Had an interesting conversation with someone on here about Christianity in a thread about the religious beliefs of...

Had an interesting conversation with someone on here about Christianity in a thread about the religious beliefs of the founders of the US. This is a continuation on that thread. Picrel is a syllogism I came up with related to this topic, if someone would like to try to argue against it, feel free.

T he Declaration of Independence invokes a concept of God, but it's not
specific to the Christian God. The
document uses generic terms like
"Nature's God", "Creator", and "Divine
Providence" to refer to a higher power
allowing for a broad interpretation across
different religious and philosophical
beliefs. While many scholars interpret
these references as a reflection of the
Founding Fathers' Christian faith, the
Declaration was not explicitly tied to a
specific religious denomination

Is it you, anon? At the end i said we could chat more?

Btw, the thread might get shut down bc it is not anti-christian at the start.

Yep that's me! We were talking about Saint John of Damascus and Saint Athanasius.

Are you still after my attention? I've never had someone be this gay for me that he'd rather get spanked in an argument for hours and continue that instead of going to bed with his girlfriend.

Yeah you're right, I should've said the founding fathers were Norse pagans

About the founding fathers. It's also important to acknowledge that many were influenced by Deism and Enlightenment thinking, which led to a more rationalistic approach to religion.

I've never had someone be this gay for me

You literally made this thread for me lol.

Nice ad homs though

So, if you were to choose one, i agree that orthodox would be the one to choose. Even though i have rejected protestancy, i still have problems with the church (and with the church, i mean THE church)

I made it for the other dude, not you, you literally said near the end of that thread you were going to bed, then kept talking to me, and now you found another thread I started after that one reached its limit to keep talking to me. Hop off my nuts

Which denomination do you belong to? What do you mean when you say "THE church"?

I made it for the other dude

Kek

I'm gay for the other anon

Lol

you literally said near the end of that thread you were going to bed, then kept talking to me

I said I chnaged my mine lol

No refutation to this
Just more seethe

Well, the church signifies a lineage to jesus. Moreso, and much more importantly, it means submission to its authority because it is supposed to represent the authority of jesus, I was raised as a pretestant, and as i am older now, all i see there is children pretending, who have no wisdom.

it means submission to its authority because it is supposed to represent the authority of jesus

Which is odd because Jesus says there is no authority between him and man.

You are twisting words and distorting truth, as you did before, and continue to now.

You are twisting words and distorting truth

Nope

Jesus said unto him, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.

I said I chnaged my mine lol

That's how gay you are for me, you'd rather be up talking to me than sleeping with your girl. I'm not a retard like you that needs things explicitly explained to me (where often you fail to even understand things that are explicitly explained to you) to understand that when Christians hear something like "Nature's God", "Creator," or "Supreme Judge," they think of the Christian God.

Are you jealous I'm giving another anon attention? Fuck dude you must have a real pig of a girl if I'm the better alternative.

I get that, that's a big reason as to why I'm not Roman Catholic. However I would argue that just because there are some bad people in a church, that's not a condemnation on the church itself. Just like if a hospital is full of sick people, that doesn't mean the hospital is bad.

The church is the living body of Christ. It's genuinely amazing how every topic you speak on and respond to, you manage to have a dumb take on.

paragraph of cope

to understand that when Christians hear something like "Nature's God", "Creator," or "Supreme Judge," they think of the Christian God.

I never disputed this. In fact it was part of my argument. But not all founding fathers were Christian, hence

terms like "Nature's God", "Creator", and "Divine Providence" to refer to a higher power allowing for a broad interpretation across different religious and philosophical beliefs

The church is the living body of Christ

It isn't

20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

By natural order of nature I can't piss against wind .

God = love and every time when you can't replace world 'God' with world 'love' there are additives from a gang of professional God lovers.

So from the beginning there was nothing and then my mom and dead made "big bang" them me did 9 month "evolution" in the womb. I am created by love of my parents , I am fruit of their love.

Power is in united effort. You have to work in a gang in order to harvest host nations fruits of labor.

For me personally, there are two big things. I wish there is a church of god for me to submit to, but the church stands against two things that jesus said, and o cannot reconcile them. Jesus says that his father is greater than he is…and yet official doctrine declares an equal godhead/trinity. Also, jesus says to call no man father other than the father above. And while i do not fault families that the children call their dads father, the church supposedly is the authority of jesus, and their priests are called father. To me, these two things are irreconcilable for me to submit to its authority.

