Founding Fathers Debate -- Need Help

[Ancalagon]

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.

Sorry, your wrong. The Gospel is only four of 27 books of the NT. There is a reason Paul is often refered to as the 2nd founder of Xianity b/c of the huge impact his writings and theology had on the religion.... To dismiss his importance and the importance of the OT shows your ignorance of the history of Xianity.

[NapoleonGH]

what is with this whole Xianity anyway, do you refer to him as Jesus X? if so is he related to Malcom?

Furthermore the gospels are the only books that can even claim to be anything other than secondary sources, and they include the real messages.


If i were a christian i would have to reject paul's writings purely because he is a mysoginystic asshole with no conception of morality or common human decency, Any christian's case supporting christianity as a good thing would do very well to say that paul isnt canonical. The NT is not fixed at 27 books, that is a silly western european concept. The other branches of christianity have different numbers of books. the Coptic, apostolic, and orthodox churches all have different numbers. Example the Book of Jubilees was removed from the NT by the Roman Catholic Church (i dont think they were removed by the Greek Catholic Church too, anyone know?) and the protestants, who were merely offshoots of roman catholism, maintained that removal, but it is still recognised by some of the oldest churches.

All of the apocrypha qualify in this area as biblical books that the protestants and roman catholics conveniently choose not to accept. If these books can be thrown out and you can still call yourself a christian then any of the other NT books can be forgoten about too and you can still be a christian. I HIGHLY suggest that if you want to be able to debate in favor of your religion seriously without comming off as a mysoginist that you do this to anything that is attributed to paul, PRONTO.

[Ancalagon]

what is with this whole Xianity anyway, do you refer to him as Jesus X? if so is he related to Malcom?

Furthermore the gospels are the only books that can even claim to be anything other than secondary sources, and they include the real messages.


If i were a christian i would have to reject paul's writings purely because he is a mysoginystic asshole with no conception of morality or common human decency, Any christian's case supporting christianity as a good thing would do very well to say that paul isnt canonical. The NT is not fixed at 27 books, that is a silly western european concept. The other branches of christianity have different numbers of books. the Coptic, apostolic, and orthodox churches all have different numbers. Example the Book of Jubilees was removed from the NT by the Roman Catholic Church (i dont think they were removed by the Greek Catholic Church too, anyone know?) and the protestants, who were merely offshoots of roman catholism, maintained that removal, but it is still recognised by some of the oldest churches.

All of the apocrypha qualify in this area as biblical books that the protestants and roman catholics conveniently choose not to accept. If these books can be thrown out and you can still call yourself a christian then any of the other NT books can be forgoten about too and you can still be a christian. I HIGHLY suggest that if you want to be able to debate in favor of your religion seriously without comming off as a mysoginist that you do this to anything that is attributed to paul, PRONTO.

Actually no, again you are wrong. Paul claims to have met the risen X, therefor he does have claim to being a primary source.

And when i have ever claimed to believe in the Authority of Paul??? All i have is pointed out that Xianity as an organized religioun does. Please simply read my posts and don't make assumptions... it only makes you look a fool.

Posted by Ancalagon, 2003/05/06 10:13 PM
But then again i don't believe in the Authority of Paul.

http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat ... art=1&vc=1

As to how many books are in the NT, while you are semi-true, i don't since its relivance to the discussion... so there are more is less books to some people.... does this change the fact that the Gospel does not equal the Bible... that whole paragraph is a red herring....

[NapoleonGH]

no it isnt, becasue that means that the NT CAN be only the Gospels, if you so chose, as people have chosen to throw certain aspects away or not, meaning that the bible is not necessarily anything but the gospels. That was my point.

And once again can you tell me what the reason for not writing christ out is? is there so big deal about the english form of the greek work Christos that i am not familiar with, is it like the jewish thing about not saying god's real name?

paul CLAIMS to have met christ, that doesnt mean that he did, he NEVER met a LIVING Jesus, only a dead one. That makes him a secondary source if you arent a christian.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Ancalagon, if you want to link to a thread in order to demonstrate something to us, please keep in mind that we can't read threads in The Neutral Zone. (The Neutral Zone is a certain forum at TrekBBS, which can't be viewed without a TrekBBS account.)

