Marc's Blog

Marc's Blog

Photo of the Day

139 Comments

Today’s photo of the day shows protesters responding to Proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to define marriage between man and woman. Like them, I find tragic irony in the idea that black people lined up to vote for a black man and simultaneously deny rights to the LGBT community.  Please help me stand up and resist this legislation both in California and around the country!

prop8112.jpg

139 comments

  1. R.oB. - November 8, 2008 4:57 am

    You are right that Adams praised Christianity, but I find him to be Slick Willie. The Bible is great for spreading morality. Christianity is the expression of the sublime God. But he also calls salvation through the crucifixion absurd. Further he says in a letter to Jefferson, “I see in every Page, Something to recommend Christianity in its Purity and Something to discredit its Corruptions. … The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my Religion.” That smells of soft Deism to me. So I see Adams trying to play it both ways. Far from bold IMHO.

  2. Tanya - November 8, 2008 5:05 am

    Moreover, as you know, the Constitution states our “inalienable” rights!!!

    What are “inalienable” rights??? Who did these “inalienable” rights come from???

    That is the question! I think you know the answer!

    Quoting the Constitution and then quoting the Bible scriptures it corresponds with is a lot of work! Far from an impossible task, but a lot of work! (Since I don’t know the whole Constitution by heart, nor the whole Bible.)

    If you REALLY want a few in depth examples I can put it on my things to do for tomorrow!

    But for one quick off the top of the head example:

    The Bible says – “do not bear false witness on your neighbor” (which means don’t lie on people)

    The Constitution makes perjury a crime.

    All this I think (hope) you already know! Like you said, one would have to be an idiot to not see that our laws, our Constitution was biblically based!

  3. R.oB. - November 8, 2008 5:11 am

    Look Hamilton is Federalist Paper dude, no doubt. But he’s not he Father of the Constitution. That was Madison. www loc gov/wiseguide/may05/constitution.html And he was against mixing government and religion. You stretching things problematically, but hey if you believe it do yo thang! I prefer facts and evidence support your assertion before forming a positive opinion.

    Your post #100 is great. I would agree that almost all the Fathers believed in God and saw him as the source of liberties. Jefferson’s god was not the Christian Triune God. Patrick Henry’s was definitely Christian. (Jefferson had beef with him about establishing religion in Virginia as a matter of fact.) Adam’s was unknown and inchoate? Christian in it’s “pure” form. What the hell is “pure?” ;-) So is that really based on God? I don’t think so. Too many gods running around.

    But my question was more on the biblical aspects. Where do you see the connections? My guess is there aren’t. Freedom in general is biblical for sure. But freedom for religion, the press, to bear arms (!), disestablishment? No biblical society ever separated church and state. You’ll have to work at that one is my guess, but it’s late.

  4. Tanya - November 8, 2008 5:14 am

    Rob,

    “But he [Adams] also calls salvation through the crucifixion absurd.” – Rob

    NO HE DOES NOT!!!

    Please, read slowly!

    Thus means Therefore. Thus = Therefore.

    I KNOW Adams is saying:

    “Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.”

    Thus means Therefore. Thus = Therefore.

    Adams states Greene’s argument and then says:

    THEREFORE/Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.

    This is Adams surmising GREENE’s argument. NOT stating his opinion!

    That is what I stated in #93!

  5. R.oB. - November 8, 2008 5:16 am

    I believe you more if God were not conspicuously absent. No mention of even a Creator. The values are there. But non-biblical societies were against bearing false withness, they valorized the Golden Rule, and murder was a crime. That’s more universal. I want a smoking gun. Not circumstantial evidence.

  6. R.oB. - November 8, 2008 5:24 am

    I’ll believe you are misreading Adams to support your opinion. Greene’s argument is commonly forwarded as proof even today of the divinity of Jesus: that only the Son of God could ransom mankind by his death. A mere man dying would not be sufficient. Adams implies that this argument is weak “All the Argument he advanced.” So you are saying the he is surmising and I am saying he is ridiculing. I’ll accept your argument has merit, but inconclusive. It renders mine inconclusive as well. Take it as you will. I ain’t mad atcha. But mine is perfectly reasonable. Given his Deistic tendencies, I’ll stick with mine. “Purity” indeed. >;-|

  7. R.oB. - November 8, 2008 5:28 am

    Can you find quotes that show belief in miracles, etc. on Adams part, too?

  8. R.oB. - November 8, 2008 5:32 am

    I’m off to bed, Tanya. Had MAD FUN with this. I wish Marc would start a discussion board. It’s so much easier. Take care.

  9. Tanya - November 8, 2008 6:19 am

    Rob,

    Your killing me with the Deism!!! LOL (really!)

    I’ll address that, and the rest tomorrow!

    I had madd fun too!