For the millionth time, I don't need all the founding fathers to be Christian to prove my point.

20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

That's not a counter to what I'm saying.

To point 1, I think the common Trinitarian response would be that the Father is the monarch and the Father is greater than Christ's human nature.

For your second point, Paul refers to himself as a spiritual father. I'm pretty sure there are other examples of this unless you'd argue that after Christ's ascension, his followers immediately fell into disarray including those in the Bible.

I don't need all the founding fathers to be Christian to prove my point

My point is that the declaration of independence isn't a Christian document nor is the term "God" specifically referring to the Christian God

That's not a counter to what I'm saying

I guess it depends on who you define
Church.

Yes, the US was founded by Freemasons with their demonic "Great Architect" "all paths lead to heaven" instead of on Christ and the Catholic Church. That's why you've exported abortion and lgbtp+ propaganda to the rest of the world.

Those explanations to me would be okay with a protestant church, but THE church would require me to submit to it as unto god. And the church stands opposed to the words of jesus. If i am to submit to jesus, i cannot submit myself to a church that stands opposed to the words or jesus. But that’s just me.

Kek you're country has bigger problems than mine

who

How*

Good.
King Herod told erryone to fuck off home.

Well most of them certainly were occultists but some of the founding fathers were pretty much atheists.

My point is that the declaration of independence isn't a Christian document nor is the term "God" specifically referring to the Christian God

I know, unlike you I can read and understand what I'm reading, I'm saying you're making an assertion though and you still need to demonstrate it. Simply saying it is not a demonstration of it.

I guess it depends on how you define

How about how Paul defines it in 1 Corinthians 12?

I don't think that's the case with Eastern Orthodox.

Substantiate your claim.

I can't be fucked looking it up but a handful of them went around calling themselves deists. Which was at the time as far as you could publicly go. It's likely that they were infact atheists but they couldn't be open about it at the time.

I don't think that's the case with Eastern Orthodox.

The eastern othodox church not only declares the trinity, but to deny it says to deny the divinity of jesus. Furthermore, all of their priests are/must be addressed as “father”. Personally, i cannot submit to the authority of a church that stands opposed to the words of jesus.

I'm saying you're making an assertion though

Nope. I've stated facts my friend

you still need to demonstrate it.

See
And
Each founding fathers interprets terms like "Nature's God", "Creator," or "Supreme Judge," to their preferred definition of god. And since not all of them define the same God from the Dame religion and denomination it makes the declaration>broad interpretation across different religious and philosophical beliefs

Hope that helps

trust me bro

If that's the best you got, it's not good enough for me.

Do you think Paul was wrong for example in 1 Corinthians 4:15 to refer to himself as father? We'll just take this one example but there are others in the New Testament of people being called fathers that weren't biological fathers.

How about how Paul defines it in 1 Corinthians 12?

How is that different from Matthew 18:20?

T he Declaration of Independence invokes a concept of God, but it's not

specific to the Christian God.
Since the christian God is the only God it is specific to the Christian God wether or not one or more people did not believe so. Your argument therefore becomes moot.

Since the christian God is the only God

Not all the founding fathers agreed

You can look it up yourself douche faggot. I don't have the time, it's pretty basic well known stuff.

And that is irrelevant because if the document refers to God, and God is the one christians believe him to be, the document is referring to the Christian God. So the conclusion is that, because the christian God is the christian God, The Father, The Son and The Holy spirit, the founding document is referring to that God. The fact that not all founding fathers were christian is not of any importance in retrospect.

Present a set of premises followed by a conclusion. Let's try to be this basic about it.

Each founding fathers interprets terms like "Nature's God", "Creator," or "Supreme Judge," to their preferred definition of god. And since not all of them define the same God from the Dame religion and denomination it makes the declaration

Great so it follows since most of them were Christian that most of them would interpret that to mean the Christian God like I stated in my syllogism. Meaning that most of the founders of this nation believed that the axiom on which this nation was built referred to the Christian God.

Matthew 18:20 is about the presence of Christ in a community of believers, and 1 Corinthians 12:27 says that the unity of all believers forms the body of Christ. Do you actually think this is a good question?

