Founding Fathers Debate -- Need Help

[Ancalagon]

You ARE aware that one of the Founding Fathers wrote an entire voluminous screed about his contempt for religion, right? Does "The Age of Reason" ring a bell?

When you look at the personal correspondence of Jefferson and Adams, they became more and more open with their contempt for Christianity as they got older. Whether this represented a genuine change of heart or merely a collapse of inhibitions is an open question, but one thing is certain: neither of those men, nor indeed any of the others, wanted America to be based on Christianity. And that is the ONLY reason anyone ever debates the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers, no matter how much you would prefer to claim otherwise.

As for the "lies", your version of the quote says pretty much the same thing, so what are you complaining about?

Ah yes, you would know the motivations of everyone who ever debates. And as the misquote i pointed out shows, they do not show a contempt for Xianity, but organized Xianity. BIG, BIG difference.

[Darth Wong]

Ah yes, you would know the motivations of everyone who ever debates.

I don't need to know that in order to know what the agenda of the "Founding Fathers were Christian" people is. This argument is centuries old.

And as the misquote i pointed out shows, they do not show a contempt for Xianity, but organized Xianity. BIG, BIG difference.

No, many of them also show a contempt for Christianity itself. Jefferson comparing the virgin birth of Christ to Minerva bursting from the head of Zeus, for example (or describing the cross as an "engine of grief"). They lived in an era when you simply couldn't get away with saying something like "The Bible is full of shit" and expect to live a normal life.

[SirNitram]

So your argument that many of these quotes are not accurate is....

That carloads was used outside M-W's claimed time period. Of course, we'll leap from that, ignoring the three easily reconcilable options I gave, to your claim that most of the quotes must be bad.

....


I cannot express the contempt I feel right now.

1) Do not put words in my mouth, prick. I have said what i have said.

2) ARE YOU BLIND?!??!

No, are you stupid?

And sorry to 'nitpick' about another one of those quotes but maybe it should be read in context


[Adams is telling Jefferson about an arguement between Joseph Cleverly and Lemuel Bryant]:

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not ft to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

John Adams, Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1856), Vol. X, p. 254


Obviously whoever posted those original quotes hasn't learned about selective quoteing.

I find the bolded part, you know, suspicious, due to the phrase 'I mean Hell'. If you get to throw a little hissy fit about 'carloads', I will point out the phrase 'I mean Hell' in the context you seem to expect it to be, is a 20th century thing.

Of course, he could be 'meaning' Hell in place of Polite Company. And I could make numerous comments on Polite Company(These were people rebelling against the Polite Company of the English and all that, but).

So. One quote is supposed to make all the others roll away? Does the phrase 'silver bullet mentality' etch itself on your brain?

3) I have run a search trying to find documentation for the whole 'carload' quote. From what i have found it is a degredation of the quote:

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and the whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."
John Adams, U.S. President.

But i come to that conclusion only b/c that one comes up more. But i haven't found any documentation for either of two. I only spent a couple of minutes and i got tired of doing your (plural) job for you. You (plural) posted the quotes, its your job to prove they are true.

This is a new one. How shall we prove it's true, exactly? Since Your Highness doesn't accept multiple explainations for the tiny problem, what should we do, hrm?

4) im sorry you feel disgusted i really do....

Well, I'm sorry to say it's getting worse every time you post. Are you actually trying to have me simply mock you? The best you've come up with is 'Dur, the word looks wrong' and 'Adams was not rabidly anti-religious, just somewhat anti-religious'. So, I ask, what did you have for breakfast? CRACK?!

[Ancalagon]

Ah yes, you would know the motivations of everyone who ever debates.

I don't need to know that in order to know what the agenda of the "Founding Fathers were Christian" people is. This argument is centuries old.

And as the misquote i pointed out shows, they do not show a contempt for Xianity, but organized Xianity. BIG, BIG difference.

No, many of them also show a contempt for Christianity itself. Jefferson comparing the virgin birth of Christ to Minerva bursting from the head of Zeus, for example (or describing the cross as an "engine of grief"). They lived in an era when you simply couldn't get away with saying something like "The Bible is full of shit" and expect to live a normal life.

