The Inspired Constitution

On September 30th, 2009 at 4:34 pm, zeroangel said:

ITTRP:

*sigh* Let’s imagine for a minute that the founders religious inclinations spurred them on to fight for freedom. They still had the good sense in the end to recognize that the founding documents should be secular. You can pretend all you want that saying “year of our Lord” means that makes the Constitution religiously inspired. It’s nonsense. As I said earlier, any thinking person of that age from any religion could have wrote the Constitution. You don’t need to be Christian to have written it.

Explain to me how only a Christian could have written the Constitution.

OK…

At first, almost nothing was accomplished in the first 4 to 5 weeks of the Constitutional Convention. It almost ended in complete failure.

What turned it around?

On Thursday, June 28, 1787, Ben Franklin said

Mr. President:

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks close attendance & continual reasonings with each other — our different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as many noes as ays, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own wont of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. — Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Christian Nation. Bookmark the permalink.

183 Responses to The Inspired Constitution

  1. zeroangel says:

    Wow, it was out of the sheerest morbid curiousity that I figured I would come here. I am flattered. Let me post the rest of our exchange on MM’s site for the benefit of your readers (all 5 of them, your immediate family and the folks you pulled from MM’s site):

    ——————————————–

    On September 30th, 2009 at 9:02 pm, zeroangel said:
    ITTRP:

    Of course. Ben Franklin invoking God must have been what broke the deadlock. You see only what you want to see ITTRP.

    Let’s even pretend it’s true. So what? They all shared similiar religious backgrounds, despite many arguably being and claiming to be Deists or Unitarians (as Franklin did).

    Had they all been Hindus a speach about Vishnu would have also spurred them on. None of this means only a Christian could have written the Constitution.

    #815512On September 30th, 2009 at 9:04 pm, zeroangel said:
    ITTRP:

    Franklin was probably a Unitarian and not a Deist.

    #815517On September 30th, 2009 at 9:19 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On September 30th, 2009 at 9:02 pm, zeroangel said:

    You see only what you want to see ITTRP.

    When you point that finger at me, there are three more pointing back at you.

    You’re projecting.

    #815520On September 30th, 2009 at 9:24 pm, zeroangel said:
    ITTRP:

    When you point that finger at me, there are three more pointing back at you.

    I am not the one that imagines anti-Christs, doomsday, invisible super-beings, and basically magic. If anyone is seeing make-believe things that they want to see it isn’t me.

    #815551On September 30th, 2009 at 11:35 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:
    zero,

    Don’t Be A Fool

    #815556On October 1st, 2009 at 12:11 am, zeroangel said:
    ITTRP:

    Yes, quote your magic book to me. Need I go looking for the sections that talk about slavery, rape victims marrying their attackers, killing children, or committing wartime atrocities?

    The fact that you are reduced to hurling Bible verses at me is telling. Your moniker is excellent. The Matrix is the perfect analogy for your particular fundamentalism: invisible, unflasifiable fantasy that is possibly indicative of deep seated paranoia.

  2. zeroangel says:

    BTW, this whole “inspired” thing is such tripe. Anyone can more or less claim anything is inspired. Worked hard and got a raise? Well, your hard work was inspired by faith (not wanting to provide for your family). Won the big game? God did it (not working out and training). Passed a major bill for some kind of reform? Inspired by Christ (not dillegent work hard).

    It proves absolutely nothing. All it does is to serve your fundamentalist belief that yours is the one true religion. You ignore all the negatives and only focus on the positives. You don’t need evidence or logic, you have faith!

  3. zeroangel says:

    Oh he’s here! Hi there ITTRP. I see you are diligently fixing the links in my previous post. Good work. I appreciate it. I am breathlessly awaiting your response.

  4. zeroangel says:

    Should I be checking here first or MM’s site?

  5. zeroangel,

    Welcome. I’m glad you’re here.

    I’ll have more to say a bit later, when I have time to write more of a response to your opinions.