I don't have to substantiate any assertions, I can just dump ass on a conversation and hope people take my word for it.

In kjv?

For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

But let’s even grant that it is true. I am talking about submission to authority. If the authority on earth is jesus, and jesus tells us what to do, then opposition to his mandates is opposition to him.

Your fundamentally a dull, uncurious person if you refuse to do a quick Google search. Enjoy your shitty nondiscussion, hellbound freak.

the christian God is the true God*

I meant to say.

Right and who begets people? A father.

What do you think the Eastern Orthodox specifically do that are in opposition to Jesus's mandates?

enters a discussion

makes an assertion

is asked to substantiate it

immediately proceeds to sperg out

Is this the Britbong education system I've heard so many wonderful things about?

And that is irrelevant

It isn't. Your opinions about God are though

Present a set of premises followed by a conclusion

I did

Great so it follows since most of them were Christian that most of them would interpret that to mean the Christian God

Never disagreed.

The core axiom upon which the United
States was founded is the belief in
individual rights and liberty. This is
reflected in the Declaration of
Independence's statement that "all men
are created equal, and are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty,
and the pursuit of Happiness."

And Creator can be interpreted as the Christian God if your Christian or it can be interpreted by however the reader interprets God if they're not.

Matthew 18:20 is about the presence of Christ in a community of believers

Aka fellowship or "Church"

1 Corinthians 12:27 says that the unity of all believers forms the body of Christ

Well we know that unity really isn't there hence the 30k plus divisions in Christianity

Do you actually think this is a good question?

Yes

Sure, to you

The United States was a revolutionary state the exact same as the soviet union and embraced the same values, just a century or so prior.

Canada ironically was founded as a hyper-reactionary and Christian militant colony in direct opposition to the Radical Revolutionary USA

The average resident of Ontario in the late 18th century was a Christian extremist, heavily armed yeoman farmer who was in 100% apocalyptic mode since they feared the radicals would stream over the border any moment and murder them.

I'm too pedantic to use Google

Nigger mentality

This is also why ultimately the USA must be destroyed to free mankind from it’s infectious ideological radicalism.

What do you think the Eastern Orthodox specifically do that are in opposition to Jesus's mandates?

They declare that jesus is equal to god, when jesus himself says that his father is greater than he is (and this does not even get into the same representation with the roman officer that displays the most faith)…and to me calling priests father is secondary to this.

So the Founders weren't against christianity because of cringe gaytanism but because they wanted to escape the tyranny and retardation of English zionists who are ruining the country today

The founding fathers were deists and freemason's. What this basically means is that they were occult secret society types who believed in ONE god, however this god has been revealed through all the major religions of the world instead of just one.

Never in human history have the ruling classes practiced the same religion as the ruled. There is the entry-level popular religion promoted to the masses (in this case, protestantism), and there is the "deeper secrets" revealed only to those who have been initiated.

This does not however mean they did not believe Christianity was a legitimate pathway to God.

They were also smart enough to not let this heresy seep into democracy.

Correct. They believed GOD was the source of morality, of human rights, etc. America as a concept cannot exist without it

You have yet to present a set of premises followed by a conclusion. You're welcome to try again.

And Creator can be interpreted as the Christian God if your Christian or it can be interpreted by however the reader interprets God if they're not.

Maybe if you take the Declaration of Independence out of context that may be the case, but you're at best stretching. I mean you took "self-evident" here to be synonymous with "subjective" so I don't really trust that you understand what the text means. By the way, you used the term axiom here, did you finally figure out what that meant? I know you think I use big words to try and obfuscate somehow, and this was one you didn't understand in the last thread even though I gave you the definition. Can you tell me what you learned.

Well we know that unity really isn't there hence the 30k plus divisions in Christianity

there are 30k plus divisions in Christianity

therefore there is no unity amongst believers

Unless one of those is the correct one.

It's nigger mentality to substantiate claims. Wow I wish I was educated in Bongland if this is the result.

Well Jesus also says He and the Father are One...

The retarded Brit couldn't substantiate this claim, it should be fairly simple. You said they were deists and freemasons, can you point to which is which and tell me how you arrived at the conclusion they were desist and freemasons?