    Sleep well!

  10. DCI74 - November 8, 2008 9:46 am

    Dammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnn when did you two go to sleep??

  11. Piscean Princess - November 8, 2008 10:59 am

    Mrs. Rivers, I certainly hope that you are correct.

  12. R.oB. - November 8, 2008 11:44 am

    DC, made late. We discrovered Quote Missiles were more fun than Scripture Missiles! :-P

    Tanya, I’m stubborn with the Deism because I was taught that in school by a teacher I trust. I’m deeply skeptical of efforts to Christianize the birth of our nation because of the Constantinian tendencies of such efforts. Clarifying history is great but revisionism is not. Most objective history I read speaks of Deism imbuing the process. All of the FF I actually care about were smoking on Enlightenment dubs. Deism is what happens when Reason becomes a religious tenet. I’m not saying that these guys were against Christianity (well maybe Jefferson was) just that they were FAR from born again evangelicals or something like that. Which is what people try to imply when we hear things like the Continental Congress was Christian. I fully concede and accede that Adams would lavish praise on our religion but when the whole of your religion is “reduced” (for lack of a better word) to a set of moral statements as the Jefferson Bible was, I can’t really call that Christian whatever they did on Sunday morning. But that just me, girl. Your take is as good as mine.

  13. Peyso - November 8, 2008 6:44 pm

    I dont see why so many heterosexual people care what homosexual people are doing. It is so silly. The fact that Prop 8 did not passed does not mean that there are going to be less homosexuality in our communities. Gay and lesbian couples will stall walk down the block holding hands just like everyone else. This shouldn’t even be a religious question. Why must my religion rule over everyone elses? Why cant I live my life by my own religion and allow others to do what they do as long as it doesnt affect me?

  14. Tanya - November 12, 2008 4:12 am

    R.oB.,

    Just want to let you know that you threw off my schedule for the weekend and hence threw me off for the beginning of the week!!!

    I went to bed after 6am and slept the WHOOOOOOOLE damn day! I had sooo much to do on Saturday and got NONE of it done!!! It’s Wed, and I just finished the work that should have got done on Sat. But I see you were able to get up before noon on Saturday! HOW??????

    Anyway, back to this…

  15. Tanya - November 12, 2008 4:24 am

    Regarding Deism:

    Deism is a pattern of thought, NOT a religion. So you stating that the Founding Fathers were deists as a way to negate their Christianity is flawed.

    Very few of the Founding Fathers did make statements that can be considered deistic in nature, but that in no way means they were Deists.

    If I say, “I follow a Kosher diet.”, that doesn’t necessarily mean I’m Jewish. Yes, Jews follow a Kosher diet, but so do all types of different people, religious and non-religious. Now, someone may attempt to spin that statement as proof that I’m Jewish, but you know I’m a Christian. AND, you know I’m a Christian from the MAJORITY of the statements that I’ve made.

    So although 1 or 2 of the Founding Father’s statements can be linked to Deism, we know, from the MAJORITY of their statements and from their self-proclamations, that they were Christians; bold Christians.

  16. Tanya - November 12, 2008 4:49 am

    I do not mean to disparage the high school you went to, or your teacher, but for you to have been taught that our Founding Fathers were Deists is a great disservice.

    I don’t believe that any high school curriculum would teach that. B/c it’s NOT true. If your teacher told you that, he must have been a looney leftist like Ward Churchill with his own agenda. (Not being mean, just making an observation.)

    Like every other kid in the US, I’ve learned about the Founding Fathers from elementary school, straight through high school, and NEVER, have any of my teachers EVER said that any of them were Deists.

    However, in college, as a Poli Sci major, I took a Political Philosophy course that examined deism as a function of government, and it was mentioned that ONLY ONE Founding Father of the US identified himself as a Deist; and that was Thomas Paine. That’s it, JUST ONE! (but there is a difference between a constructive deist and a critical deist, but I’m not going there!)

    Bottomline, ONLY ONE – Thomas Paine was a Deist, BUT HE ALSO IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS A CHRISTIAN. He believed in GOD and Jesus and the Bible, but highly valued free-will and wanted gov’t to respect free-will, since it was GOD given to begin with!

  17. Tanya - November 12, 2008 5:04 am

    In #110 you said Jefferson might have been against Christianity. That is totally UNTRUE!!! Jefferson said he was disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. Read my #98.

    Please don’t buy into the spin on the internet. Thomas Jefferson was a Christian. He said so, over and over and over. He was proudly, boldly Christian. As were ALL of our Founding Fathers.

  18. Tanya - November 12, 2008 6:08 am

    In response to your #104:

    I don’t think you understand what Greene’s argument is. Allow me:

    “Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the Argument he advanced was, “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,” and that “these things are very misterious. Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.”

