or worship in public, who want to express their religious opinions in public is PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL to do so. STATES ARE NOT BOUND BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT EITHER. The First Amendment says, "CONGRESS". It says nothing about SCHOOLS, STATES, INDIVIDUALS, NOTHING! ONLY "CONGRESS".
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Schools r federal, boy. Also, stop trying to twist words, the religious attacks on Jefferson started well before + continued well after. That is what I mean by u have no credibility; u can only make a case by cherry-picking info, twisting things, ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary and flat-out lying....I'm done w/ u, child. Any1 who looks through this + checks the info will see the truth. Good luck, boy.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 4) "Schools r federal, boy."
What?! Public schools are state govts not federal. The Constitution doesn't even mention education and leaves education up to the states. The federal dept of education is not granted in the Constitution. They have local school boards and districts for a reason.
The states always did fund schools but it was the churches who ran them. It wasn't until the mid 19th century when states started taking full control bc churches could no longer support them.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Since u want to go schools; FEDERAL MONEY GOES TO SCHOOLS, do u not know the basics, even?! Apparently not. Furthermore, as proven, Jefferson,which this is supposed to be about (before u started losing more of the debate + changed the subject,again) dissaproved of religion in schools, as I have proven w/ a previous post.
It wasn't that the churches couldn't support the schools (as the churches/always>money than most governments),their role was reduce by the STATE for good reason
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 1) "Jefferson... dissaproved of religion in schools"
Thats why Jefferson told the Professor of Ethics at his University of Virginia, "the proofs of the being of a God – the Creator, Preserver, and Supreme Ruler of the Universe – the Author of all the relations of morality and of the laws and obligations these infer – will be within the province of the Professor of Ethics." (Report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia)
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Art. 1 + 10,Jefffrerson's Drft/Act/Est/Elementary Schools; CLEARLY STATE NO RELIGION!!!! DUH!!!!!! His University,1) trhere was NO RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT FOR TEACHERS + all the phrases u quote r DIEST!!!!! DUH!!!!!!!!!! Jefferson was interested ONLY in subjegating the Natives,check history,used the most effeficent means;Christianity,DUH! Yeah, so fedrl money should go to schools, but not have any rules? U r freaking nuts!!!
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 2) Jefferson said, “provision…was made for giving instruction in…the earliest and most respected authorities of the faith of every sect [denomination] and for courses of ethical lectures developing those moral obligations in which all sects agree.” (Board of Visitors, Minutes, October 7, 1822).
Jefferson's University of Virginia taught God and Religion. Again, your opinions are contrary to historical fact.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Love the part about Congress only passing laws for itself,gotta share that w/ teachers @ work. Thnx 4 the HUGE! Lagh.
Also,Jefferson's language about “courses of ethical lectures developing those moral obligations in which all sects agree.” Proves he ETHICS teaching, from ALL religions; as in COMPARATIVE RELIGION, NOT ENDORSING CHRISTIANITY ALONE!! The launguage is all classic Diest,btw.
U make my case or stumble on ur own SSOO much
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 A good part of ur problem is that ur so narrow minded and prejudiced that u think any reference to God means urs. Diests used the word God, the language he uses all classically Diest.
Go ahead, bring out some more quotes from him that match the HISTORICAL RECORDS of Diest language / actions. LOVE IT!
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth What exactly to u is "deistic language"?
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 "Diest Language" is the use of key words,phrases and combinations thereof that comprise what is typically seen,noted and recorded of / by known Diests. It is usually used in conjuction w/ actions, lack thereof and key behaviors.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth Sorry I should have been more specific. Give me some examples of Deistic Language.
Deism has evolved over the last 200+ years also. An 18th century deist isn't necessarily the same as a 21st century deist. So applying modern deist doctrine too the beliefs of individuals over 200 years ago, is, in my mind an inaccurate assessment of their beliefs bc those beliefs in large part did not exist back then.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 look, ur just trying to find some wiggle room. btw,on 1 hand,modern Diesm doesn't allow an understanding of 200 hundred yrs ago, on the other,u DO understand better than any1 else 200 hundred yrs ago.
I have, over the course of posts,explained Diest terminology (which is amore accurate term than "language").
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth A deist in the 18th and early 19th centuries in America was one who believes in God but that he separated himself after he created the universe. Deists don't believe in praying for instance bc they believe that God doesn't intervene in the world today. Typically they do believe in some form of moral code that the Creator laid down. I do understand Deism in the context of the founding era.
Again, Deist terminology. Is "God", "Creator", "Supreme Judge" etc Deist terminology?
