-31 votes

The trolls win...I'm taking a break!

This liberty movement is becoming more hostile towards biblical Christianity; essentially, in the name of tolerance and inclusion(courting the left), they are becoming more bold in their mocking and diminishing of the well-documented origin of our founders WISE and immovable principles wherein government is limited by the giver of life and liberty.

Oh, we call them trolls, and we encourage posters to move on and make their point anyway; and I'll admit, it's the homosexuality arguments and now the Easter jokes; but even if they don't "celebrate" Christian holidays, they should keep their mocking away from a place where our public reputation is so prominent...especially where a Christian Statesmen is revered for his trustworthiness; an attribute Christ-rejecters RARELY exhibit in American public office.

This movement is going in a bad way; sensing the inevitability of chaos and civil unrest to come, those unrestrained by any governing authority are throwing it all out there, only to exacerbate the confusion.

Liberty cannot flourish in such an environment; one that dethrones God, and replaces His authority with man's wisdom. The cream will rise to the top, but for now I'm not going to fight this uphill battle. I know who is to blame for this, it is the hypocrites who occupy the pews of our American churches, and their unregenerated, unsaved, never converted leadership professing to have a salvation they do not possess; nonetheless, using them as an excuse to reject and deny the Creator and His laws is lacking in logic, as well as an excuse to dismiss history only to rationalize more "sin for a season" under another disobedient government.

PSALM 74:18 Remember this, that the enemy hath reproached, O LORD, and that the foolish people have blasphemed thy name.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

The time has come for me to take a sabbatical from the DP; the increase in frequency of mocking the purest and most long standing wisdom of men who stood up to tyranny from the underdog position has reached a fever pitch so disruptive to our intended path that I personally need to take this deliberate course of action knowing that what I know as truth, will be made known once again, by less than pleasant circumstances, if the liberty our founders desired for their posterity is to be achieved or enjoyed for another significant period of human history.

(during this time off: I will delve into reading The Magdeburg Confession...no doubt MUCH of our philosophical positions are contained there!)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2409826/posts

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Although I disagreed, I'm all

Although I disagreed, I'm all for quoting grandmothers!

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

His granny must get her faith from Fox News

There are many (false) churches everywhere that are also lead by deceivers who do not follow the words of Christ or the golden rule.

The bible labels these as worse than unbelievers and 2 Peter 2 actually condemns such false teachers and false prophets to hell already with no opportunity for salvation.

Those that follow these, what the bible calls "brute beasts" are compared in that chapter to dogs and swine.

They are literally on a path headed over the cliff, onto the rocks below and into the mire of the sea.

If you run with the confused, deceived legion of demons then you are headed where Christ has sent them also.

.

lol, I love this

The old "real Christian" argument. Whenever a prominent Christian does something horrible, the other Christians will play this card to excuse whatever horrors are done in the name of their religion. To a non-Christian, it's going to appear as a completely ridiculous argument. It kind of feels like the "self-hating Jew" argument some Jews use whenever one criticizes their own. It's just a tactic used to deflect criticism.

I'm not saying Christians are bad folks, or that all do this, but the True Scotsman er, "real Christian" card that many like to play is becoming old.

Perhaps you should think on that before calling people deceivers and demons. So much for not judging others? LOL typical Christan hypocrite.

A signature used to be here!

Are you telling me that there

Are you telling me that there is no TRUE Scot? =P

Christ did not teach tolerance.

He taught love, and forgiveness.

Christ did not say that we shouldn't use our judgment, but taught us to be mindful that by the same standard we use to judge others, we ourselves shall be judged. And more importantly, to judge ourselves, or to see ourselves through the lens of Gods holiness, and embrace His remedy for our condition.

If someone claims to be a "christian", it is not my place to make an eternal judgment on their life one way or the other. However, to put my trust in a profession of faith from someone who's life so clearly contradicts every single thing that Christ taught by His words as well as his deeds, is foolishness.