    Thanks for stopping by,
    Red Pill

  6. zeroangel says:

    IITRP:

    I couldn’t help myself. It’s just all so very amazing. Besides, you could probably use the traffic. Here’s a bit of advice though: it’s unprofessional and tacky to argue with your readers. Notice MM (for example) rarely replies to comments on her blog. I had a blog myself once upon a time, I gave it up because it was too time consuming. Anyhow, I made the same mistake, it drives readers away fast. OK, unsolicited advice I know, but you should keep it in mind.

    When you do finally reply I would like you to address my earlier point. Do you honestly think that if the founders had been mainly Hindus that a speech about Vishnu would not have produced a similar effect of ending the deadlock; that is of course, assuming that speech was the whole reason, which I doubt.

  7. zeroangel,
    As a “prequel”, your 1st comment above was in response to the following comment I made on Michelle Malkin’s site:

    On September 30th, 2009 at 9:00 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Zero,

    Many atheists like to believe that Benjamin Franklin was a deist. But Deists tend to reject the notion of divine interventions in human affairs.

    Franklin may have studied Deism, especially when he was in France, but he was clearly rejecting Deism when he said:

    I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men.

    Franklin made no less than four references to the Bible in the short address he made to the Constitutional Convention, quoted above.

  8. zeroangel says:

    Yes, I responded to that here:

    #815512On September 30th, 2009 at 9:04 pm, zeroangel said:
    ITTRP:

    Franklin was probably a Unitarian and not a Deist.

  9. zeroangel says:

    It’s also important for your readers to be aware of the fact that this all started with your response to my point that the Constitution contains no mention of god.

    You responded with the positively insane point that the rendering of the date in the signature block, ie: “Year of our Lord” qualifies.

    I pointed out that that is absurd and it’s basically the same thing as claiming I am religious because I say “bless you” when someone sneezes.

  10. zeroangel says:

    An afterthought:

    Essentially, any group of sane, thinking people from any religion could have written the Constitution. The rendering of the date may have been different, so what?

  11. Trevor Hilton says:

    Looking at the way Zeroangel reacts to any religous reference, I wonder if God is talking to him, and he’s plugging his ears.

  12. zeroangel says:

    Trevor:

    I’m an unapologetic atheist who also happens to be fairly right-wing on host of issues like national defense and fiscal concerns. Yahweh is no more real than Zeus. ITTRP is among the most frightful fringe of the far right. He regularly makes some of the most right-wing commenters on MM’s cringe because he is just so incredibly crazy. The most recent example I can think of is this (from a discussion about faith healing):

    The government does not have a right to tell parents what to feed their own children. (Or to tell a parent that they aren’t allowed to give food or water to their dependent child!)

    The government does not have a right to tell parents how to provide medical care for their children.

    The parent who lost their child because they refused medical care for their child must live with the consequences of their decision for the rest of their life. That is punishment in its own right.

    You think the government has a right to put that parent in jail. I don’t.

    ITTRP’s extreme religousity clouds his judgement and affects his sanity. I am not the one that thinks god is talking to them.

  13. Joshua says:

    Zeroangel,

    ITTRPs thought on possible child neglect is not tied to teachings of Christ old or new testament. That is a Libertarian trend, not a conservative christian belief.

    But he is correct about our Founding Fathers. Most were trained in seminary from Christian universities. And they bought bibles, purchased them for the express purpose of children reading them in schools. In fact school lessons for learning ABCs, grammar, reading, writing, etc., were for the longest time influenced by biblical stories, verses, proverbs and famous names of the Bible.

    This is very factual information. Unfortunately, since the extremist ACLU won a court decision long ago, people no longer know these facts.

  14. Joshua says:

    And atheism is as much a religion as any others. It was deemed a religion by the Supreme Court some time ago.

  15. Joshua says:

    ITTRP,

    Would you mind posting some info for me at Michelle’s site? I cannot post there. If you do not feel comfortable, np.

    It regards the extreme, leftwing homosexual Jennings. There is a website in Massechusetts, called Mass Resistance that does an excellent job of documenting the militant homosexual takeover of that state since homosexual “marriage” was legalized.

    http://www.massresistance.org/

    Check out Fistgate. Its disgusting stuff. And yes, it represents the homosexual community. And Jennings was in the middle of all this perversion pushing it on children…

    Jennings UnSafe Agenda for our Kids

    If you don’t want to post, ok. But I hope we can spread this information far and wide and get this cancer fired from the WhiteHouse.