They recognized the Catholic church as the whore of Babylon even back then. Smart guys.

Truly beautiful.

SOURCE SOURCE

Wah wah wah spoonfeed me

This isn't Reddit bucko

Never in human history have the ruling classes practiced the same religion as the ruled

Absolutely this
Agreed

You have yet to present a set of premises followed by a conclusion.

I have. I'll just refer you back to

Maybe if you take the Declaration of Independence out of context

I haven't at all

Unless one of those is the correct one

They all day their the correct one. How do you tell?

Well Jesus also says He and the Father are One...

So what? We are not talking about going to church. We are talking about submitting to an authority as unto god. To submit to the church as if it carries the authority of jesus. And i cannot submit to an earthly authority, whose supposed authority derives from jesus, when they stand opposed to the words, teachings, and declarations of jesus.

Because they were. Here are the most influential founding fathers

George Washington = Freemason
Benjamin Franklin = Deist and Freemason
Thomas Jefferson = Deist
Thomas Paine = Deist
James Monroe = Freemason

This is accepted historical fact, it's not even conspiracy, they were proud of it. I'm sure many of the founding fathers called themselves Christian but I promise, they did not interpret Christianity the same way you do

Well Jesus also says He and the Father are One

"Jesus sitting at the right hand of God" symbolizes his exalted position and ongoing role in heaven after his ascension.

No God is God to everyone. Obviously. Anyways what really matters to a nation is if there are more people who believe in the true God or not. If there are not a majority christian, God's will won't be done to a satosfying extent. I would still argue that the USA is a christian nation because it is presumed to have been majority christian at it's conception.

Anyways. The God referred to in the founding documents of the US is still the christian God, because he is the true God no matter what anyone believe. When the document says "higher power", it is referring to the only higher power there is.

The founding fathers were a mixed bag of Christians and Deists (people who absolutely believe God exists but organized religion is bullshit).

No God is God to everyone

You're opinion

No, God is God to everyone.*

See above

I am not opinion. And this discussion is finished.

The American founders were left wing radicals no different from latter communists

The current “degeneration” of the USA and it’s global sphere is directly due to this initial radicalism foundation.

You can’t make this rotten base “based”
Elimination of the constitution and democracy is the only solution

And this discussion is finished

Cool! I appreciate you sharing your personal feelings and opinions. Have a good day

religious beliefs of the founders of the US.

hell bond freemasons and slavers one and all.
No Catholic can be a freemason.

If you cannot differenciate opinion from fact that's a (you) issue. Luckily not many are your kind of dumb so I have no qualms about the conversation ending. Bye.

You cannot be an atheist and be a rational person. It is not possible. To be an atheist is to have no deeper convictions, to believe in no higher power or higher meaning. Nietzsche called these people, atheist liberals, "culturally Christian" because even though they have denounced god, they have failed to denounce the emanations of Providence (morals, human rights, meaning) they have entered a state of complete irrationalism. Which ironically enough, is what Nietzsche said an atheist should do. Truth itself has no moral value in a godless world, the Ubermensch rejects rationalism and gives into the compulsions of his past experiences. He seems only what he believes to be beautiful. He rejects slave morality and seeks only to be Patrician. Democracy and anarchy is the result of nihilism. Fascism is the result of beautiful irrationalism, which is the most rational course of action. Fascism is also the result of Platonism and objective morality. All roads lead to fascism.

If you cannot differenciate opinion from fact

I can. Thanks again for sharing your opinions

Actually sperging out lmao

Let me know when you're ready to present a set of premises followed by a conclusion.

They all day their the correct one. How do you tell?

Just pathetic at this point

But you just gave one example and I don't know if I'd agree that that's a good one.

I gotta say, you're the best interlocutor I've had on this topic, you actually presented an answer and it didn't feel like pulling teeth. A lot of the founding fathers would have had theological differences with me sure, but that doesn't mean the majority of founding fathers that signed the Declaration of Independence didn't do so understanding "Creator" meant the Christian God.

When he says that it's your opinion, what he means is he is the only one with access to universal information about God. He's just tardposting

Philosophy is gay.
This is the gayest thread on Anon Babble right now.