Is George Bush a "christian" because he says so, or Obama? Not for me to say, but I know that neither of them are beyond the reach of God's grace. To permit myself to believe otherwise, I would have to begin to question the work of God in my own life, because I am as much in need of the love and forgiveness of Christ as anyone ever could be.

A hypocrite is not someone who tries and fails to live up to the standard they have set for their own lives, but rather someone who condemns others for failing to live up to that same standard. I find it odd, and yet quite revealing, that even those who do not profess to be "christian" and may in fact be antagonistic to the faith or it's principles, are yet innately aware of the Christian standard and eager to hold others to it, when they themselves have likely never attempted it.

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Jesus Christ

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

You are right. It is like you

You are right. It is like you are entering the unknown illogical dimension when someone is trying to justify - let's say war - in the basis of Christian beliefs. I think you should keep on pointing this out but bear in mind that a great percentage of Christians DO have a conscience.

This monk is voicing your thoughts in this interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhGEcwBtVS8

blind faith in anything is

blind faith in anything is stupid.

be it blind faith in a political ideology or religion. At least people who think Obama is the messiah are worshiping someone who exist. Religious people on the other hand.... lol

Any libertarian who believes its all about what 'god' has given us are 100% wrong and bring nothing good to the liberty movement. I am sorry but you are using an entirely incorrect foundation for your beliefs if they are based around a religion. God is irrelevant, he doesn't exist. I am sorry but that's reality. I am sorry reality is offensive to religious people.

Then you diagree with

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

so by that logic

You think it is impossible for someone who is atheist or any other religion to have morals?

Amendment 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The founding fathers also spoke of and wrote about natural rights, the rights of individuals and the rights of man.

http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/the-founding-fathers...

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

No I dont think it

Impossible. But where does the atheist get his/her morals from?

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

depends on their upbringing

Your parents teach you things generally. Be polite, be respectful, and courteous. You don't need religion to teach you this. I can think of a plethora of examples of things anyone can do being taught those three words that are considered moral.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

The law of God

is written in the hearts of men. Morality is merely the subjective interpretation of this inner law. The more in line a mans morality is with his conscience, the healthier he will be, in mind, body, and spirit. Men either surrender to the inner law, or write the law to suit them. We are all, to varying degrees, creating and recreating our own "morality" day by day. My humble opinion. :o)

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

And?

Why do people do this? The whole "you disagree with this person I quoted!" argument? Someone else could just as easily pull a quote from an opposing POV, and it'll just go in circles from there, with very little in the way of original opinion being added to the debate.

A signature used to be here!

I quote a signer of

The Declaration of Independence to establish original intent on the topic. If a modern persons view contradicts a founders recorded view. then the modern person is questionable.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

It goes both ways dude

I can't count how many times I've been mocked for my NON-beliefs on this website. Mocked by all of the tolerant, Christ-like religious people. Being JUDGED by them for being Agnostic. The neocon fox news talk radio propaganda machine is pushing the idea of the so called "Tea Party" as being a "religious party" as well. It has been utterly hijacked and corralled into that type of mold which turns a LOT of people away from it...

Now when people hear "tea party" they think "Bible-thumping", gun toting Anti-Obama extremists....NOTHING about freedom/Liberty and the Constitution, because that is what the false left vs. right paradigm propagandists intended for it to be portrayed as- I knew It was going to happen too. Look being a religious libertarian is fine, I just don't think mocking non-believers and shoving your view of religion down everybody throats constantly is....

I've been called Ignorant, a Communist etc by the very people who claim to follow Christ. Someone who was the epitome of tolerance...The hypocrisy is mind-numbing. Nevertheless, have fun on your break. Peace.

"I am Troll fighter, number one"

-Ernest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxWb-ViejPg

At What Point

did the Daily Paul become the Daily Christian? Christians are such hypocrites. It's okay to be as free as you want or think what you want AS LONG as it goes with what CHRISTIANS think you should be free about or think about.

skippy

No one on the whole earth

lives 100% according to what they say they believe or think they believe. That makes everyone a hypocrite to one degree or another.

