A video for ALL Americans

[skids]

I don't believe in a sky god or a fairy tale where the same fairy tale is the same with different names for the characters world wide.

Neither did the rich man.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16%3A19-31&version=NIV

[LITE-INN]

My thought is that most of you guys vote for the mentally retarded party because you don't know any better. Sorry, I must not waste much time talking to idiots today, I've got to wrap up a contract today that's going to net more than you guys collectively make in 5 years. Sucks to suck boys.

sorry no democrats in this household

[LITE-INN]

I assume your contract consists of nothing but ...copy/paste...copy/paste and his mommy does that for him

[anthonycacace]

Very good. Hopefully some of the folks on here that aren't aware of the influence will watch it, but I doubt they will, the devil loves a closed mind. I have always been amazed at the number of people that have called our founding fathers secular, and as the piece shows, nothing could be further from the truth.

The narrator never says "founding fathers." Listen more closely, he uses the words "fore fathers" and "prominent statesmen." There are BIG differences in these phrases. Also, only ONE signer of any documents creating our current governmental system is mentioned as believing in the importance of the Bible's influence: Dr. Benjamin Rush.

And thats one reason folks of those thoughts won't watch it, they would have to admit (to themselves) they were wrong. And many just can't do that. I know, it was hard for me and I wasn't really hung up politically at the time. Anyway, cool video. Hopefully you won't mind if I share it. I'd like to send it to my Bible Study group members. Great food for thought.

Then, he talks about the Bible's influence on many "famous Americans." He notes that Noah Webster thought the Bible was the, "Best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men," and the definition of temporal is provided as being: that [which] is secular. However, temporal has five different meanings and the narrator chose the one fitting his cause. Yes, secular, lay, or civil, as opposed to ecclesiastical, is one such definition, but it also describes: pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly. IMO, similarly to the narrator having his own opinion, this is more fitting reference in the context.

The timeline used in reference to the Pilgrim's Bible is in question too. The narrator notes the Pilgrims brought a Geneva Bible dated from 1519 with them. Problem is, the Geneva Bible version was not produced until 1557 for the New Testament and 1560 for the entire book.

I have watched more of the video, but with the above only relating to the first 6-7 minutes, I think this is a good starting point.

[LITE-INN]

its a shame this doesn't work with b.s lol

http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/The_One_And_Only_Gas_Sack/?m=new

[LITE-INN]

The narrator never says "founding fathers." Listen more closely, he uses the words "fore fathers" and "prominent statesmen." There are BIG differences in these phrases. Also, only ONE signer of any documents creating our current governmental system is mentioned as believing in the importance of the Bible's influence: Dr. Benjamin Rush.
Then, he talks about the Bible's influence on many "famous Americans." He notes that Noah Webster thought the Bible was the, "Best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men," and the definition of temporal is provided as being: that [which] is secular. However, temporal has five different meanings and the narrator chose the one fitting his cause. Yes, secular, lay, or civil, as opposed to ecclesiastical, is one such definition, but it also describes: pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly. IMO, similarly to the narrator having his own opinion, this is more fitting reference in the context.

The timeline used in reference to the Pilgrim's Bible is in question too. The narrator notes the Pilgrims brought a Geneva Bible dated from 1519 with them. Problem is, the Geneva Bible version was not produced until 1557 for the New Testament and 1560 for the entire book.

I have watched more of the video, but with the above only relating to the first 6-7 minutes, I think this is a good starting point.

http://www.avdefense.webs.com/pilgrims.html

[LITE-INN]

every vote counts and least she didn't VOTE TWICE OR THREE OR FOUR TIMES LOL

[anthonycacace]

http://www.avdefense.webs.com/pilgrims.html

I will explain in greater detail about the Pilgrim and Geneva Bible dating comment.

The timing statement was not aimed at saying the Pilgrims lacked a copy of the Geneva Bible when they landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620. I concede they did most likely bring such with them. Rather, the point is the narrator misrepresented the publication date of the one being held in his hand as being from 1519. Conclusion, if the narrator is misleading about the publication date, how can he be trusted on other factors?