You can point to nothing except a vague comparison of bourgeois revolution VS proletarian revolution. You falsely believe them to be so similar as an attempt to justify your view of class conflict being tied to historical determinism. Your view is wrong.

You cannot be an atheist and be a rational person. It is not possible.

I disagree

To be an atheist is to have no deeper convictions, to believe in

Sure I do. The empathy derived from the golden rule which helps me to live a more peaceful life with those around me. Where my family, friends, colleagues and neighbors hold me accountable and I hold myself accountable through personal responsibility.

Let me know when you're ready to present a set of premises followed by a conclusion

I have. Weird you keep ignoring them. Anyway concession accepted

>They all say their the correct one. How do you tell?

Just pathetic at this point

I guess you can't. Lol

I had a pointless conversation with someone thinking it mattered to anyone or anything and it made me feel important

definitely off now…

shit, i was wrong. it was retards just retarding at one another. fuck in hell i need to gtfo this shit site once and for all.

There is no such thing as a golden rule. You know this. Empathy is just a chemical in your brain and you're an irrationalist. I don't feel any empathy at all. This does not make me lesser than you unless you invoke something higher than this material world.
They for sure at the very least had Christianity as the dominant force, but they had more esoteric interpretations of it, and this Deist leaning is the reason why they are vague about there being a Providence instead of explicitly outlining the Christian God in their writings

But you just gave one example and I don't know if I'd agree that that's a good one.

I’m not trying to convince you, fren. I am just saying why i cannot submit to the church. It is something that weighs heavily upon me because i wish that i could. I hope that you do embrace orthodoxy. Whatever it is, it seems to be the closest thing we have to the church that jesus established. And i know that commitment to orthodoxy is a better path than any other.

You eneded up just agreeing with that other guy making the same point. So why make a big fuss in the first place? You've just eneded up looking very silly.

but that doesn't mean the majority of founding fathers that signed the Declaration of Independence didn't do so understanding "Creator" meant the Christian God.

You're only speaking from the side that shares your bias while ignoring the others who don't.

That's why your arguments are null. I acknowledged both and through that demonstrates

a broad interpretation across different religious and philosophical beliefs

It's pretty simple really

I have. Weird you keep ignoring them. Anyway concession accepted

You haven't presented one.

I guess you can't. Lol

I mean I can refer to things like apostolic succession, I can read what early Christians wrote and see which denomination(s) most closely align to it, I can see which produces saints, etc.
Did you ever figure out how Godel defined God in his ontological proof btw?

Right so "Creator" or "Supreme Judge" to them meant the Christian God, I'm not sure how you'd demonstrate the rest of what you're saying by saying they had a "more esoteric interpretation"

Britbong, do you want to try and demonstrate how it is I agreed with the other guy?

You're only speaking from the side that shares your bias while ignoring the others who don't.

Nice we've come back to this ad hom.

but that doesn't mean the majority of founding fathers that signed the Declaration of Independence didn't do so understanding "Creator" meant the Christian God.

In their minds, it definitely did. But they intentionally worded it that way so as to allow other religions. When you become a Freemason the only requirement is that you believe in God. It doesn't matter which one

There is no such thing as a golden rule

There absolutely is. I've worked enough customer service jobs to understand it. I've taken public transportation enough to experience it.

I don't feel any empathy at all.

Not enough emotional connections will do that. I'm sorry anon

Ok, so how do you know that's what was going on?

Well your just accepted him saying they were deist and not me. Hardly the actions of a logical, rational person.

It’s a continuation of the same ideological thread, simply the bourgeoise sought to stop the tide of revolutionary radicalism with them and keep power and property for themselves instead of perusing their ideology to it’s inevitable conclusion.

Marx was correct that the natural evolution of Liberalism is communism because it is undeniable by their own ideological foundations.

This is why the only true rejection is to reject all of it, from the Enlightenment onward.

You haven't presented one.

I have. You just can't argue against them is all

I mean I can refer to things like apostolic succession, I can read what early Christians wrote and see which denomination(s) most closely align to it, I can see which produces saints, etc.

Sure. Doesn't change anything

Did you ever figure out how Godel defined God in his ontological proof

God is defined as a "Godlike object," characterized by possessing every positive property and lacking any negative properties. Where.postive and negative are subjective and saying the universe is a "Godlike object," characterized by possessing every positive property and lacking any negative properties has the same weight

My position is and still is that "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence is referring to the Christian God alone. His position is it refers to whatever deity you want. These two are not the same position.