Hey, if you want to believe

Hey, if you want to believe in star babies, zombies that rise from the dead after 3 days, and sky fairies, I'll fight to the death for your right to believe it. But if you think liberty and freedom requires these things, you're just wrong.

Liberty and freedom are reasonable and logical. Read Locke and Paine and understand the philisophical basis instead of story you read in a book and that you have been indoctrinated to believe. The reality is if someone taught you from birth about the All Powerful Super Bunny, you would be sitting here today telling us about a Sky Rabbit.

The problem is the moment you start trying to force your belief on others, you have completely lost the meaning of liberty and you become a hinderance to the movement turning people off. This is why you never hear Ron Paul preach and while I may not subscribe to his religious beliefs I.completely respect him.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I have read both Locke

And Paine. I agree with Benjamin Franklin s letter to Thomas Paine.

"Benjamin Franklin was frequently consulted by Thomas Paine for advice and suggestions regarding his political writings, and Franklin assisted Paine with some of his famous essays. This letter 1 is Franklin's response to a manuscript Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God.

TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]

DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.

But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,"
B. Franklin

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

I've always noticed this line

I've always noticed this line in that letter, since it's one of the few places that Hottentots are mentioned that I know of; which gives a possible reason for the Hottentots mention in the Cowardly Lion's song in Wizard of Oz - right after he makes his first appearance in the movie when Dorothy hits him.

Yes, a bit of trivia, but I'm always noticing things. Lol.

Benjamin Franklin:
"For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother."

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

If you google hottentot

And search the pictures, you will find the lion. Maybe there is a connection? I dunno.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

And some may agree with Paine's letter....

On May 12, 1797 while living in Paris, France, Thomas Paine wrote the following letter to a Christian friend who was trying to convert Paine to Christianity.

"In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.
"But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? For this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.
"The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.
"You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.
"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.
"Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?
"For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -
"You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.
"The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.
"The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.
"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
"That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.
"What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.
"In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.
"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.
"You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.
"When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."

While I agree

with many of the ideas that Paine expressed in this letter, I do not agree with most of his conclusions, but I am a person of faith.
A thought provoking read just the same.

πολλα γαρ πταιομεν απαντες ει τις εν λογω ου πταιει ουτος τελειος ανηρ δυνατος χαλιναγωγησαι και ολον το σωμα

Some may yes:

But it is the intent of the founders of this country that matter. It is Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Rush, John Dickinson, John Witherspoon and others who exressed that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”

George Washington said in part, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

In George Washingtons time. "religious principle" was taught from the Bible.

When one labors to subvert the Bible, they labor to subvert the foundation of their own country.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Paine was a socialist, widely

Paine was a socialist, widely despised by the founders of the United States of America.

Also, despite historical handwaving by some including Marxists, he wasn't even a citizen of the United States. He's mainly loved for being an atheist (actually deist), and not a Christian, since there are so few at that time to pump up. - ie Marxists, Zionists, and atheists have all admired Paine.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

The things Paine said

scandalized the colonists, by in large.

Verbal Diarrhea from a hinderance to liberty.

"The problem is the moment you start trying to force your belief on others"

You're completely lost if you honestly believe somebody can force their beliefs onto you. I say you don't even believe the crap that comes out of your own mouth, but you DO think it sounds good falling on another Atheists ears, because it paints you and them as victims rather than victimizers who hate people of faith.

Posts like these

Are why Christians have a bad view of atheists/agnostics/non-believers. You want to be part of the problem or the solution?

There's ways to get your message across without coming off as a huge asshole.

really????

Then screw sensitive Christians. I got out of church today thinking organized religion is a complete sham. I was offered things to buy, heard cheesy music and felt like an outsider. I dont have faith in church but i do in God.

I tell my daughter to have faith in something greater than herself.

-end story

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

The western church is in a period of declension

which is why most local Christian churches are cheesy and greedy. I feel like an outsider at those places, too. Can't stand them.