    “safe” is a lie, a big lie by these perverts.

  16. zeroangel says:

    Joshua:

    You are missing the point entirely. ITTRP’s thoughts on child neglect when related to faith healing are almost certainly tied to his faith. No sane “libertarian” is going to suggest parents can basically let their children die.

    As for the founders and our founding documents you are missing the point entirely. It does not matter what religion the founders were. The principles espoused in the Constitution are secular. Had the founders been sane, thinking, educated Hindus, Jews, Buddhist, or just about any other religion they still could have come up with the same thing. There is nothing religious in the Constitution. Answer the same question I posed to ITTRP:

    Explain to me how only a Christian could have written the Constitution.

    You cannot, and neither could he.

    As far as atheism being a religion, it’s about as much a religion as bald is a hair color, but nevertheless, I agree that it shouldn’t be taught in schools or have tenets posted in courthouses.

  17. Joshua says:

    ZeroAngel,

    You make assertions. But you do not back it up. You lack a knowledge of history.

    Extreme libertarians in fact make these type of arguments. There are extreme religious people as well that make the same arguments. If ITTR is indeed extreme, then to turn the argument back on you. Anyone can come up with his view(ala the Constitution) Right? Jews, Hindus, Buddhist… see how easy it is to make your false assertion?

    Then, you make a strawman argument. You state that I must “explain how only a Christian could have written the Constitution. You are limiting the argument to a strawman win for you.

    Of course you cannot limit the Constitution by Judeo-Chrstian believers – ONLY. That is a strawman. It has nothing to do with truth however about the history of our nation and founding fathers.

    The signers were overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian believers. That is an argument you cannot win and thus refuse to accept. Instead, you make up strawman arguments.

    The truth is our Constitution was written on the basis of Judeo-Christian principles and Roman/Greek legal laws. Its a combination of historical law givers and solutions.

    Our Founding Fathers carefully studied history. There were more informed then than most of Americans then of Roman Senate and Greek philosophy, as well as the laws of Moses and the Jewish nation.

    But in everything you read by them, you will see a constant refrain to Yeshua and morals of the Bible. This is non-controversial and your strawman argument is a distraction from the truth of history.

    The truth is they depended upon the 10 Commandments and contract laws from England, as well as balance of power and Senate concepts from Rome.

    What they did not want was a secular nation based upon the humanist interpretations of France. The French revolution went the direct opossite direction of our nations leaders. They rejected the French concepts of secular, humanist interpretations in favor of a Creator.

    There is a reason they supported the purchase of Bibles for schools. Why did you ignore this extremely important point? If they wanted a purely “secular” government as you say, then why did our Founding Fathers buy Bibles for our schools? Can you dismiss it so lightly?

    This is not news, unless you have not read anything outside of the indoctrination of publich schools and far left leaning professors.

    Do you think our schools started out as atheist institutions? Why do you think the ACLU had to go to court? They changed the original foundations of what our Founding Fathers did. They overruled what our Founding Fathers did in our schools.

    Yet you believe the lie that somehow the FF’s wanted the ACLU to win?

    Please… use some simple logic. Address the real issue of why Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and the rest all purchased bibles for school children.

    It is the ACLU that overturned the original intent of our nations Founding Fathers and have up until now erased the true history. It seems you have fallen for the indoctrination of the last 40-50yrs.

    BTW, the ACLU has a communist history from its beginning. So it is no surprise that atheist would lie, use a letter and argue against a free nation founded by believers.

    Sorry, but you need to read more and learn.

  18. zeroangel says:

    Joshua:

    It is entirely possible for anyone to come up with the insane idea about child neglect. As I said, a sane libertarian wouldn’t, an insane one, sure. Am I speculating about ITTRP? Of course. However, it is a safe assumption. He clearly isn’t a radical libertarian is he? Furthermore, we were talking about faith healing. Either way, it’s pretty clear ITTRP is a lunatic.

    The signers were overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian believers. That is an argument you cannot win and thus refuse to accept. Instead, you make up strawman arguments.

