US founded on "Christian Principles"?

[ceo_esq]

Thanks but does that mean since I once went to St. Marks in NYC I am a catholic. I didn't ask you for a list of affiliations, I asked you who were christians or am I to understand that you feel anyone who goes to church is a christian and if that is so, please tell us the bare minimum requirement to be a christian. Was David Koresh a christian? How about David Berkowitz (whom I did meet in St. Marks the day before he shot Stacy Moskowitz).

Here is the source for that list of religious affiliations of the Framers and other Founding Fathers. You will note that various sources were compared in order to ascertain whether each man belonged to a particular denomination. While that doesn't mean that the conclusions are necessarily correct, it does establish a prima facie case that (unless otherwise noted) each man was an adherent of the corresponding religion. If you're inclined to dispute the particular authority or to rebut the presumption, then go ahead. However, the burden of rebuttal now rests on you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you admit saying what I quoted you as writing. If you can't do the simple task of admitting what you wrote (nothing about meaning), there is absolutly no point in my (or any rational person) wasting time responding to you.

I feel your pain. On this thread we just have claus telling us we must ACCEPT it.

That's not what I say. That's what Christians say.

Really?!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1325747a3c19b58419.jpg[/qimg]

Was there a rouge christian using your account?

With those words, you implied that I had meant it.

 

[skeptical]

I think its safe to say this thread has jumped the shark as far as the OP is concerned.

Thanks for everyone who participated, it has been fun. My final conclusion on the OP is that there may in some general sense be "Christian principles" underlying the natural rights ideas of the founders via Locke. However, its not clear to me that those are actually "Christian principles" at all, at least not from the perspective of the religion itself and the history of its interaction in political systems prior to the US.

I am going to do some more study on the relationship of Locke and the foundational principles and his ideas on the underpinnings of natural rights and their sources.

Thanks again to all who participated.

 

[~enigma~]

Do you admit saying what I quoted you as writing. If you can't do the simple task of admitting what you wrote (nothing about meaning), there is absolutly no point in my (or any rational person) wasting time responding to you.

You did read that since you quoted it. Where is an admission that you said (wrote) it?

 

[RobRoy]

That is neither what I said nor is it a topic that makes any bit of difference in this discussion. Now if you want he definition found in the bible then I can tell you.

My apologies then. Can you please explain what you meant when you said, ". . . that doesn't change the fact that they are going above what the defining text of christianity did. You can call yourself an Aquinist if you want."

Thanks!

I thought we were talking about christian principals. If you want to talk buddist or something else, start a different thread.

I was making a logical parallel based on your generalization of, ". . . if the views are from outside the defining text of christianity then the religion is not christianity but some idiotic cult."

In this case I was extrapolating to find out the bounds of your argument. If it's only pertinent to Christianity, please explain why Christians are relegated to this restriction.

If you aren't a catholic you are playing 'devil's advocate' and that fact makes little difference in what i said.

Not Catholic, not even Christian.

But I kindly ask you to cut your holier than thou bs "Thanks for playing" or forget responding to me again. Simple enough to understand?

Haha. That's lovely. Holier than thou would have been a comment like, "You're an idiot for leaping to the conclusion that I'm a Christian." Just as an example.

In this case, you made a guess, an erroneous one, and I was thanking for trying. Sorry if you took that took that the wrong way.

Actually you are but apparently you don't know what I think...that is good

I do know, based on your comments, that you think I'm a Christian with an agenda. That's incorrect on all counts.

On the other hand, I am also glad that I don't know what you're thinking. Seems like kinna a mess in there.

Glad that the education is better now, Could you imagine the walking stupid if everyone believed like you?

Believed what? That research, discussion, and logical discourse are good things?

Thanks for your admission that you aren't the final authority.

Ahh...first you admit that your not the final authority then comes the but.....sorry, not falling for it. Find another guy to sell your bs to.

Not selling anything, my friend. These men all claimed an affiliation with certain Christian sects. If you can prove that the majority weren't actually Christian, then by all means, present your evidence.

 

[~enigma~]

Can you please explain what you meant when you said, ". . . that doesn't change the fact that they are going above what the defining text of christianity did. You can call yourself an Aquinist if you want."

You want me to repeat the words? I have an idea, refer to a dictionary if there is a word you don't understand.

In this case I was extrapolating to find out the bounds of your argument. If it's only pertinent to Christianity, please explain why Christians are relegated to this restriction.

Did I say that? You do a great job of putting words in my mouth. And you accuse me of building strawmen...

Not Catholic, not even Christian.

That is great but what exactly does that have to do with your argument?

BTW, this post sure does a whole lot to show the USA was founded on christian principals. Are your arguments always this impotent?

 

[RobRoy]

You want me to repeat the words? I have an idea, refer to a dictionary if there is a word you don't understand.

LOL. You're quite funny.

Did I say that? You do a great job of putting words in my mouth. And you accuse me of building strawmen...

ROFL. That's awesome! Of course I didn't say you said that. Otherwise I would have quoted it. Clearly you don't know what a straw man argument is, otherwise you would know that asking for clarification isn't one.

That is great but what exactly does that have to do with your argument?

It was refutation of your ad hominem attacks on me. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

BTW, this post sure does a whole lot to show the USA was founded on christian principals. Are your arguments always this impotent?

Nice, very nice. I see you've ignored all the relevant facts, arguments and logical discourse and devolved into purely personal attacks. I had originally thought you had something interesting to contribute. Clearly, I was wrong. But, thanks for playing anyhow!

 

[~enigma~]

LOL. You're quite funny.



ROFL. That's awesome! Of course I didn't say you said that. Otherwise I would have quoted it. Clearly you don't know what a straw man argument is, otherwise you would know that asking for clarification isn't one.



It was refutation of your ad hominem attacks on me. Sorry if that wasn't clear.



Nice, very nice. I see you've ignored all the relevant facts, arguments and logical discourse and devolved into purely personal attacks. I had originally thought you had something interesting to contribute. Clearly, I was wrong. But, thanks for playing anyhow!

I don't see an argument at all in this post. Guess you belong in a group with other woo. Welcome to ignore.

 

[RobRoy]

I don't see an argument at all in this post. Guess you belong in a group with other woo. Welcome to ignore.

Not that you'll get this, but here are the arguments you ignored.

Perhaps you'll address ceo's recent responses. Those were, generally, in line with mine.

Thanks again for playing!