    Greene’s first statement:

    “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,”

    What Greene is saying here is that the Bible is clear that murder is a sin, murder is wrong, BUT, Jesus was Killed, someone MURDERED him.

    (Now, as you know Jesus’ death is the focal point of Christianity. Christians view Jesus’ death as a wonderful thing {he died for our salvation, that’s why we call it GOOD Friday}. Christians view Jesus’ death as a holy occurrence, a spiritual ought, that GOD planned.)

    So if Jesus’ death was planned, that means his MURDER was planned. Which means that GOD planned/ordered/wanted/approved his children (the Romans and Jews) to break the 10 Commandments; to do what he told us NOT to do – commit murder, to sin. (As I conveyed in #93)

    Murder is a crime.

    Considering Greene’s logic, which I just broke down, let’s look at his statement again:

    “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,”

    In translation – No man or GOD, can, or should, justify any CRIME. A crime is a crime, it is wrong, and NO good should or could ever come from it.

    Greene is arguing that Jesus was MURDERED, and murder is a crime and against GOD, so Jesus’ death could NOT have been approved by GOD. And so he says “these things are very misterious”. Greene doesn’t understand or believe that there is something spiritual and divine behind Jesus’ death.

    Greene is trying to use logic and reason and technicalities to understand and/or refute the miracles of Christ and the works and word of GOD. (You know, like how the Jesuits do!!!)

    But the Bible says, “lean not unto your own understanding”. (“Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.” – Proverbs 3:5)

    We will NEVER be able to rationalize GOD and his Word, and we are NOT suppose to try. (You know, like how Fundamentalist do!!!) Our only charge is to have Faith in him and his Word and obey him and his Word.

    So YES murder is wrong, and YES Jesus was MURDERED, and YES it is hard for our human minds to reconcile that GOD would approve MURDER of anyone, in any form; but we are just to believe and have faith in GOD’s will and his way.

    So it is Greene who is doubting the divinity of Jesus’ death NOT Adams.

  19. Tanya - November 12, 2008 6:38 am

    In regard to our Laws and our Constitution being Biblically based:

    I think I gave you sufficient info to prove that our Founding Fathers were Christians that founded our Constitution and our country on Christian principles, and wanted a government lead by GOD. But you’re still not convinced.

    Here’s some more:

    “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” – Patrick Henry, May 1765, Speech to the House of Burgesses

    But you just call these types of powerful words circumstantial evidence. You want a smoking gun!

    Here’s your smoking gun:

    Article 22 of the Delaware Constitution -

    “I, [name], do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” – Oath for ALL officers of the State (1776)

    The inscription on the Liberty Bell -

    “Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof.” – Leviticus 25:10

    Still need more proof of Biblical basis…

    Here’s the smoking bell from your boy Madison:

    “At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Madison proposed the plan to divide the central government into three branches. He discovered this model of government from the Perfect Governor, as he read Isaiah 33:22; ‘For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us.’”

    Isaiah 33:22 -

    “For the LORD is our judge” – The Judicial Branch

    “the LORD is our lawgiver” – The Legislative Branch

    “the LORD is our king” – The Executive Branch

    The 3 branches that run our government were founded on Biblical principles, straight from Isaiah!!!

    Our Founding Fathers also intended these three branches to be representative of The Holy Trinity – The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit!

    Our laws, our government, and our Constitution have a million more biblical references, but I think I’ve already proved my case!!!

    All I want is for our laws to continue to be Biblically based; as our illustrious founders intended!

    Thus, a ban on gay marriage!

  20. R.oB. - November 12, 2008 11:56 pm

    Tanya,

    You extrapolated so much into Greene’s statement, it’s so convoluted and frankly unsupported by the Adams’ entry as to find it completely incredible. Adam said Greene was offering an argument for “Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ.” He is putting forward the basic evangelical “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World” argument for Jesus’ divinity: To wit, no mere man could wash away our sins therefore in order for Jesus’ death to bring us salvation he must be divine. No claptrap about murder. And Adams calls that argument absurd. It completely comports with him claiming his entire religion was contained in the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Curious his entire religion is a list of moral statements. What, no John 3:16? No, John 1:1? Sorry Tanya, the sky is not green.

    As for Deism, it is defined in the Oxford dictionary as “belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.” It pretty much rules out a revelatory religion like Christianity if that’s a philosophy you believe in.