1. I argue for it b/c it is a fact. Are facts something that is bad to defend around here?

2. Um... actually yes you could get away with. Ever heard of Voltaire?

[Ancalagon]

So your argument that many of these quotes are not accurate is....

That carloads was used outside M-W's claimed time period. Of course, we'll leap from that, ignoring the three easily reconcilable options I gave, to your claim that most of the quotes must be bad.

....


I cannot express the contempt I feel right now.

1) Do not put words in my mouth, prick. I have said what i have said.

2) ARE YOU BLIND?!??!

No, are you stupid?

And sorry to 'nitpick' about another one of those quotes but maybe it should be read in context


[Adams is telling Jefferson about an arguement between Joseph Cleverly and Lemuel Bryant]:

Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not ft to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

John Adams, Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1856), Vol. X, p. 254


Obviously whoever posted those original quotes hasn't learned about selective quoteing.

I find the bolded part, you know, suspicious, due to the phrase 'I mean Hell'. If you get to throw a little hissy fit about 'carloads', I will point out the phrase 'I mean Hell' in the context you seem to expect it to be, is a 20th century thing.

Of course, he could be 'meaning' Hell in place of Polite Company. And I could make numerous comments on Polite Company(These were people rebelling against the Polite Company of the English and all that, but).

So. One quote is supposed to make all the others roll away? Does the phrase 'silver bullet mentality' etch itself on your brain?

3) I have run a search trying to find documentation for the whole 'carload' quote. From what i have found it is a degredation of the quote:

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and the whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."
John Adams, U.S. President.

But i come to that conclusion only b/c that one comes up more. But i haven't found any documentation for either of two. I only spent a couple of minutes and i got tired of doing your (plural) job for you. You (plural) posted the quotes, its your job to prove they are true.

This is a new one. How shall we prove it's true, exactly? Since Your Highness doesn't accept multiple explainations for the tiny problem, what should we do, hrm?

4) im sorry you feel disgusted i really do....

Well, I'm sorry to say it's getting worse every time you post. Are you actually trying to have me simply mock you? The best you've come up with is 'Dur, the word looks wrong' and 'Adams was not rabidly anti-religious, just somewhat anti-religious'. So, I ask, what did you have for breakfast? CRACK?!

1. I gave you all the publishing info on the book. Go look it up yourself.

2. Find a reference for it besides "Adams"... do you have any idea how many false references and quotes there are on the net? Find me something i can go to my lib and look up. Those my friends are facts.

3. *sigh* I guess debating on a history website has spolied me...

[Darth Wong]

1. I argue for it b/c it is a fact. Are facts something that is bad to defend around here?

You have objective facts about the subjective state of mind of a person who lived 300 years ago? Of course not. What you have is theories, based on interpretation (and in some cases, selection) of evidence. Too bad you don't know the difference.

2. Um... actually yes you could get away with. Ever heard of Voltaire?

Yes. He and similar contemporaries served as the inspiration for the Constitution. Unfortunately, America was crawling with Puritans and other assorted loonies who made it more uncomfortable to be an atheist here than elsewhere. That is still true.

[SirNitram]

First and foremost, don't quote that much text if you aren't replying to it sequentially. It makes you look like more of a fucking moron than your netty spellings.

1. I gave you all the publishing info on the book. Go look it up yourself.

2. Find a reference for it besides "Adams"... do you have any idea how many false references and quotes there are on the net? Find me something i can go to my lib and look up. Those my friends are facts.

*giggle* See, you finally became an amusing little idiot with this line. Not only, not only are we supposed to run around to prove it isn't a lie, but they must be references from the internet(I wonder how you came to that conclusion? Probably by donning a cape and leaping forward), and they must be dodgy. I wonder if you could, you know, try proving your assertions.

3. *sigh* I guess debating on a history website has spolied me...

Yea, we're horrible mean people who use logic, parsimony, and demand people walking in claiming we're lying to start proving it. Seriously, you keep affirming these things but you've done.. Jack and Shit to back it up. YOU make the claims, YOU back them up. One quote under suspicion(I note, ah-ha, that you shy away from the fact your own quote is dodgy for the same reason. I wonder why...) does not throw the entire premise on it's head, as much as you'd like to believe such.

[SirNitram]

Well, since I try to be the bigger man, here's the actual quote.

Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and the whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days? (Hatch, pg. 181)

As I suspected, it is the word carTloads, but someone dropped a T somewhere on the way. So your entire line of whining is instantly invalidated in a single quotation... I do so love being me.

Hatch refers to Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980).

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Nitram, there are times when I can't believe I held ground against you in that ST vs. SW debate we got into awhile back.

That, my man, was brilliant.

I eagerly await Ancalagon's reply, which is sure to be as full with entertainment as it will be devoid of reason.

[SirNitram]

Nitram, there are times when I can't believe I held ground against you in that ST vs. SW debate we got into awhile back.

Bah, leave the past in the past, my friend. Our immature battles mean little in the face of a common idiot.

That, my man, was brilliant.

I eagerly await Ancalagon's reply, which is sure to be as full with entertainment as it will be devoid of reason.

It'll probably go along with GC's claims that John Adams was still Christian from some absurd premise. But, thank you. It actually means alot to me to hear someone who I debated with so vehemently congratulate me. Especially tonight.. Oh gods, especialy tonight.

[Ancalagon]

You ARE aware that one of the Founding Fathers wrote an entire voluminous screed about his contempt for religion, right? Does "The Age of Reason" ring a bell?


As for the "lies", your version of the quote says pretty much the same thing, so what are you complaining about?

1. No i'm not please tell me about it.

2. I have yet to find where Adams supposedly said this... until then it is just an internet quote.

[Ancalagon]

First and foremost, don't quote that much text if you aren't replying to it sequentially. It makes you look like more of a fucking moron than your netty spellings.

1. I gave you all the publishing info on the book. Go look it up yourself.

2. Find a reference for it besides "Adams"... do you have any idea how many false references and quotes there are on the net? Find me something i can go to my lib and look up. Those my friends are facts.

*giggle* See, you finally became an amusing little idiot with this line. Not only, not only are we supposed to run around to prove it isn't a lie, but they must be references from the internet(I wonder how you came to that conclusion? Probably by donning a cape and leaping forward), and they must be dodgy. I wonder if you could, you know, try proving your assertions.

3. *sigh* I guess debating on a history website has spolied me...

Yea, we're horrible mean people who use logic, parsimony, and demand people walking in claiming we're lying to start proving it. Seriously, you keep affirming these things but you've done.. Jack and Shit to back it up. YOU make the claims, YOU back them up. One quote under suspicion(I note, ah-ha, that you shy away from the fact your own quote is dodgy for the same reason. I wonder why...) does not throw the entire premise on it's head, as much as you'd like to believe such.

1. You fool! The quotes are attmited to be from the internet see this thread: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=12272

2. Keep telling yourself that Garcin.

[Ancalagon]

Well, since I try to be the bigger man, here's the actual quote.

Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and the whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days? (Hatch, pg. 181)

As I suspected, it is the word carTloads, but someone dropped a T somewhere on the way. So your entire line of whining is instantly invalidated in a single quotation... I do so love being me.

Hatch refers to Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980).

Thank you! I was tired of being the only one doing the grunt work. Too bad the original quote you guys posted was wrong though (see link in my above post)

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I'm sorry, maybe I just don't speak Flaming Idiot quite as fluently as I used to... are you trying to say that the meaning being conveyed in that quote is different from the meaning conveyed in the quote where the "T" was accidentally dropped from "carTloads"?

Because it appears to me that, whereas a word or two may be different, it's delivering exactly the same message.

Does anyone have any Thorazine handy? We may need to restrain this one.

[Darth Wong]

As usual, the nitpicker does not recognize that a red-herring nitpick is actually a bad thing: "you guys dropped a T in your quote, so your whole argument falls apart! HA HA HA HA!!!!"

[Darth Wong]

Does "The Age of Reason" ring a bell?

1. No i'm not please tell me about it.

It was a book written by Thomas Paine which absolutely vilified Christianity in all its forms. It created so much public controversy that many politicians tried to distance themselves from him after its publication (a period during which they made numerous public statements in support of Christianity which are now used as evidence that they were Christian; even the famously anti-Christian Thomas Jefferson made such comments, and yes, they are still used as evidence).

[SirNitram]

Well, since I try to be the bigger man, here's the actual quote.