[Ancalagon]

no it isnt, becasue that means that the NT CAN be only the Gospels, if you so chose, as people have chosen to throw certain aspects away or not, meaning that the bible is not necessarily anything but the gospels. That was my point.

And i will tell you that 99.99999999999999% of Xians believe that there is more to the Bible than the Gospels..

And once again can you tell me what the reason for not writing christ out is? is there so big deal about the english form of the greek work Christos that i am not familiar with, is it like the jewish thing about not saying god's real name?

Nope, just easier, and i'm a lazy son of a bitch....

paul CLAIMS to have met christ, that doesnt mean that he did, he NEVER met a LIVING Jesus, only a dead one. That makes him a secondary source if you arent a christian.

That is true and i agree but then you shouldn't have said: "Furthermore the gospels are the only books that can even claim to be anything other than secondary sources, and they include the real messages."

So not only does Paul claim them to be primary sources but as you yourself point out most Xians believe it.

[Ancalagon]

Ancalagon, if you want to link to a thread in order to demonstrate something to us, please keep in mind that we can't read threads in The Neutral Zone. (The Neutral Zone is a certain forum at TrekBBS, which can't be viewed without a TrekBBS account.)

i'm sorry

[NapoleonGH]

I say that claiming to be a primary source, includes claiming to have been present at the events in question and having met the living player in this matter, aka jesus christ. Paul claims to have met the dead jesus, thus i do not include it as a claim to be anything other than a second source

[Ancalagon]

I say that claiming to be a primary source, includes claiming to have been present at the events in question and having met the living player in this matter, aka jesus christ. Paul claims to have met the dead jesus, thus i do not include it as a claim to be anything other than a second source

Actually no. Paul claims to have met the risen X.... Thus he didn't just hear about this dude named Jesus, but actually met him.... Thus he does claim to be a primary source.

[NapoleonGH]

he claims to have met the RISEN jesus, emphasis on risen, aka DEAD, aka he cannot be a primary source never met the living dude.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Right, so let's see if I've got this straight -- Jesus wanders around doing his thing. Now, while this is going on, Paul hasn't met the guy. Then Jesus dies. Then (according to the Bible) Jesus comes back.

Is it really Jesus? Or is it Jesus: Part Two? Bear with me here.

Paul meets Jesus: Part Two. Now, since the Part Two bit is what non-Christians don't believe, this is why non-Christians would view Paul as a secondary source to Jesus: Original Flavor. Paul didn't meet Jesus: Original Flavor. He claimed to have met Jesus: Part Two.

You may not agree with that, Ancalagon, but I think you can admit that it makes sense, especially in reconciling your position with NapoleonGH's.

[Ancalagon]

he claims to have met the RISEN jesus, emphasis on risen, aka DEAD, aka he cannot be a primary source never met the living dude.

No thats not right, b/c according to Xianity Jesus lives. He was alive, he was dead, he came back to life. So if say a dude named Paul met X after he died its still the same X. Now you may say that is all bullshit.. but we aren't argueing about what you way, we are argueing about what Paul claims. And Paul does claim to have met X, so Paul does claim to be a primary source. As i said earlier, you can say it all never happend and Paul just ate the good kind of mushrooms, but that doens't change what Paul claims which is what we are argueing about here.

Hope that makes sense.

[Ancalagon]

Right, so let's see if I've got this straight -- Jesus wanders around doing his thing. Now, while this is going on, Paul hasn't met the guy. Then Jesus dies. Then (according to the Bible) Jesus comes back.

Is it really Jesus? Or is it Jesus: Part Two? Bear with me here.

Paul meets Jesus: Part Two. Now, since the Part Two bit is what non-Christians don't believe, this is why non-Christians would view Paul as a secondary source to Jesus: Original Flavor. Paul didn't meet Jesus: Original Flavor. He claimed to have met Jesus: Part Two.