    As for Patrick Henry, he was no doubt a über Christian. That’s why Jefferson had beef with him about trying to establish a state religion in Virginia. His believe doesn’t cover Madison, Adams, or Jefferson. All of whom are hostile to mixing government and religion. Fair enough that Madison modeled our three branches on Isaiah. If that’s what you mean by biblically based, I’ll concede that to a point. I dismiss the Trinity out of hand given I’ve seen no evidence of this in anything I’ve read, yet. Further, taking inspiration from the Bible doesn’t mean biblically based to me. It has to be more substantive. It’s like saying that because the Roman Empire had chattel slavery that slavery in America was based on Roman Law. Now, if the Constitution mentioned God and that God was the trinitarian God rather than the indifferent Creator or First Cause of the Deists, color me sold on your assertion! Delaware Constitution and Liberty Bell notwithstanding.

    Last point: the Constitution is secular by design because people were making sure that no religion was established. By definition that’s the opposite of what the bible purports. Isaiah 33:22 makes sure. The Jews wanted their nation to be a theocracy which the Constitution stands against. I don’t care if every Father was a fire and brimstone bible thumper.

  21. Tanya - November 13, 2008 7:50 am

    R.oB.,

    I say this with in the most friendly manner possible…

    YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!

  22. Tanya - November 13, 2008 8:34 am

    “Adam said Greene was offering an argument for ‘Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ’.” – Rob

    NO HE DIDN’T!!!

    Adams did not say that Green was offering an argument FOR the divinity of Christ, Adams says that they had a discussion on the divinity of Christ!

    “Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me ***about*** the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ.” – Adams

    ABOUT not FOR

    Rob you seriously have a serious problem comprehending what you read.

    Here is Adams diary entry again:

    “Major Greene this Evening fell into some conversation with me about the Divinity and Satisfaction of Jesus Christ. All the Argument he advanced was, “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,” and that “these things are very misterious. Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.”

    Greene: “that a mere creature, or finite Being, could not make Satisfaction to infinite justice, for any Crimes,”

    CRIMES!!! Crimes is the key word. Adams even capitalized the C in his entry!!! What was the crime that no man (mere creature) or GOD (finite being) could make sufficient to justice??? – MURDER!!!

    Greene is arguing that GOD would not cause his people to do what he instructed them not to do – MURDER. Greene is saying GOD does not condone murder, and therefore, would not condone Jesus being murdered. Murder is the Crime that can not be made sufficient to justice! (according to Greene) Greene is saying that Jesus’ death is not divine b/c GOD would not, could not, be in support of murder.

    What is the ONLY thing that would make Jesus’ death divine? – If GOD was behind it! Greene is arguing that GOD could not have been behind Jesus’ death b/c Jesus was MURDERED, which is a Crime; it’s against GOD’s commandment.

    Then Adams surmises Greene’s argument with:

    “Thus mystery is made a convenient Cover for absurdity.”

    Adams is NOT calling the divinity of Jesus’ death absurd!!! He’s telling us that the gist of Greene’s argument is that Jesus’ death is absurd.

    Please Rob, take Adams diary entry to someone else, and have them explain it to you. They will tell you that I am right. OR you can research what it means and come to understand on your own that I am right!

  23. Tanya - November 13, 2008 8:48 am

    “the Constitution is secular by design because people were making sure that no religion was established.” – Rob

    No sir. The Constitution is Biblical by design, as GOD has granted us free-will, as the Bible indicates our free-will, so too the Constitution grants us free-will. The free-will to worship or not, the free-will to choose any religion, or none.

    As Patrick Henry said, this nation was founded by Christians on the gospel of Christ, and so, “for this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

    “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” – Patrick Henry, May 1765, Speech to the House of Burgesses

  24. Tanya - November 13, 2008 9:13 am

    Rob, you’ve got this whole Deism thing wrong. The ONLY reason why some unscrupulous people call our Founding Fathers deists is b/c they were in support of free-will and giving us, the people, great freedoms.

    But just b/c they wanted to make sure that we maintained our free-will, which is from GOD, doesn’t me they didn’t want us governed by Biblical principles.

    That’s why George Washington said:

    “…reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…”

  25. Tanya - November 13, 2008 10:03 am

    “Further, taking inspiration from the Bible doesn’t mean biblically based to me. It has to be more substantive. It’s like saying that because the Roman Empire had chattel slavery that slavery in America was based on Roman Law.” – Rob

    Do you see how ridiculous you are being here! I gave you quote after quote of our Founding Fathers professing their Christianity and proclaiming their desire to have our country run as “one nation under GOD”. I gave you quote after quote of them saying that the Constitution is based on Christianity. But you said that wasn’t enough; you wanted direct scripture to correlate directly. I give that scripture and you say, “taking inspiration from the Bible doesn’t mean biblically based”. LOL Then what does it mean, Koran based??? Come on!

    The you say:

    “Now, if the Constitution mentioned God and that God was the trinitarian God rather than the indifferent Creator or First Cause of the Deists, color me sold on your assertion! Delaware Constitution and Liberty Bell notwithstanding.”