    Now who’s making the strawman? I never refused to accept that. It doesn’t change the fact that our founding documents are secular.

    No doubt the Greco-Roman laws and Enlightenment thinking had a great deal more to do with the Constitution than Judeo-Christian values. What does that mean, exactly? Our culture isn’t a vacuum. Yeshua and the morals of the Bible? You mean like child sacrifice? Rapists marrying their attackers? Slaves being loyal to their masters? Woman treated like property? Atrocities during war? All these are found in the Bible and you know it. Our culture and morals are defined by how unlike they are from 2000 year old texts and cultures, not how alike they are.

    As far as purchasing Bibles. So what? What is your point? The founding documents still contain no mention of god. Just because many people during the founder’s time shared a similar religion doesn’t mean our nation is based on that religion. The Constitution is clearly secular, it’s plain as day. If they wanted a country based on Christian morals why didn’t they put it in the Constitution? Why such a glaring and obvious omission? Besides, it’s not as though the founders were perfect people anyhow, so they can be forgiven for wanting to spread 2000 year old myths.

    This is not news, unless you have not read anything outside of the indoctrination of publich schools and far left leaning professors.

    You have got to be kidding me. I never learned anything about the founder’s leanings toward Deism and such until I stumbled upon it on my own well after I was out of school. You ask about Bibles, I ask you, why did Jefferson seek to rewrite it leaving out all miracles?

    As for the ACLU, sometimes they get it right, our schools should be secular (not atheist) and they are. We are a diverse country with many different religions. No teacher in a public school from any religion or non-religion should be allowed to push it onto kids. That is left to the parents.

    Sorry, but you need to read more and learn.

    Spare me this stupid patronizing nonsense and your ridiculous assumptions. I was raised, communed, and confirmed Christian. If anyone is guilty of indoctrination it is clearly the religious. There is no evidence for any of the claims of ANY religion. NONE. It is quite possible that all of them are equally false. All myths.

  19. zeroangel says:

    …btw do you even know what a strawman is? Where and how did I misrepresent anyone’s point? I have conceeded many times that many founders were religious. We are talking about our founding documents. ITTRP was the one to make the rather bizarre point that the date rendering means the Constitution was not secular. It’s nonsense.

  20. zero,

    Do not interpret a delayed response as a non-response. I will address your issues, but on my schedule, not yours.

    At the moment, I think it is more important to spread the word about the cover-up going on in Hawaii than it is to respond to you.

  21. zeroangel says:

    ITTRP:

    Don’t worry yourself ITTRP. I didn’t expect that you wouldn’t respond and I am not insisting that it’s done on anyone’s schedule, why would you think that?

  22. westexan says:

    “For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man that is in him?Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we (christians) have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we (christians) also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (examined).”–Paul the Apostle, AD 56.

    It is easy for the person of God to see the spiritual connection between God and the American Constitution. It is easy to understand the natural man’s objection to God’s involvement in the American Experience. One is spiritual and the other is physical (natural).

    The man, or woman, of God, can and does examine the Document physically and understands the Spiritual inspiration of the words written therein. The natural man has also physically examined the document and has drawn the conclusion that any inspiration from God in its creation is ridiculous. There is also the proverb in the christian bible that states: “A fool judges a matter before he considers it”. Seems the framers of the Constitution gave considerable consideration (in prayer and discussion) to the words that went into its construct.

    The natural man (atheist) continues to dig in the ground in search of the “missing link” that seperated the “sons of God” from the ancient primates (in the Hebrew bible called “daughters of men” ‘Neanderthal’). The spirit of man is not of the ground just as the Spirit of God is not of paper, and the arguement of the natural man (of the ground) has no spiritual substance.

  23. zeraongel says:

    westexan:

    An analogy I used elsewhere is as follows:

    Trying to claim Christianity is the inspiration for the Constitution is like trying to claim Taoism is the inspiration for gunpowder. The Bible condones slavery and tyranny. Indeed, European monarchs throughout the Middle Ages used it for the concept of “divine right.”

    As for a “missing link” anyone who uses that phrase demonstrates their ignorance on the matter. Every step along the way is a link and there are many fossils that have been found along the evolution of man and ape.