You may not agree with that, Ancalagon, but I think you can admit that it makes sense, especially in reconciling your position with NapoleonGH's.

What you say makes sense, but as i told NapoleonGH, thats not what we are debating about. We are debating about what Paul claims and as can be clearly seen in Acts 9:1-22 Paul does claim to have met X, thus he does claim to be a primary source.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Okay, here's the thing -- Ancalagon, I see what you're saying: if you invoke faith and say that Jesus came back, then yes -- you also take it on faith that Paul saw him.

What you have to understand here is that you should assume that your opponents don't share that faith. As an extension of that premise, you must also realize that without that faith, we cannot accept Paul as a primary source.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[Ancalagon]

Okay in order to try and recap, i'm going to assume the points i made that were unanswered you guys either agree, or don't have the info to continue on. These would be.

1) (mis)Quoting 4 out of over 100 founding fathers is not a good basis for making an overall statement of belief for the whole group.

2) That this quote was a misquote:
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”

3) That this quote is a perfect example of blatant selective quoteing:

“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

[for those who have forgotten in the actual quote Adams follows by saying But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

God damn that changes the meaning of the quote a wee little bit doesn't it.

4) That Thomas Paine was not a founding father.

Now do all agree to these points?

[SirNitram]

3) That this quote is a perfect example of blatant selective quoteing:

“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

[for those who have forgotten in the actual quote Adams follows by saying But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

I want the source for this 'correction'. The slang usage you imply did not arise for another two-fucking-centuries in common usage. If you can whine and bitch and cry about carloads, I will demand you prove this is the real quote.

[Ancalagon]

Okay, here's the thing -- Ancalagon, I see what you're saying: if you invoke faith and say that Jesus came back, then yes -- you also take it on faith that Paul saw him.

What you have to understand here is that you should assume that your opponents don't share that faith. As an extension of that premise, you must also realize that without that faith, we cannot accept Paul as a primary source.

Do you see what I'm saying?

No, what i am saying is that faith has nothing to do with this... look i think you might have missed the beginning of this debate, Nap said "Furthermore the gospels are the only books that can even claim to be anything other than secondary sources, and they include the real messages. "

Now, as i showed you, Acts proves that Paul does claim to be primary source. I'm not argueing over whether or not it is a source, b/c as you correctly point out that is based on faith, i am debating on weither or not Paul claims to be a primary source.

[Ancalagon]

3) That this quote is a perfect example of blatant selective quoteing:

“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

[for those who have forgotten in the actual quote Adams follows by saying But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

I want the source for this 'correction'. The slang usage you imply did not arise for another two-fucking-centuries in common usage. If you can whine and bitch and cry about carloads, I will demand you prove this is the real quote.

No problem man..

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

Any public or uni library (in the states, and i even bet in other English speaking nations at least at uni libs) should have that book. Feel free to double check.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Okay, it looks like we're splitting hairs here, then (if that's the right phrase).

I can agree that Paul claims to be a primary source. The difficulty comes until we realize that believers will accept him as such. Atheists, however, won't -- because atheists don't believe Jesus came back, therefore we don't believe Paul's claim to be a primary source.

[Darth Wong]

Okay in order to try and recap, i'm going to assume the points i made that were unanswered you guys either agree, or don't have the info to continue on. These would be.

1) (mis)Quoting 4 out of over 100 founding fathers is not a good basis for making an overall statement of belief for the whole group.

When most people say "Founding Fathers", they are referring to the most prominent ones. I guarantee you that more people will recognize the names Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Adams as founding fathers than William Clingan, Charles Pinckney, and Carter Braxton.

2) That this quote was a misquote:
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”

For the umpteenth time, that triumph is a red-herring nitpick: the missing "T" does not change the meaning of the quote.

3) That this quote is a perfect example of blatant selective quoteing:

“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

[for those who have forgotten in the actual quote Adams follows by saying But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.

God damn that changes the meaning of the quote a wee little bit doesn't it.