    Delaware is our FIRST State! The Delaware Constitution states GOD, Jesus Christ, and The Holy Spirit! What more do you want?!?!?! If that doesn’t speak volumes of the Founders intentions and how they wished our government be run, I don’t know what does.

    You want something else that mentions GOD:

    In the signatory section of the US Constitution is says, “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our *Lord* one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”

    But let’s just leave it at this:

    “Fair enough that Madison modeled our three branches on Isaiah. If that’s what you mean by biblically based, I’ll concede that to a point.” – Rob

  26. R.oB. - November 13, 2008 10:11 am

    Tanya, I say this in as friendly way as possible. You have some real mental problems. Your explanation has real problems. You convince yourself of something and like most fools refuse to understand where others are saying defending your ideas by attacking the character and intelligence of others. The sky is not green. Calling me an idiot will not make it so. Willful blindness does not indicate superior intelligence. Your free will argument is case in point. Hinduism and Bhuddism have the concept of free will as well. That make them Biblically based? Listen, you can believe what you will. But don’t expect to follow willful blindness and calling that stupidity. And your blindness is quite willful, if you can’t see Greene making the most basic argument for Jesus’ divinity and saving action for his death in Adams’ quote, you are indeed blind.

  27. Tanya - November 13, 2008 10:22 pm

    R.oB.,

    You couldn’t even understand what Thomas Jefferson was saying about Christianity not being apart of common law – b/c Christianity didn’t exist when common law was established!!!

    So it was blind of me to think that YOU would be able to understand the conversation between Greene and Adams!

    You have serious difficulty comprehending what you read.

    Here is what I find most problematic – You refuse to do the research!

    If you don’t believe what I say, fine! But don’t just sit there like a dummy arguing about something you obviously have NO IDEA about! GO DO THE RESEARCH!!! If you take the time to investigate Adams diary entry, read the numerous other writings about that famous conversation, you will see that my explanation is EXACTLY what all the scholars for hundreds of years have said!

    But really, anyone with a logical mind, could just simply read the entry, and know what it means and who’s saying what! Just as I noted!

  28. Tanya - November 13, 2008 10:34 pm

    “Hinduism and Bhuddism have the concept of free will as well. That make them Biblically based?” – Rob

    NO Silly Silly!!

    Why are you acting so retarded?!?!?

    The Constitution, our laws, and our government IS Biblically based b/c SCRIPTURE STRAIGHT FROM THE ***BIBLE*** was used to establish our governance!!!

    Not to mention, ALL of our Founding Fathers were CHRISTIANS, who identified themselves as CHRISTIANS, and wrote specifically that it is their great hope and intention for GOD to lead our country, stated specifically that this country was “founded on the GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST”, as Patrick Henry said!

    All the quotes are on here, the scripture that created the foundation of our government structure is on here!

    But you what to continue to play the fool!!!

    You are NOT the sharpest pencil in the box Robert! Open your eyes!

  29. R.oB. - November 15, 2008 1:01 pm

    Jefferson wrote in his letter to William Short August 4, 1820 explaining why he wrote he the Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus

    “My aim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian. … I say, that this free exercise of reason is all I ask for the vindication of the character of Jesus. We find in the writings of his biographers matter of two distinct descriptions. First, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications. Intermixed with these, again, are sublime ideas of the Supreme Being, aphorisms and precepts of the purest morality and benevolence, sanctioned by a life of humility, innocence and simplicity of manners, neglect of riches, absence of worldly ambition and honors, with an eloquence and persuasiveness which have not been surpassed. These could not be inventions of the groveling authors who relate them. They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds. They shew that there was a character, the subject of their history, whose splendid conceptions were above all suspicion of being interpolations from their hands. ”

    Yes Tanya, Jefferson, your Father of the Constitution was definitely a Christian. His contempt for the Gospel writers, their works, and their claims about Jesus proves it without a doubt! My eyes have been opened through research!

    Published in Thomas Jefferson: Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed., New York: Library of America, 1994, pp. 1435–1440.

  30. R.oB. - November 15, 2008 1:17 pm

    To further the nail in the coffin on your argument, listen to Jefferson’s opinion of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century who argued that Christ was also God with the Father in the fourth century:

    DEAR SIR, — I have received and read with thankfulness and pleasure your denunciation of the abuses of tobacco and wine. Yet, however sound in its principles, I expect it will be but a sermon to the wind. You will find it as difficult to inculcate these sanative precepts on the sensualities of the present day, as to convince an Athanasian that there is but one God. I wish success to both attempts, and am happy to learn from you that the latter, at least, is making progress, and the more rapidly in proportion as our Platonizing Christians make more stir and noise about it. The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

    1. That there is one only God, and he all perfect.

    2. That there is a future state of rewards and punishments.

    3. That to love God with all thy heart and thy neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.

    These are the great points on which he endeavored to reform the religion of the Jews. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.