  24. zeroangel says:

    …man I messed up my nick. *sigh*

  25. westexan says:

    zero
    I agree with you, the phrase “missing link” does demonstrate the spiritual ignorance of the people who coined that phrase. “Every step along the way” would seem to imply there are many missing links instead of simply A missing link. So now you are in search of how many links? Man is, today, what man has always been, there were no steps to becoming man. However, there is A step to becoming a spiritual man.

    “Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new”. — the Apostle Paul, AD56.

    In saying, “Anyone in Christ is a new creation”, means the man or women in Christ have become something they were not before, a New Creation, a New Creature. It is explained elsewhere “A New Man”.

    Evolution? Absolutely. However this evolution is the process of God and not the process of Natural Selection. The “Old Man” who is now in Christ has evolved into the spiritual man, a new creation, something he/she was not before.. It is happening right in front of your eyes every day.

    The millions and billions of years old fossils do in fact prove there were humans on the earth long before the biblical Adam came on the scene. Those were the humans without souls, they were simply the most intelligent animals on the planet. Adam, however, was made in the image of God. God is Spirit and He made man (something that already existed) in His image. God gave Adam the spirit of man, something the humans before Adam did not have. This all explains the wife Cain found when there were only three humans Named on the face of the earth after Cain murdered his brother.

    Cain’s wife was simply a human without the spirit of man, an intelligent animal. Man is what man has always been. There were no steps in evolution until apes eventually became man. In Adam, God crated a new man. Actually since it is the Christ that created the entire universe and all that is in it, it is Christ who created Adam, the new man. Adam was not the first man on the planet but he was the first man with a spirit.

    And yes, I realize this is all foolishness to you just as it is to any “natural man”. The American Constitution is just more proof of the spirituallity of the framers of that document who trusted in and were inspired by God.

  26. westexan says:

    I believe gunpowder was the inspiration of the Chinese. “The bible condones slavery and tyranny.”
    Not so. The bible records slavery and tyranny, it doesn’t condone the same. The reason it is recorded is because it shows the imperfections of human beings and the need for the Messiah, the Christ, that was prophesied to come. The Christ condemned the “traditions of the fathers”, He certainly never condoned their traditions. The European Monarchs are respnsible for their own actions and how they interpret scriptures. That is not God’s fault nor can it be the fault of scriptures. There are many lawbreakers (criminals), which is at fault?, the criminal or the law?

  27. zeroangel says:

    westexan:

    Well, at least you seem to acknowledge that evolution via natural selection occured. I don’t mind your idea of a “soul” being injected at some point in the evolution of man. I don’t think it’s true, but at least you aren’t a creationist.

    As for the Constitution, it was inspired by sane, rational thought and done inspite of what the Bible says:

    Concerning slavery:

    Here’s the New Testament:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-2&version=NASB

    1(A)All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so (B)that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
    2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are (C)brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved (D)Teach and preach these principles.

    …and Jesus in his words (according to the Bible):

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:47-48&version=NASB

    47″And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will (A)receive many lashes,

    48but the one who did not (B)know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few (C)From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

    …and tyranny:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NIV

    Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

    It is objectively true that the Bible condones tyranny and slavery. You can quote other parts if you wish, but all you will show is that the Bible contradicts itself.

    [Editorial Note: This comment was initially held for moderation, by WordPress, because it has 3 or more links.]

  28. ZA says:

    Hey are my comments being moderated now? Was that the case earlier? What prompted this? Is it just me?

  29. ZA says:

    HAHA! I just got deleted! Nice one ITTRP! Total hypocrisy on your part. care to explain?

  30. ZA says:

    My previous comments were deleted. So, moderate this, I will quote the Bible directly. I dare you to moderate your own Holy Book!

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NIV

    Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-2&version=NASB

    1(A)All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so (B)that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
    2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are (C)brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved (D)Teach and preach these principles.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:47-48&version=NASB

    47″And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will (A)receive many lashes,
    48but the one who did not (B)know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few (C)From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

    [Editorial Note: This comment was initially held for moderation, by WordPress, because it has 3 or more links.]

  31. zeroangel says:

    Gawd you are a hypocrit ITTRP. You started this site whining about being banned at HotAir, now you are moderating my comments.