So? He is obviously referring to the fact that certain religions are demonstrably bad, although he still feels some kind of religion is necessary (since a system of morality might be defined as a religion, much as Einstein defined it, this hardly means he must support theistic supernatural religion). And in fact, since John Adams also said of the Christ resurrection myth:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."

I would think your implication of his Christian faith is rather absurd, to say the least. Why do so many Christians assume that when someone says "religion is good", he MUST be referring to Christianity?

BTW, that comes from http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm (and you will note that before you rush to dismiss the source, they do provide the Adams quote you are so angry about in its full context). They have no history of fabrication or lying, and they also quote the following:

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831

Rather odd than an Episcopal minister would bitterly complain that "the founders of our nation were "nearly all infidels", being so much closer to the source and the primary facts than we are, two centuries later.

4) That Thomas Paine was not a founding father.

Define "founding father". I have asked GC to do this more than once, with no response. Perhaps you will make the effort.

[Ancalagon]

When most people say "Founding Fathers", they are referring to the most prominent ones. I guarantee you that more people will recognize the names Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Adams as founding fathers than William Clingan, Charles Pinckney, and Carter Braxton.

Hold it a sec... you are using something as stupid as the American Public to back up your position?!?!?! BWA-HAHAHAHA.... you are more naive than i thought..... here, i'll let you in on a little secrete... you ready? americans don't know jack shit about history... shush... don't tell anyone...

but don't take my word for it:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ushistory/results/

For the umpteenth time, that triumph is a red-herring nitpick: the missing "T" does not change the meaning of the quote.

Scroll up. sheesh... i've already addressed this point and Raoul, Napoleon and i have been debating it for a page... keep up...

So? He is obviously referring to the fact that certain religions are demonstrably bad, although he still feels some kind of religion is necessary (since a system of morality might be defined as a religion, much as Einstein defined it, this hardly means he must support theistic supernatural religion). And in fact, since John Adams also said of the Christ resurrection myth:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."

I would think your implication of his Christian faith is rather absurd, to say the least. Why do so many Christians assume that when someone says "religion is good", he MUST be referring to Christianity?

BTW, that comes from http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm (and you will note that before you rush to dismiss the source, they do provide the Adams quote you are so angry about in its full context). They have no history of fabrication or lying, and they also quote the following:

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831

Rather odd than an Episcopal minister would bitterly complain that "the founders of our nation were "nearly all infidels", being so much closer to the source and the primary facts than we are, two centuries later.[/quote]

1) So you are sayings its not a perfect example of blatant selective quoting? Whether or not he is talking about Xianity is irrevelent. The (mis)quote was posted in a feeble attempt (too bad you guys are intellectual sluggards who lap up whatever the internet tells them) to make it appear Adams is anti-Xain... the whole quote blows that idea out of the water.

2) "God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."

I agree completely with Adams, God can not be known... The existance of God can not be logically proven. To paraphrase Kierkegaard, believe requires a leap of faith. I also believe science and religion should not be mixed. (i believe in big bang and evolution if you are wondering)

So whats that quote supposed to prove????

3)First off you get pissy at GC for using SCOTUS to back up his possition, but then you quote a minister!?!?!?! Yeah, i'm sure that minister knows a whole lot more about American history, and has access to tons more information on it than SCOTUS. LMAO!!!!

Define "founding father". I have asked GC to do this more than once, with no response. Perhaps you will make the effort.

Someone who signed a founding document... is it that hard to figure out?!?!? A Revolutionary is someone who fought in the Revolution. A Founding Father is someone who signed a founding document...

[Ancalagon]

Okay, it looks like we're splitting hairs here, then (if that's the right phrase).

I can agree that Paul claims to be a primary source. The difficulty comes until we realize that believers will accept him as such. Atheists, however, won't -- because atheists don't believe Jesus came back, therefore we don't believe Paul's claim to be a primary source.

no problem mate, i easily agree with what you are saying.

[Darth Wong]

Hold it a sec... you are using something as stupid as the American Public to back up your position?!?!?! BWA-HAHAHAHA.... you are more naive than i thought..... here, i'll let you in on a little secrete... you ready? americans don't know jack shit about history... shush... don't tell anyone...