Nice we've come back to this ad hom

Still don't know what an ad hom is I see

I have. You just can't argue against them is all

Let's see it.

Sure. Doesn't change anything

Another topic you have no idea about

Surprised it took you that long to ask ChatGPT what he meant there.

Still don't know what an ad hom is I see

You're saying the only reason I hold my position is that I am biased because I'm Christian. I explained to you what an ad hom is in the last thread. Anon after a certain point, I'm gonna have to start charging you as a fair bit of our back and forth outside of you being gay for me has been a tutoring session.

My position is and still is that "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence is referring to the Christian God alone

Of that were true then they would have specifically said that. They didn't for a reason because that would violate separation of Church and state, effectively removing freedom of religion

Look dumbski. I said they were deist you freaked out and asked me for a source. The memeflaggot said the same thing and you were like "oh okay". Idk why you have to act so illogical and bitchy? Low testosterone is certainly a possibility.

Another topic you have no idea about

Too bad you can't demonstrate why

You're saying the only reason I hold my position is that I am biased because I'm Christian

Yes. That's not ad hom..that's adressing your argument with an objective observation.

I explained to you what an ad hom is in the last thread.

And it didn't apply to this

Fascism is the last sad gasp of the Liberal spirit in the face of it’s annihilation, which is why they are rightfully called reactionaries. They only react to their surroundings in order to safeguard their power, and in the process sacrifice most of their beliefs until liberalism is all but destroyed except for it’s most key values that service the elite class.

It doesn’t promote supremacy or “patrician” values but degeneration.

To seek a higher state of being, look to the actual successful examples of the Past, Octavian turned Augustus, or Liu Bang turned Emperor Gaozu of Han

Both were basically irrelevant nobodies who had extraordinary vision and luck in order to become supreme sovereigns

Of that were true then they would have specifically said that.

I've already explained why this is unnecessary.

They didn't for a reason because that would violate separation of Church and state, effectively removing freedom of religion

But most states could say you needed to be a Christian to hold public office doesn't violate freedom of religion.

You're not even making sense, are you Europeans that sensitive?

Too bad you can't demonstrate why

Because you don't understand the topic you're talking about yet again. I gave you a few standards by which we can judge which church would be correct and, just like other times in our exchange, just come back with an arbitrary "nuh uh" and I'm supposed to take this as an actual counterargument.

And it didn't apply to this

It did, you just don't understand what the fallacy is still.

I get to decide which gods are real.

Right so "Creator" or "Supreme Judge" to them meant the Christian God, I'm not sure how you'd demonstrate the rest of what you're saying by saying they had a "more esoteric interpretation"

It really depends on which founding father we are talking about, they all had their own beliefs and personalities. but as for the ones who were freemason's, I'm not so sure they were talking about Jesus. Its a pretty straight forward. Freemasons are not Christians the way you might understand Christianity. Some of them might believe in Jesus as a prophet or as an incarnation of god but there is no such thing as a 33rd degree Freemason who is a typical protestant. esoteric just means "hidden knowledge" and exoteric just means "external knowledge". When you become a Freemason, you are given the hidden knowledge. George Washington, being a third degree (at the time it did not go up to 33 degrees, that was the highest degree at the time), tried his best to avoid referencing Jesus Christ in his writings and speeches. Instead saying things like "Creator", "Divine Providence", and things of that nature. This is really medieval language and was not typical of 18th and 19th century Protestants. Being a Freemason, its undeniable that George Washington was not exposed to these views. It's honestly an assumption to say that he believed Jesus Christ was god, and the only reason we do is because of the time period that he lived.

George Washington never explicitly stated in any known writing that he believed in Jesus Christ.

I'm making perfect sense. You're misunderstanding me because your not actually interested in learning but because you want to "win". It's just weird.

No that is never implied. I believe in the true God, is implied. Your reading skills are sub-par, or you are dishonest. In any case this thread seem to be filling with dumb people and I cannot stand to suffer idiots so this will be my last reply.

I've already explained why this is unnecessary

It's very necessary

But most states could say you needed to be a Christian to hold public office

could say

If so. Which ones did and how long did that actually last?