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@seekertrth A deist in the 18th and early 19th centuries in America was one who believes in God but that he separated himself after he created the universe. Deists don't believe in praying for instance bc they believe that God doesn't intervene in the world today. Typically they do believe in some form of moral code that the Creator laid down. I do understand Deism in the context of the founding era.
Again, Deist terminology. Is "God", "Creator", "Supreme Judge" etc Deist terminology?
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 I will make this easy to understand:u keep trying to define what is/isn't Diest by church doctrine,that's ur mindset. I can understand that b/c I went to church when I was younger. U can't understand Diesm. I know/understand it b/c I am. So,u c,when u try to define it to me,define/or not it in some1 else and/or tell me I misunderstand;it's funny. I would have thought u had figured it out by now. As ome1 who definitely knows what it is,I can tell u;Jefferson,w/o doubt,was. Ta,ta.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 3) Federal money does go to schools but that doesn't mean schools are or should be controlled by the Federal govt. The states control public schools. Jefferson used federal money to pay for missionaries for the Indians. It's not unconstitutional. The Constitution prohibits a national religion being established by law. Federal money being sent somewheres doesn't establish a national religion.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Churches had the money,which is why they ran many of the schools,when states had enough money + infrastructure in place, the churches lost control,as they could no longer BUY! their way in. They were NEVER short of money,that's been repeatedly proven to be propaganda from the churches +their political allies. Everytime u open ur mouth,ur so sure u have a point but only prove more/more u have no idea. ur a radical, indoctrinated,probably from birth,by those that betray God/country
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 I justt looked at ur article;I see nothing listed on it nor related to it that supports ur claim. Furthermore,I am seeing FAR!! more references to Jefferson keeping religion OUT of the "public arena,"as u call it.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 btw, just found an article Hutson also wrote that Muslims were given every legal right and acceptance as Christianity in early America.Hmmmm,so basically ur man seems to feel that ALL religions were welcome and equal in their American attributes, not JUST Christianity. That would seem to indicate that, according to the logic u use, Islam is ALSO included in the mix of religion + politics. Instead of just looking for narrow prospects supporting ur cliams, try the WHOLE truth. lol
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 2.) All religion were accepted buddy. Nobody said they weren't. Thats a Christian nation. About 90% or so in the colonies were Christian but Muslims and Jews did exist in Colonial America and did get the same rights as the Christians when they declared independence and established the Constitution. That's kinda the whole point of the second part of the First Amendment "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". No one ever suggested that non-Christians shouldn't have rights.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Now that I'm done logically dismantling ur ridicuously pathetic attempt to change the subject (using a truly warped version of history) the overwhelming evidence is that Jefferson was,indeed,Diest + that he in no way intended to support "religion in the public arena,"as u try to say. Pray in school,sure,school lead it,no. u have no real arguement,only propaganda. It is designed to make people feel persecuted where there is no such thing. Use of lies,bigotry,hate,fear is religion
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 3) About 95% of the Founders were Christian and the 5% were either deists or something else. We did have jewish and muslim founding fathers. Look up John Randolph of Roanoke. He was a Muslim and he converted to Christianity later on in his life. No one is saying that just Christians should have rights while everyone else should be stripped of theirs. Read your history.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 sates had LIMITED money + few actual teachers, the church provided what the states didn't. Also, the Constitution DOES makea provision for the well being of the people +, in keeping w/ nearly EVERY Founding Father,education IS part of the well being. It's like people saying that the fedral tax is unconstitutional,that's why Washington,personallyu rode against the Whiskey Rebellion (who didn't want to paya tax on their income) Such a TWISTED! view of history u have...
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 as Ihave said, nothing u say bears up to scrutiny + u have no credibility.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth o,to add to this; The Consitution could possibly mention EVERY single detail, which is why radicals like u punce + say "it doesn't mention this" It also doesn't mention God in our government. hmmmm,so even ur own (kinda twisted) logic betrays u for what u r.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Almost forgot, the Treaty of Paris,written 4 yrs before the Constitution (and it's legal impact), was worded to end the war + made concessions to the religous views of Brits + the French.Also, if u believe in Relgious Freedom,as u say;the rights and beliefs of Diests,agnostics and athiests r also protected, therefore by virtue of fairness, proves that Christian nation wouldn't work from that view point either.
Logic and truth.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth continued quote:
....Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government."
So the LOC confirms what I have been saying all along too that Jefferson did support the influence of religion in govt. But u were also correct in that his attendance on Jan. 3rd was politically motivated. We were both right.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 u r sssoooo sad. u just don't deal w/ reality."religion in the public areana" is a bs term for injecting religion into politics, the Founding Fathers,considered it a TYRANNY!!! seen that it has never, ever, in human history resulted in anything but that. u refuse to accept reality and keep twisting facts around; u r ill.
btw: yes, religion IS! limited in the public arena. Guess what, ur arguements and behaviour are the same as every other religious,radical,dictator in history.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth ""religion in the public areana" is a bs term for injecting religion into politics, the Founding Fathers,considered it a TYRANNY!!!"