So? Is it so incomprehensible that one Founding Father may be more significant than the next? Or do you believe that putting a signature on the document automatically makes them all precisely equal in stature?

Scroll up. sheesh... i've already addressed this point and Raoul, Napoleon and i have been debating it for a page... keep up...

I must have gotten disinterested around the part where you start arguing about the importance of Paul as a primary source (even though Paul is a member of the movement in question, he is also an EXTREMELY biased observer; it's like saying that Herman Goering is a primary source on the Nazis).

1) So you are sayings its not a perfect example of blatant selective quoting? Whether or not he is talking about Xianity is irrevelent. The (mis)quote was posted in a feeble attempt (too bad you guys are intellectual sluggards who lap up whatever the internet tells them) to make it appear Adams is anti-Xain... the whole quote blows that idea out of the water.

Yes, it is a selective quote. So what? How does this prove YOUR position? The webpage positiveatheism.org from where a lot of these quotes come from provides the full quote in context, to avoid confusion. One cannot tar all associated quotes by pointing out the overzealousness of those who quoted this one.

2) "God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."

I agree completely with Adams, God can not be known... The existance of God can not be logically proven. To paraphrase Kierkegaard, believe requires a leap of faith. I also believe science and religion should not be mixed. (i believe in big bang and evolution if you are wondering)

Adams does not say that nothing can be PROVEN; he says nothing can be known at all. This is not the position of someone who believes the Bible is true.

3)First off you get pissy at GC for using SCOTUS to back up his possition, but then you quote a minister!?!?!?! Yeah, i'm sure that minister knows a whole lot more about American history, and has access to tons more information on it than SCOTUS. LMAO!!!!

At the time he lived, it wasn't ancient history, dumb-ass. He is much closer to a primary source than SCOTUS, which made that statement a century after the fact. Moreover, in the case of SCOTUS, we have primary documents which can be compared against the assertion and a judgement made without need to appeal to authority.

Someone who signed a founding document... is it that hard to figure out?!?!?

So everyone who signed it is of equal stature as a founding father, and had equal hand in its composition and design? Don't make me laugh. Some Founding Fathers were more important than others, and I quite frankly don't care what some of the obscure signatories might have believed, nor do most people.

[Ancalagon]

So? Is it so incomprehensible that one Founding Father may be more significant than the next? Or do you believe that putting a signature on the document automatically makes them all precisely equal in stature?

I never claimed that... what i said is that you cannot claim to know the opinion of the founding fathers as a whole by (mis)quoteing four founding fathers... do you agree with that?

Now as to who is important, i think you put way too much emphasis on the people who's picture is on money.... there were many more founding fathers than that and to the point many more important ones. [that is to read as many-more important and not many more-important]

For example Jay, Paterson, and Sherman easily come to mind here, but there are plenty of others i'll look up if you'd like... (its been a while since US his)

I must have gotten disinterested around the part where you start arguing about the importance of Paul as a primary source (even though Paul is a member of the movement in question, he is also an EXTREMELY biased observer; it's like saying that Herman Goering is a primary source on the Nazis).

I guess you were.

Again irrevelant, as that wasn't the point of the debate.

Yes, it is a selective quote. So what? How does this prove YOUR position? The webpage positiveatheism.org from where a lot of these quotes come from provides the full quote in context, to avoid confusion. One cannot tar all associated quotes by pointing out the overzealousness of those who quoted this one.

We were argueing about a set a quotes. They were wrong. That my friend is the point.

Adams does not say that nothing can be PROVEN; he says nothing can be known at all. This is not the position of someone who believes the Bible is true.

No he says his essence is one that cannot can't be known... look at the quote man... as i said earlier, i agree.

At the time he lived, it wasn't ancient history, dumb-ass. He is much closer to a primary source than SCOTUS, which made that statement a century after the fact. Moreover, in the case of SCOTUS, we have primary documents which can be compared against the assertion and a judgement made without need to appeal to authority.

So you are saying that this minister knows more than SCOTUS and had access to more info than it?

Just trying to get this straight?