Where do we find a precept in the Gospel requiring Ecclesiastical Synods? Convocations? Councils? Decrees? Creeds? Confessions? Oaths? Subscriptions? and the whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days? (Hatch, pg. 181)

As I suspected, it is the word carTloads, but someone dropped a T somewhere on the way. So your entire line of whining is instantly invalidated in a single quotation... I do so love being me.

Hatch refers to Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980).

Thank you! I was tired of being the only one doing the grunt work. Too bad the original quote you guys posted was wrong though (see link in my above post)

A one letter dropped is not a 'wrong' quote, anymore than the Five Mile River is the wrong name for the river running through the town of Rowayton.

[Ancalagon]

Does "The Age of Reason" ring a bell?

1. No i'm not please tell me about it.

It was a book written by Thomas Paine which absolutely vilified Christianity in all its forms. It created so much public controversy that many politicians tried to distance themselves from him after its publication (a period during which they made numerous public statements in support of Christianity which are now used as evidence that they were Christian; even the famously anti-Christian Thomas Jefferson made such comments, and yes, they are still used as evidence).

Please find one Founding Document that has Thomas Paine's signature on it..

Oh wait a tick there isn't one,

thank you, try again.

[Ancalagon]

I'm sorry, maybe I just don't speak Flaming Idiot quite as fluently as I used to... are you trying to say that the meaning being conveyed in that quote is different from the meaning conveyed in the quote where the "T" was accidentally dropped from "carTloads"?

Because it appears to me that, whereas a word or two may be different, it's delivering exactly the same message.

Does anyone have any Thorazine handy? We may need to restrain this one.

With reading comp skills as lacking as this, no wonder you suck a writing.

[SirNitram]

I'm sorry, maybe I just don't speak Flaming Idiot quite as fluently as I used to... are you trying to say that the meaning being conveyed in that quote is different from the meaning conveyed in the quote where the "T" was accidentally dropped from "carTloads"?

Because it appears to me that, whereas a word or two may be different, it's delivering exactly the same message.

Does anyone have any Thorazine handy? We may need to restrain this one.

With reading comp skills as lacking as this, no wonder you suck a writing.

Are you braindead? You claim a 'wrong quote' was used because one letter was dropped somewhere in it's passage through mediums. If anything, this points to you being underpar in your comprehension of reading.

[Ancalagon]

Well, since I try to be the bigger man, here's the actual quote.
As I suspected, it is the word carTloads, but someone dropped a T somewhere on the way. So your entire line of whining is instantly invalidated in a single quotation... I do so love being me.

Hatch refers to Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980).

Thank you! I was tired of being the only one doing the grunt work. Too bad the original quote you guys posted was wrong though (see link in my above post)

A one letter dropped is not a 'wrong' quote, anymore than the Five Mile River is the wrong name for the river running through the town of Rowayton.

Same thing i told VisionRazor... look at the two quotes. Its not just one letter.

Oh in case you were wondering Gospel does not equal Bible.

[NapoleonGH]

ancalagon, Thomas paine is most certainly a founding father, regardless of whether or not he wrote any documents, he can be used as a witness for the principles of the revolution, those of the enlightenment.

[Ancalagon]

I'm sorry, maybe I just don't speak Flaming Idiot quite as fluently as I used to... are you trying to say that the meaning being conveyed in that quote is different from the meaning conveyed in the quote where the "T" was accidentally dropped from "carTloads"?

Because it appears to me that, whereas a word or two may be different, it's delivering exactly the same message.

Does anyone have any Thorazine handy? We may need to restrain this one.

With reading comp skills as lacking as this, no wonder you suck a writing.

No my friend it is you who doesn't understand... im sorry to disappoint you
Are you braindead? You claim a 'wrong quote' was used because one letter was dropped somewhere in it's passage through mediums. If anything, this points to you being underpar in your comprehension of reading.

[SirNitram]

Same thing i told VisionRazor... look at the two quotes. Its not just one letter.

Oh in case you were wondering Gospel does not equal Bible.

With regards to Christianity.. it does.

[Ancalagon]

ancalagon, Thomas paine is most certainly a founding father, regardless of whether or not he wrote any documents, he can be used as a witness for the principles of the revolution, those of the enlightenment.

A Revolutionary is not a founding father... I think Patrick Henry would be very insulted if you tried to tell him he was a founder of the government the Constitution established...