    I win.

  32. zeroangel says:

    TRYING AGAIN! I can’t believe you just cut out your own Holy Book!

    My previous comments were deleted. So, moderate this, I will quote the Bible directly. I dare you to moderate your own Holy Book!

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NIV

    Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-2&version=NASB

    1(A)All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so (B)that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
    2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are (C)brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved (D)Teach and preach these principles.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:47-48&version=NASB

    47″And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will (A)receive many lashes,
    48but the one who did not (B)know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few (C)From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

    [Editorial Note: This comment was initially held for moderation, by WordPress, because it has 3 or more links.]

  33. The Bible says:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NIV

    Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-2&version=NASB

    1(A)All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so (B)that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
    2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are (C)brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved (D)Teach and preach these principles.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:47-48&version=NASB

    47″And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will (A)receive many lashes,
    48but the one who did not (B)know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few (C)From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

    [Editorial Note: This comment was initially held for moderation, by WordPress, because it has 3 or more links.]

  34. The Holy Book says:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NIV

    Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-2&version=NASB

    1(A)All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so (B)that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
    2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are (C)brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved (D)Teach and preach these principles.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:47-48&version=NASB

    47″And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will (A)receive many lashes,
    48but the one who did not (B)know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few (C)From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

    [Editorial Note: This comment was initially held for moderation, by WordPress, because it has 3 or more links.]

  35. Someone that is being moderated says:

    ITTRP:

    Do you think God will be angry if you moderate his Holy Book?

  36. Someone that is being moderated says:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NIV

    Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-2&version=NASB

    1(A)All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so (B)that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
    2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are (C)brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved (D)Teach and preach these principles.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:47-48&version=NASB

    47″And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will (A)receive many lashes,
    48but the one who did not (B)know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few (C)From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

    [Editorial Note: This comment was initially held for moderation, by WordPress, because it has 3 or more links.]

  37. 0A says:

    1 Timothy 6:1-2

    Luke 12:47-48

    Romans 13

  38. 0A says:

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NIV

    Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:1-2&version=NASB

    1(A)All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so (B)that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
    2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are (C)brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved (D)Teach and preach these principles.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2012:47-48&version=NASB

    47″And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will (A)receive many lashes,
    48but the one who did not (B)know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few (C)From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.

    [Editorial Note: This comment was initially held for moderation, by WordPress, because it has 3 or more links.]

  39. 0A says:

    1 Timothy 6:1-2

    Luke 12:47-48

    Romans 13:1

  40. zero,
    I have been away since about noon, and just came back. I did not send a single one of your comments to moderation. WordPress did.

    Discussion Settings
    Comment Moderation
    Hold a comment in the queue if it contains 3 or more links. (A common characteristic of comment spam is a large number of hyperlinks.)

    I don’t have time right now to go through the ones that went to moderation. Perhaps I’ll release all of them later tonight or tomorrow, and show the complete picture of how immature you’ve been.

    I will tell you right now that I don’t like people commenting under more than one ID, as you have been doing. If you continue to show up under different personas, you might just get yourself banned for that reason.

  41. zeroangel says:

    ITTRP:

    I don’t believe you. My comments weren’t just held in a queue, they were held and then deleted. Furthermore, I noticed that some were not held in a queue when I changed my nick (which is the only reason I changed my nick), but were still later deleted.

    I think you are lying and have invented this story to cover up your lie.

    In any case, it really won’t matter if you put all my comments back. Furthermore, since the issue of my nick changes have been explained then taht isn’t a problem anymore now is it?

  42. zeroangel says:

    ITTRP:

    You do know this blog alerts the author of a comment when said comment is being held in a queue or not, don’t you?

  43. zeroangel says:

    I will tell you right now that I don’t like people commenting under more than one ID, as you have been doing.

    How is zeroangel, ZA, and 0A much different? It’s not as though I am trying to hide my identity and pretend to be another poster.

    Admit it, you just want an excuse to ban.

  44. zero,

    I’ve had a busy day, and I’m just returning to the blog again. I am telling the truth that I have not touched a single one of your comments yet today. I really don’t care whether you believe that or not.