Thats why Church services were help in PUBLIC buildings right? Thats why Jefferson as president urged local govts to put aside public property for churches? (See letter to John Carroll Sept. 3, 1801 in LOC) Thats why prayer and thanksgiving proclamations were issued by the governors of states (including Jefferson), president's Washington, Adams etc....
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 1817,Draft of an Act to Esablish Elementary Schools,Article 1,referring to those in charge, "not being of the gospel of any denomination." Article X, ""no religious reading, instruction or exercise.." Letter/Pres. Monroe, ""continued by teh lawless Alliance, calling itself Holy." Lettr,Weightman,1826,(incomplete due to space), "the light/science /laid open to/every view/palpable truth/mankind not born w/ saddles/ few booted + spurred/by the grace/God" Using God to run government
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth (2).... thats why clergy taught in public schools right? Thats why many churches ran the public schools right? Jefferson made this statement, "[The] liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will [is] a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." So Jefferson says religion is the BEST support of GOOD GOVERNMENT.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 u r so full of ****, to put it bluntly. ur "facts" r nothing more than supposition + wishful thinking. btw, explain why in his last years, if he became Christian, never seen a preist for last rites or any other Christian practice...Dude, u just don't get it b/cur brainwashed
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth (4) Im not full of anything. U showed me an article to try to prove me wrong and it winds up proving me right and now u are ticked off about it lol. Its actually quote funny. The article u showed me says yes he attended on Jan 3rd prob for political reasons but it also says its bc he had a more favorable view of religion and Christianity at that time. U apparently want to focus on the political part but not the religious part. U want to exclude the part where it references religion.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bRizzle2009100 O, another thing, u say that "Many nasty and false things were said about Jefferson like him having an alleged affair with one of his slaves." U DO know that has been proven through DNA of the decsendants, right? Not allegedly, proven fact. It's also a proven fact the people in his time KNEW he was a Diest. So many facts, so much trying to re-write them...
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Start w/ 1796, pamphleteers were so venomous and persistent in attacks on Jefferson, many seen him as an "infidel." The cleregy,thoughout New England attacked his bid to become president on the grounds he was an athiest...etc,etc
MOTIVATIONS!
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 They attacked Jefferson's deist beliefs w/ "writes aghast the truths of God's words;who makes not even a profession of Christianity;who is without Sabbaths; without the sanctuary,and without so much as a decent external respect for the faith and worship of Christians."
And: "Murder,robbery,rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes."
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 It's funny that the same groups that attacked + slandered a great man during his time, now try to re-cast him as 1 of their own. The height of both disrespect and hypocrisy.
Of course, it takes the re-writing of history to do so.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 3) So your argument against the exhibit is that the format is not the same as the LOC format and that in your view it is obviously historically inaccurate so it couldn't have been from the LOC.
On the exhibit's page it says LIBRARY OF CONGRESS on it. Look at the bottom and top of the page! It has the "Library of Congress" "Contact Us" "Library of Congress Home Page" etc. At the top "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" below the title: "Library of Congress"
!!!!
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 O, "Separation of Church and State is the name of the article, date: June, 1998, re: Danbury letter, Jefferson.
If u want to continue on the Library of Congress thing, please do. I can't tell u HOW MUCH I AM SO VERY! V! E! R! Y!!!! MUCH!!!!!!!!!!! LOOKING FORWARD TO IT. :)
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 the wrods "condemnation of the alliance between church and state." r a quote directly from Jefferson, btw
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 As far as the attended church, as I said, check Jefferson family corrospondence, etc and other records: strictly for political/social reasons.
Talk about refusing to accept facts in favor of ideology!
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Also, check the family that was ACTUALLY in contact w/ Jefferson at the time, his opinions never changed and the historical records of the time remain on my side. Also, Jefferson's last letter clearly indicated that Jefferson CONTINUED HIS SUPPORT OF SEPARATION!!!!
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 2) I have provided a letter from his grandson whom lived with Jefferson in the last 20+ years of his life. He says something COMPLETELY different from what u said. But apparently we are not to trust the guy who actually lived with Jefferson but the guy who lived nearly 200 years after him. U continue to ignore the facts.
Separation of church and state has nothing to do him attending church. He supported it but personally exercised his right to practice his religion.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Whaen did I say ANYTHING ABOUT some1 200 hundred yrs later?!? I stated to check more records...Besides which is the fact that Jefferson also gave support to Rabbis, donated money and helped w/ other things There u go, distorting facts again. All his grandson states is that Jefferson worked at what he was doing...MOTIVATIONS! Check the records: Jefferson was under attack from religionists at the time. Also, his last letter contradicts u,his own words, NOT CHRISTIAN!