My grandfather was alive during the Great Depression, and yet many Ivy League professors would not. That doesn't mean my grandfather knows more than these professors...

So everyone who signed it is of equal stature as a founding father, and had equal hand in its composition and design? Don't make me laugh. Some Founding Fathers were more important than others, and I quite frankly don't care what some of the obscure signatories might have believed, nor do most people.

I am tired of repeating myself. Don't read into my posts what is not there. Assuming only makes you look a fool.

You asked for a deffinition of what a founding father is. I gave you the def. Nothing more nothing less.

Since you haven't argued against, i guess you do agree now that Thomas Paine is not a founding father and that you were incorrect to state as such? Am i correct in stating that?

[Darth Wong]

I never claimed that... what i said is that you cannot claim to know the opinion of the founding fathers as a whole by (mis)quoteing four founding fathers... do you agree with that?

Huh? The very notion of a large and diverse group having a single opinion "as a whole" is patently ridiculous, is it not? The point is that when push came to shove, they did not found America as a Christian nation; they founded it as a secular nation which happened to have a lot of Christians in it. All of its founding documents attest DIRECTLY to this fact, without all the hand-waving and distraction tactics employed by those who would elevate secondary sources and appeals to authority above them.

Now as to who is important, i think you put way too much emphasis on the people who's picture is on money.... there were many more founding fathers than that and to the point many more important ones. [that is to read as many-more important and not many more-important]

For example Jay, Paterson, and Sherman easily come to mind here, but there are plenty of others i'll look up if you'd like... (its been a while since US his)

Since I never took US history in depth, not being an American, I can only go with the figures that seem most prominent, who would obviously include the first few presidents. I don't see how that is so unreasonable.

We were argueing about a set a quotes. They were wrong. That my friend is the point.

Then clearer quotes can be easily be obtained. When GC isn't busy flip-flopping, he will occasionally admit that many of these key figures were indeed not Christian. His argument relates to the rest of them, who you say are more important than they appear to be.

So you are saying that this minister knows more than SCOTUS and had access to more info than it?

No, I'm saying that the religious leanings of public figures at the time and the LEGAL INTERPRETATION of a set of documents are two entirely different subjects. SCOTUS may know more than this guy about law (although they can still be wrong; they lived at the height of an era of bigotry in which the Scopes trial was just around the corner and repeated requests to DEMONSTRATE uniquely Christian aspects in American common law have been met with stony silence), but less about the behaviour of the public figures who lived in his own era.

Just trying to get this straight?

Just trying to make some straw, eh?

My grandfather was alive during the Great Depression, and yet many Ivy League professors would not. That doesn't mean my grandfather knows more than these professors...

Anyone who experienced an event is nevertheless a more primary source than someone who studies it at a distance. And in fact, if I wanted to know what it was really like back then, I would place just as much confidence in his testimony (assuming he's not senile) than that of your professors, who are really only regurgitating stuff they read from other people who were alive at the time.

I am tired of repeating myself. Don't read into my posts what is not there. Assuming only makes you look a fool.

Then show my assumption wrong and explain to me why you think the most prominent and visible founding fathers are actually no more significant than the ones in the background.

You asked for a deffinition of what a founding father is. I gave you the def. Nothing more nothing less.

Exactly where did you get that definition from? I thought a founding father was someone who was influential in the founding of a nation. According to you, it is some sort of legal distinction. In fact, I have noted that you and the other TrekBBS people who arrived here in your little invasion have ALL marched in lock-step on that issue: you regard the term "founding father" as one of legal definition, rather than cultural/political.

Since you haven't argued against, i guess you do agree now that Thomas Paine is not a founding father and that you were incorrect to state as such? Am i correct in stating that?

I find your definitions bizarre. It is difficult to argue against a claim contradictory to others, since there is no logic to attack; only claim and counter-claim. Thomas Paine is normally described as a founding father because of his influence upon the Declaration of Independence and the independence movement itself; you appear to be saying that he was not, because he did not achieve the requisite legal status by signing the proper documents. This strikes me as blatant sophistry, to be honest.