    I’ll probably go review the comments that are being held in moderation, add an editorial footnote, and then release them.

    Listen, I respect and appreciate your service to our country in the military.

    I also love you, even though I’ve never met you, because Jesus loves you, Jesus loves me, and Jesus taught me to love other people as I love myself.

    I respectfully ask you to treat me the way you yourself would like to be treated.

  45. As to the email notification, that goes to a gmail account that I do not check on a daily basis. I don’t use my personal email account for this WordPress blog, because I don’t want my personal email account divulged when I comment on other people’s blogs.

    You should understand that, as you yourself have yet to divulge your personal email address when leaving comments here.

  46. zeroangel Says:
    October 1, 2009 at 11:33 am

    Wow, it was out of the sheerest morbid curiousity that I figured I would come here. I am flattered. Let me post the rest of our exchange on MM’s site for the benefit of your readers (all 5 of them, your immediate family and the folks you pulled from MM’s site):

    ——————————————–

    On September 30th, 2009 at 9:02 pm, zeroangel said:
    ITTRP:

    Of course. Ben Franklin invoking God must have been what broke the deadlock. You see only what you want to see ITTRP.

    The truth is that “the rest of our exchange on MM’s site” started much earlier than the 9:02 pm comment with which you start. Our exchange started at 2:16 pm that day, with this comment.

  47. for the benefit of your readers (all 5 of them, your immediate family and the folks you pulled from MM’s site)

    Zero, I wouldn’t even mention this normally, but will in response to your childish taunt. The total views on this blog are in the six figures. That’s from a few more than 5 readers. You seem to frequently complain when I link from MM’s blog to one of my posts here, but I’ve explained on more than one occasion why I do that. If I wrote a long post six to twelve months ago, that is very relevant to a current post on MM’s site, I’m not going to recreate that blog post within a comment on Michelle’s blog. Rather, I’ll link to my post, and those who want to visit my blog post follow the link, and those that don’t, don’t. It’s that simple. I don’t make a dime off traffic to this site, so I don’t see any valid reason for you to complain about it.

    You’ve also said before on MM’s blog that you refused to come to my blog because you didn’t want to add to my traffic. Do you really think your visits are significant in the big picture of total views on this blog? If so, your ego is out of whack. And I don’t think six figures of total views is a big deal at all… HotAir.com does that every single day! Some days are in the seven figures. So that is why I would not even discuss the topic of views here other than to directly respond to your criticism.

  48. zeroangel says:

    Well, I guess I’ll just have to take you at your word. It doesn’t really matter what I believe as long as the comments get restored, that will render the whole issue moot. OK I see you have restored them, excellent. In the interest of saving space you can delete the redundant ones. Just keep the one from October 6, 2009 at 2:22 pm.,

    As far as treating you with respect, you don’t respect me at all. You certainly don’t behave like some of the posters on MM’s site, however, you absolutely are in the camp that thinks atheists and atheism is destroying our great nation. How can you possibly ask me to respect you when you charge me with such a thing? I will try and maintain decorum, but I won’t pull punches.

    Zero, I wouldn’t even mention this normally, but will in response to your childish taunt. The total views on this blog are in the six figures.

    This is frightening to me; that there are so many people that don’t recognize you as a crazy person. In any case, you do more than just link relevant posts on MM’s. You link ones that are barely relevent. It’s really no a big deal though. The TOU is regularly violated there and no one seems to care. Heck, one regular used to often advertise his commerical product.

    Do you really think your visits are significant in the big picture of total views on this blog? If so, your ego is out of whack.

    My ego is out of whack? You honestly and truly believe that you can communicate with, know the mind of (to some extent), and can influence (through prayer) the creator of the universe! Talk about out of whack ego!

    As for the charge of being a lunatic; you are. Not only do you imagine you can communicate with the creator of the universe to a certain extent, you also believe the an ancient text; which as mentioned above condones slavery and tyranny; is the infallible word of god. It’s insane. The kind of idea deserves no respect at all. I will call Muslim fundamentalists that believe similar things about the Koran as lunatics. I will do the exact same thing for you.

    Anyhow, I know eventually you will address my point from above WRT our original conversation. Take your time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s