    1. That there are three Gods.

    2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, are nothing.

    3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit in its faith.

    4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.

    5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save.

    Now, which of these is the true and charitable Christian? He who believes and acts on the simple doctrines of Jesus? Or the impious dogmatists, as Athanasius and Calvin? Verily, I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet. Their blasphemies have driven thinking men into infidelity, who have too hastily rejected the supposed author himself, with the horrors so falsely imputed to him. Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of one only God is reviving, and trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.
    But much I fear, that when this great truth shall be re-established, its votaries will fall into the fatal error of fabricating formulas of creed and confessions of faith, the engines which so soon destroyed the religion of Jesus, and made of Christendom a mere Aceldama; that they will give up morals for mysteries, and Jesus for Plato. How much wiser are the Quakers, who, agreeing in the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, schismatize about no mysteries, and, keeping within the pale of common sense, suffer no speculative differences of opinion, any more than of feature, to impair the love of their brethren. Be this the wisdom of Unitarians, this the holy mantle which shall cover within its charitable circumference all who believe in one God, and who love their neighbor! I conclude my sermon with sincere assurances of my friendly esteem and respect.

    This letter to Benjamin Waterhouse (June 26, 1822) can be found at the University of Virginia website.

  31. R.oB. - November 15, 2008 1:22 pm

    And before you run off trying to make truth out of falsehood, Calvin was a Trinitarian and Athanasius asserted that The Son and The Father (and to an undetermined extent The Spirit) were separate but in one God simultaneously over and against those who claimed that only one God, The Father, could exist and that anything else was polytheism and blasphemy.

  32. R.oB. - November 15, 2008 1:29 pm

    On a final note, I was distracted by having to change Mr. Stinky Butt’s diaper. Here is another lines from Jefferson’s letter to short.

    That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore. But that he might conscientiously believe himself inspired from above, is very possible.

  33. R.oB. - November 15, 2008 1:50 pm

    I post all these things to prove that you don’t know everything and that when proven wrong you sink into off-putting condescension and sarcasm as well a shrill contradictions that only serve to besmirch your intelligence rather than that of others. I for my part have the same character flaws, but I try to ameliorate them because I want to love God and be a positive in peoples lives not by my reckoning but theirs.

    It seems that when challenged you become hostile and condescending. There is no friendly way to call someone an idiot, Tanya. ALL CAPS is not a proof. Thinking other people are stupid makes you no smarter.

  34. Tanya - November 15, 2008 10:01 pm

    (OMG!!! Lord Please Help Him! LORD, PLEASE, Help this poor, poor boy!)

    R.oB.,

    Don’t you get tired of making yourself look like a fool?????

    WE WERE ***NEVER*** TALKING ABOUT JEFFERSON’S BELIEF IN JESUS’ DIVINITY!!!! NEVER!!!

    You have to try and change the subject to avoid admitting your wrongs! Stop trying to cover up your stupidity; it only makes it more evident!!!

    I have really tired very hard to be kind to your ignorance. But this is just damn ridiculous now.

    ROBERT, YOU ARE AN IDIOT! PERIOD!

    And I’m not calling you an idiot b/c you have misinterpreted EVERY SINGLE THING on here. I’m not calling you an idiot b/c you have failed to comprehend ALL of the writings of that time. (We all misinterpret and misunderstand something at some point.) I’m calling you an idiot b/c you REFUSE TO ADMIT THAT YOU WERE WRONG!!!!

    You said that our Founding Fathers were not Christians – WRONG
    You said that our Constitution and laws were not Biblically based – WRONG
    You said that it was Adams NOT Greene, who doubted the divinity of Jesus – WRONG

    I have proved you WRONG on ALL of this. I gave you quote after quote of our Founding Father’s declaring their Christianity. I showed you the scripture that our Constitution and government was founded. Not to mention, anyone who has read the Constitution and has read the Bible, can easily see that much of the language in the Constitution comes straight from the Bible!!!

    But finally, I have told you that it was GREENE who doubted Jesus’ divinity, and NOT Adams (one of our Founders). You argued like an idiot that is was Adams who doubted Jesus’ divinity. You even made up some cockamamie foolishness about Greene saying Jesus was divine. – Jokes!

    NOW, You obviously found out that you were WRONG, and it indeed was GREENE who doubted Jesus’ divinity and NOT Adams, so now you try and jump to SOMEONE ELSE!!!

    You can’t just admit you were wrong, you have to try and find someone else to misinterpret!!!

    Just give up Rob! For your own sake!

    You couldn’t even understand what Jefferson was saying about Christianity not being apart of Common Law, and you don’t understand what Jefferson was saying in his “Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus, Compared with Those of Others”.