[Clayton_Wetter]

My thought is that most of you guys vote for the mentally retarded party because you don't know any better. Sorry, I must not waste much time talking to idiots today, I've got to wrap up a contract today that's going to net more than you guys collectively make in 5 years. Sucks to suck boys.

Little does this guy know that talking to himself is in itself an idiotic waste of time! lol Don't be that guy!!!

[RATFINK]

I think that there is more than enough literature to prove what David Barton states in this video is factual. Anyone with half a brain and time to research in your local library or on the net searching for the books that David Barton cites in this video will more than prove what he says is true. The country started removing bibles from class rooms in 1962 and since then violent crime has risen 560%, but I'm sure this is just a coincidence.

[mudslinger47]

Some one may have already pointed this out, but why do non-believes object so much to the folks that do believe? Why doesn't it bother them so much? Why does it bother anyone that the Founding fathers were believers of God? Does it make them any less respected? Did it change their job they did? As for bashing a present believer, why? Who do I harm with my belief? If a city puts up a religious symbol and the non-believer doesn't like it, why, if they don't believe it should mean nothing to them. I can not follow their thinking at all. Maybe one of them maroons can explain it to me.

[RATFINK]

I'm glad you believe in a sky god, but let's be real. The FF were a believers OF A GOD, not OF GOD. I don't understand why people that believe and don't believe clash so much. For what it's worth, I don't believe and don't care if you do or don't, just don't push it on me one way or another.

I wonder. If you do not believe why is it that you have the most posts on this thread? I would imagine that a mental giant such as yourself would have something much more important to attend to. In any case I wouldn't want to keep you from anything more important than gracing us with your input, and I'm sure none of us would mind (Especially myself) if you found something else to do other then your insert your input to this thread which is obviously below you.

[skids]

I'm glad you believe in a sky god, but let's be real. The FF were a believers OF A GOD, not OF GOD.

Then how do you explain the prominence of the Bible? IF they just believed in "a god", they would not be using the Bible. Would they? I see no other gods referred to in the Bible (other than chastisement for worshiping false ones). It does not seem logical that someone not believing what is in the Bible would reference it as often as it has been by prominent Founding Fathers and used so much in their everyday life.

How do you explain that?

[Clayton_Wetter]

I guess all chat boards have to have an idiotic class clown who poisons the discussions with their disdain for his fellow man. And Bushy will sure find time in his important life to p$ss on everybodies parade. The trouble with this beligerent man is that he missed out on the many woodshed whoopins' that he needed and failed to grow up.

Bushy, I heard that you were ''a manure salesman with a mouth full of samples"! ROFL!

[anthonycacace]

I think that there is more than enough literature to prove what David Barton states in this video is factual. Anyone with half a brain and time to research in your local library or on the net searching for the books that David Barton cites in this video will more than prove what he says is true.

OK, but you were unable, or failed, in refuting anything I state in relation to your request of "Tell me what you think." I did my research, which is how I found out the publication dates of the Geneva Bible. I did not know such from rote. So ... prove your 'facts' are accurate with said research.

The country started removing bibles from class rooms in 1962 and since then violent crime has risen 560%, but I'm sure this is just a coincidence.

WOW, I sincerely hope you do not think our crime issues can be so simplistic as to apply this logic. If so, there is no reason to reply to the comment above. The Bible was not 'removed' from public schools. The correct statement is that public schools could no longer require children to recite prayers each day after the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale. The high school I attended had a Bible club and this was a sanctioned and approved activity allowed during school hours.

Also, I am uncertain where you got the 560% stat. A percentage change calculation only yields an increase of 138% over the span of 1962 - 2011 and a percentage increase calculation of 354. (Such tools to perform these calcs are available for free online.) The only place I can locate the 560% increase from reliable sources (EG - FBI stats, Wall Street Journal article from 1993) says this is from 1960 to 1991. Maybe time to update thy research?

One final note is, it appears you only wanted to see replies from those who think similarly to the same ideals as the author. I am basing this assessment on the non-rebuttal of my comments in a rationale measure, but rather a visceral reply. If this is not the case, rebut the dating comment then as Lite-inn attempted to do. And, I would post links to where I got my data, but that seems to get the entire post removed, so I am trying a new tactic.