>Too bad you can't demonstrate why

Because

Then you don't go onto demonstrate why. Just make another baseless claim.

. I gave you a few standards by which we can judge which church would be correct and, just like other times in our exchange, just come back with an arbitrary "nuh uh"

Where did I do this exactly?

>And it didn't apply to this

It did

Nope. At no time have any of my responses have been solely a personal attack without also addressing your argument ..you on the other hand have used ad hominem

Benjamin Franklin attended the Hellfire club in England. All the founding fathers were sktechy as fuck.

If Germans had any part in the creation of our constitution, I could believe you. But it was not quakers that formed our government. The english stole the virute of the Germans in the united states. >English clonies
Germans were the serfs.

historically Canada was the traditionalist reaction to the radicalism of the USA, only in the 60’s was this subverted as Canada became an American puppet state.

Monarchist, affirmably Christian, valuing local and ethnic identity over liberal “nation building”

Now some American people also match these ideas (notably the South and CSA) but the edifice of the American government is rotten and can never be fixed.

Another great example of what I said earlier. The Nazis promoted positive Christianity to the public, were on crazy cultists and Thule society members at the top of the party

The rulers have never had the same religion as the ruled

That's nice, I think it's completely fair to appeal to the fact that most of them were Christian and knew the majority of the colonists were as well.

You said most were certainly occultists but some were atheists That is a different position than some were deists.

It's very necessary

That's your opinion unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

If so. Which ones did and how long did that actually last?

I'm not repeating myself, we already had this discussion and you got btfo'd last thread on it

Then you don't go onto demonstrate why. Just make another baseless claim.

You have yet to demonstrate anything again.

Nope. At no time have any of my responses have been solely a personal attack without also addressing your argument ..you on the other hand have used ad hominem

You're genuinely clueless as to what the fallacy is.

I'm appealing to the fact that he was a Freemason and this is what freemason's believe

Hitler was an atheist and a liberal rationalist.
He couldn’t remove Christianity because the German people would never allow it at that time.
Same reason Stalin embraced the Orthodox church eventually.

>It's very necessary

That's your opinion

It isn't s there's no specific mention of Christianity for a reason

>If so. Which ones did and how long did that actually last?

I'm not repeating myself

So none. Kek

You have yet to demonstrate anything again

I have that's why yournfirst few responses to me were ad homs to avoid my arguments

You're genuinely clueless as to what the fallacy is

How exactly? Where have any of my responses been solely a personal attack that isn't a part of my overall arguments?

Hitler himself, who knows, but the people he surrounded himself had some wacky beliefs, especially the people who actually founded the party before he joined

Ok but he didn't sign the Declaration of Independence which holds the axiom this country was founded on.

It isn't s there's no specific mention of Christianity for a reason

Because they couldn't predict retards like you 250 years later wouldn't be able to understand that.

I'm not repeating myself

So none. Kek
I'm not repeating myself implies it isn't none.

I have that's why yournfirst few responses to me were ad homs to avoid my arguments

Why do you refuse to repeat it if you have

How exactly? Where have any of my responses been solely a personal attack that isn't a part of my overall arguments?

You said I only believe it's the Christian God because I'm Christian. Fuck's sake man how many times have we circled this drain. That's an ad hom, I gave you the definition of an ad hom, this is it. If you don't substantiate any of your claims in the next response, I'm taking that as a concession and I'm done.

Same goes for GW and USA. Usa never had a 'national language' because it SHOULD have been German. But the elite didnt speak german and didnt want to alienate their serfs. Once again christan germans have to be placated.

You couldn't publicly be an atheist back then in colonial America. If you look at what these people actually had to say, it leads one to think that they were atheists. At least the stuff Ben Franklin said is very atheistic.

Cool I can cherry pick quotes from the other end of the spectrum where the majority of the founding fathers were. Are we just gonna compete and see who had the most? Or can you actually present something resembles a point? Ya git

the axiom this country was founded on.

The core axiom upon which the United States was founded is the principle of individual liberty and self-governance

You can just say fuck taxes

Endowed by Bigfoot

Yeah I think I read somewhere a lot of them participated in Satanic anal sex orgies. With women of course....

Christian god?
Jesus the american education system sucks donkey cocks..