    You have NO IDEA!!! And I’m not going to waste another Saturday and engage in another 100 comments to tell you. B/c you lack reading comprehension and I’ll get no where with you anyway!

    But I will sum it up in one cute little sound bite!

    “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816.

    “***A DISCIPLE OF THE DOCTRINES OF JESUS***”

    That should tell someone with common sense all they need to know!

    The only coffin you put a nail in was your own. Just quit! You are totally lost in your #130 as well!

  35. Tanya - November 15, 2008 10:03 pm

    “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” – Thomas Jefferson

    I gave this to you way back in #100!

  36. Tanya - November 15, 2008 10:25 pm

    Just to clarify:

    I NEVER said Thomas Jefferson was the father of the Constitution.

    In #52, I said:

    “Jefferson is really the Father!”

    What I meant by REAL FATHER, is that Jefferson is the Father of America!

    Thomas Jefferson is the defining figure that drafted the Declaration of Independence.

    The Declaration of ***INDEPENDENCE***!!!!

    That was the document that established us as free from England and defined us as a NEW country!

    If there was no Declaration of Independence, there would be no America, and so, there would be no Constitution.

    Jefferson gave birth to the COUNTRY and so he is the REAL FATHER!

    Madison and others gave birth to the Constitution, which came AFTER the country!

  37. Tanya - November 15, 2008 11:27 pm

    Here’s the bottom-line:

    This whole “debate” jumped off b/c you failed to understand that our Constitution was Biblically based.

    I’ve over proved that is was! The End!

    But here’s why I doubt your intelligence, and your knowledge and understanding of history:

    Earlier in this back and forth, you referenced Jefferson’s “beef” with Henry over religion.

    “Jefferson’s god was not the Christian Triune God. Patrick Henry’s was definitely Christian. (Jefferson had beef with him about establishing religion in Virginia as a matter of fact.)” – Rob #103

    You obviously didn’t understand the debate that Jefferson and Henry had.

    As you conceded (#120), Henry was an uber Christian (GOD Bless him!). But guess what, so was Jefferson! Jefferson was an uber Christian who believed in the doctrines of Christ, and called himself a “Real Christian”, and a “Disciple”.

    HOWEVER…

    Henry’s argument was:

    Christianity is the best religion, it is the only religion upon which man can be saved, a government can only be successful if it is rooted in Christianity, AND we have to force all Americans to be Christians.

    Jefferson’s argument was:

    Yes, Christianity is the best, yes it is the only way man can be saved, yes a government can only be successful under it, BUT we CAN NOT force people to be Christians.

    Henry wanted to construct our laws in such a way that it forced people to be Christians.

    Jefferson totally disagreed with that. Jefferson reminded Henry that they left England b/c of religious persecution and he believed that freedoms, particularly the freedom of religion, are what would make this country great!

    Jefferson pointed out that free-will is from GOD and that it would be *un-Christian*, in many ways, to restrict that GOD given free-will. GOD gave us the free-will to choose our religion or choose no religion at all. GOD gave us free-will to make right and wrong decisions. (“Many are called, but only few are chosen.”) Jefferson pointed out that not everyone would make the right decision (be Christian) but that was the way it was suppose to be!

    In the end, as you know, Jefferson won! We are not forced to be Christians here. We have the freedom of religion. But just b/c Jefferson wanted to give people the right to worship as they choose, or not worship at all, does not make him any less of a Christian. In fact, it might just make him more of a Christian than Henry!

    IF, you made the sophisticated argument that gays should have that same free-will to marry whomever they choose. If you wanted to argue that Jefferson MIGHT support gay marriage b/c he was such a strong proponent of free-will. WELL THEN, we would have had an intelligent and enlightening discussion on that!

    Of course I would disagree with that, and I have a whole long list of very compelling reasons why. But I would still be able to respect and tolerate your OPINON on that!

    But no! You make the stupid decision to debate FACTS! So I’m sorry I called you an idiot, but I have a very low tolerance for stupidity! And you have been arguing facts, which is stupid!

    It is a fact that ALL of our Founding Fathers were Christians. (I’ll give you the list)
    It is a fact that our Constitution and laws are Biblically based.

    You can NOT debate facts!

    We can argue all day long until we are both blue in the face whether Marc is a good man or a bad man, whether he is a smart man or a dumb man!

    But we can not argue whether he is a black man or a white man! It is a fact that Marc is a black man. You can not argue facts!

    But that’s what you’ve been doing this whole time. You’ve been arguing that Marc is a white man (this is an analogy of course!). AND YOU WERE WRONG!!!