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth U try to say 200 hundred yrs later, which had NOTHING TO DO W/ ANYTHING I SAID, flat out lying aND distorting facts again. It's all u have.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth 1) U never said anything about someone 200 years later. I cited a letter from his grandson that lived with him for the last 20+ years of his life that said Jefferson was a regular attendee at this local Episcopal church. U said Jefferson wasn't a regular attendee. But someone who lived with Jefferson for 20+ years would know more than someone living 200 years after him (you). So I trust the person who lived with him not the person who lived 200 years after. Thats basic logic.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 As I said,u refuse to see facts +twist things,1) never said take my word for it (2ooyrs later) 2) I said that he didn't START THE SERVICES but U DID! 3) I DID say,he didn't attend them until AFTER the attacks on his religous beliefs began (btw,the religionists @ the time seen him as Diest,so they would know better than u,2ooyrs later)+that was his motivation:not religous belief,corrosponding w/ his public and personal views of the church/services (his own words,repeatedly).
seekertrth 2 months ago
Comment removed
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 I went to church regularly as a kid,found that the lessons,religious and political lacked real facts (propaganda). I have sought the truth since. It is u that fails to look at anything other than what u want.
furthermore,ur tribute lists Madison as supporting church involvement,DIRECTLY contridicts his quote on it,it tries to say Jefferson meant to delete "wall of separation, he was throughl enough to have done so if the wanted + contridicts other historical facts. As does urs
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Since u choose this tact;copy/paste evidence previously presented to u to show any1 looking at this how u refuse to see facts...
seekertrth 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bRizzle2009100 challenged me to show where the Supreme court, pre 1947, supported Separation of Church/State. I did and included, in random order, quotes from Founding Fathers, Pesidents and other governent officials from the time of the Founding up to the middle of the 20th century. Which,btw,is when radicals like you began a very ugly and lie-filled re-writing of history and attack on the very foundation of this country. Such as putting "God" onto currency + the Pledge of Alliegance.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Madison also stated that everyone "benefitted greatly from the total separation of church and state. ALso vetoed giving church a hand in public education,tax money, land. Jefferson stated that giving tax money to a church is like forcinga man and is "a form of tyranny." Stated their involvement in politics + same thing.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth (2) Like I said, "separation of church and state" means the federal government cannot pass a law that establishes a national religion or a state run church. Church services in the Capital did not establish by law a federal religion or a federally ran church. Their was no coercion by the federal government so Jefferson AND Madison were fine with Services in the Capital Building AND even ATTENDED them REGULARLY.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 Also, ur quote simply states that "general principles" are the same and eternal, NOT that religion and politics should mix. Also, those general principles r found in ALL religions.
O, another thing about ur "exihibition; check to see the "DONATIONS" (read bribe) it took to get it approved. lol
seekertrth 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 PRT2
He was in a political war w/ the religous politicians who were casting him as being "anti-God" So,if u would bother to look at facts,he attended church to keep his political life alive. Note that EVERYONE was SHOCKED,including his own family, that he went. You confuse the language of the day w/ how we would phrase things today. Diests were often cast as being anti-God. Check the opinions of the religous right of that era,they HATED Jefferson for that reason.
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth (2) "He was in a political war w/ the religous politicians who were casting him as being "anti-God" So,if u would bother to look at facts,he attended church to keep his political life alive. Note that EVERYONE was SHOCKED,including his own family, that he went."
Where is your evidence of this?
And by the way, most religious people loved Jefferson bc he fought for religious freedom for all. Check out the letter the Danbury Baptists sent him (the one before his "wall" letter).
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago
@bRizzle2009100 PRT 3
U have yet to present ANYTHING that contridicts the over all facts, not opinions of virtually EVERY historical expert/scholar (aside from the religous right,which often lies to achieve it's goals). Also, considering if u have such overwhelming evidence of this: u would be famous...U aren't b/c it won't stand to scientific method/scrutiny. Take ur claim to Monticello. Get laughed out the door!
seekertrth 2 months ago
@seekertrth (3) "U have yet to present ANYTHING that contridicts the over all facts, not opinions of virtually EVERY historical expert/scholar"
U trust modern secular scholars and I trust the founders' own words. I don't read a book unless the Bibliography is mostly original sources from that era. I don't trust books that quote books from 1960 or 1980.
Monticello? U should check out what they have to say about Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter. They say ppl like U are wrong and Im right.
bRizzle2009100 2 months ago