    I’m done here! You have frustrated me so much, and I can’t waste another Saturday responding to dumb comments. I have to get ready for my friends birthday party. So I will not respond to any more of your comments tonight. I’m also leaving on Sunday for Martha’s Vineyard and I’ll be there for a week (on business), so I will not be in the ‘Shop and I will not be reading or responding for the week.

    I wish you the best.

    GOD Bless you and GOD Bless your family. Be well!

  38. Tanya - November 15, 2008 11:52 pm

    When the Founding Fathers filled out a “census” and identified their own religion, they ALL identified themselves as Christians.

    The Signers of the Declaration of Independence

    Charles Carroll – Catholic
    Samuel Huntington – Congregationalist
    Roger Sherman – Congregationalist
    William Williams – Congregationalist
    Oliver Wolcott – Congregationalist
    Lyman Hall – Congregationalist
    Samuel Adams – Congregationalist
    John Hancock – Congregationalist
    Josiah Bartlett – Congregationalist
    William Whipple – Congregationalist
    William Ellery – Congregationalist
    John Adams – Congregationalist; Unitarian
    Robert Treat Paine – Congregationalist; Unitarian
    George Walton – Episcopalian
    John Penn – Episcopalian
    George Ross – Episcopalian
    Thomas Heyward Jr. – Episcopalian
    Thomas Lynch Jr. – Episcopalian
    Arthur Middleton – Episcopalian
    Edward Rutledge – Episcopalian
    Francis Lightfoot Lee – Episcopalian
    Richard Henry Lee – Episcopalian
    George Read – Episcopalian
    Caesar Rodney – Episcopalian
    Samuel Chase – Episcopalian
    William Paca – Episcopalian
    Thomas Stone – Episcopalian
    Elbridge Gerry – Episcopalian
    Francis Hopkinson – Episcopalian
    Francis Lewis – Episcopalian
    Lewis Morris – Episcopalian
    William Hooper – Episcopalian
    Robert Morris – Episcopalian
    John Morton – Episcopalian
    Stephen Hopkins – Episcopalian
    Carter Braxton – Episcopalian
    Benjamin Harrison – Episcopalian
    Thomas Nelson Jr. – Episcopalian
    George Wythe – Episcopalian
    Thomas Jefferson – Episcopalian
    Benjamin Franklin – Episcopalian
    Button Gwinnett – Episcopalian; Congregationalist
    James Wilson – Episcopalian; Presbyterian
    Joseph Hewes – Quaker, Episcopalian
    George Clymer – Quaker, Episcopalian
    Thomas McKean – Presbyterian
    Matthew Thornton – Presbyterian
    Abraham Clark – Presbyterian
    John Hart – Presbyterian
    Richard Stockton – Presbyterian
    John Witherspoon – Presbyterian
    William Floyd – Presbyterian
    Philip Livingston – Presbyterian
    James Smith – Presbyterian
    George Taylor – Presbyterian
    Benjamin Rush – Presbyterian

  39. Tanya - November 16, 2008 12:00 am

    The Signers of the Constitution

    Daniel Carroll – Catholic
    Thomas Fitzsimons – Catholic
    Roger Sherman – Congregationalist
    Nathaniel Gorham – Congregationalist
    John Langdon – Congregationalist
    Nicholas Gilman – Congregationalist
    Abraham Baldwin – Congregationalist; Episcopalian
    William Samuel Johnson – Episcopalian; Presbyterian
    James Madison Jr. – Episcopalian
    George Read – Episcopalian
    Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer – Episcopalian
    David Brearly – Episcopalian
    Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. – Episcopalian
    Robert Morris – Episcopalian
    Gouverneur Morris – Episcopalian
    John Rutledge – Episcopalian
    Charles Cotesworth Pinckney – Episcopalian
    Charles Pinckney – Episcopalian
    Pierce Butler – Episcopalian
    George Washington – Episcopalian
    Benjamin Franklin – Episcopalian
    William Blount – Episcopalian; Presbyterian
    James Wilson – Episcopalian; Presbyteran
    Rufus King – Episcopalian; Congregationalist
    Jacob Broom – Lutheran
    William Few – Methodist
    Richard Bassett – Methodist
    Gunning Bedford Jr. – Presbyterian
    James McHenry – Presbyterian
    William Livingston – Presbyterian
    William Paterson – Presbyterian
    Hugh Williamson – Presbyterian
    Jared Ingersoll – Presbyterian
    Alexander Hamilton – Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
    Jonathan Dayton – Presbyterian; Episcopalian
    John Blair – Presbyterian; Episcopalian
    John Dickinson – Quaker; Episcopalian
    George Clymer – Quaker; Episcopalian
    Thomas Mifflin – Quaker; Lutheran

    As you can see over half of them were Episcopalian as I mentioned in #52.

    And ALL of them are Christians!

    OK, I’m hitting the club now! After dealing with you, I NEED a few drinks!

Have your say