|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Smelling The Coffee: 2010 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
10 years ago I had a couple of credit cards which I couldn't pay off. I was 21. I also had a car payment and insurance.
I got rid of my debt in my own way. I didn't transfer my debt into my ideas of the National Debt. I also realized at a very young age that the USA wasn't MY country and I don't really pay attention to racial demographics. Who cares? OOOOh. My particular combination of auburn hair, gay brains and grey eyes might be extinct in 100 years. Why should I be concerned? My contribution is fighting the creationists...intellectual battles is where it's at. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Hi Bluescat. Such as, for example? I'm surprised. I thought that you thought that it was us Biblio-Christo-fundis who were the irrevalent, archaic radicals. They are, the loudmouths such as Sarah Palin, Ken Huckabee, Charles Colson & James Dodson. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Bluescat writes: They are, the loudmouths such as Sarah Palin, Ken Huckabee, Charles Colson & James Dodson. Bluescat, perhaps you should go back and carefully read my message to which you responded. In it I referred to the ones who "consider the fundamentals of Jesus and his apostles who wrote the NT as irrevalent, archaic and radical." Do you really think that the above list of folks consider the fundamentals of Jesus and his apostles who wrote the NT as irrevalent, archaic and radical? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
In it I referred to the ones who "consider the fundamentals of Jesus and his apostles who wrote the NT as irrevalent, archaic and radical." Yes I do since they espouse the exact opposite to Jesus, intolerance. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
None of our founders would agree to your statement above. They regarded the value of things like The Ten Commandments and other Biblical principles to the extent that they were implemented in many aspects of government including church services in the halls of Congress accompanied by the US Marine Band, the insistance that the Bible and Watts Hymnal be integral to public school education and commissioning missionaries to evangelize the pagan Indians into Christianity. That's odd considering that the most influential ones were deist. "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." -- Thomas Paine "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.) "Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson More on this later. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Bluescat writes: Yes I do since they espouse the exact opposite to Jesus, intolerance. Well then, lets see; the majority of the members of this board, particularly the more secular minded folks regard the NT such fundamentals of Jesus and his apostles as hell, heaven, baptism, Jesus the only way to God, salvation via Jesus, leadership role of the man, sinful sex outside of marriage, love your enemies, ID creation, Armageddon, 2nd advent of Jesus, just to name a few, as irrevelant. Aren't you implicating folks like yourself along with Christ professing hypocrits? Wouldn't you consider Jesus and his apostles as intolerant to all the the Bible regards as sin, such as adultery, fornication, men lusting with men, leaving the natural use of the body, pagan religions, false doctrines, those who deny the power of God, worshipping the creature, rather than the creator, etc? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi. HyroglyphxI assume you got your quotes here or some similar cite. The nice thing about this cite is that at the top of each page you get the con arguments and quotes and at the bottom you get the responding pro arguments and quotes. Some of the pro quotes are from the very same men whom you quote above.
We can all quote mine arguments pro and con. The fact remains that the policies of founders like Jefferson such as church in Congress and the Bible and Watts Hymnal in all of the schools attest to the fact that the Biblical principles of Christianity predominated in the founding of the nation. The quotes of Adam and Jefferson implicated the oppressive Angican Church/state of England and the popes and bishops of Roman Catholicism during the dark ages. No central organized religion was to be established by the government in its Constitution or laws. This did not forbid the practice of religion in and out of government as the policies of Jefferson, Adams and all of the founders demonstrated. As per one of my previous messages, the nature of a republic such as our founders established is that the policies of the representive majority would prevail so far as religion, etc. Thus the bent to Christianity in early US government. Now that the electorate has liberalized to a more secularistic mindset, the role of Christianity in government diminishes. The solution to one's wishes is to muster up majority vote in the poles; not to implement new laws, forbiding the exercise of religion and free speech which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees for our republic. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3896 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
Hi Buz!
As per one of my previous messages, the nature of a republic such as our founders established is that the policies of the representive majority would prevail so far as religion, etc. Thus the bent to Christianity in early US government. Now that the electorate has liberalized to a more secularistic mindset, the role of Christianity in government diminishes. Let's debate this, please. First let's compare this, though. Message 132 I was born in 1935. LOL. When I was in school out in rural Wyoming, a slim majority of my classmates were professing Christians. The majority of the town fathers were not professing Christians. In the 1950s during my four years in the USAF, I was one of the slim majority of professing Christians. By then, baby, we'd gone a long way down the slippery slope from the time of our founders. By the 1960, before your were likely even born, we pretty much lost it, so far as a Christian mindset in government and on the streets of our towns and cities. As I understand it, during the time that the Bible and prayer were in every school, America was a highly literate nation. Virtually no one was a fundamentalist, though the politics were highly conservative the intellectual climate was profoundly enlightened and even most church-goers were functionally atheist. Having access to the Book in every school meant that it was well-known, widely discussed, and every man was wise enough to see how it worked and distinguish out the kinds of literature and metaphor involved. Then, as the preachers tried to make their comeback to power by means of media scams like the Scopes trial, their courting of martrydom provoked an inevitable backlash. The foundational book of the modern English language, the covenant principles of constitutional law, and the practice of public leadership in group devotionals all had to be removed from the public square because they had been contaminated by sectarian strife. Over the same time period, the hysterical wing of protestantism swelled in its ranks, and we eventually got results like the Moral Majority and the lying cheating neo-cons, who prey on the sheep that have been mustered to the giant polling slaughterhouse. The Pledge is next. Is this what you wanted? The definition of "insanity" is when you keep doing the same things and expect different results. Stop pissing into the wind ...
Acts 26:14 writes:
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Virtually no one was a fundamentalist, Ok, Iblis, which fundamentals of Jesus and the apostles which I cited above were not the tennants of the majority of America's Protestant churches up until the 1950s? (I say Protestant, because so far as I'm aware, none of the founders were RCC. ) and the majority of American churches were protestant. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hey Buz,
The fact remains that the policies of founders like Jefferson such as church in Congress and the Bible and Watts Hymnal in all of the schools attest to the fact that the Biblical principles of Christianity predominated in the founding of the nation. Like Jefferson? Last time you said it was Jefferson. Also, last time, I asked you to back up that particular claim. I see that instead, you are just repeating it without a shred of evidence. Perhaps you would be kind enough to actually back your claim up this time. When did this occur? Where? How do you know? Or is it simply bull? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3426 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
Please forgive my incoherent post. I have been sick with pneumonia and I just read part of Phat's OP.
I hope to be a more rational participant once I get through the whole thread.. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London "Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Granny. I was going by memory and if my memory serves me will we all, back there, my ole buds Washington, Adams and Jefferson all had the Bible and Watts Hymnal in our schools.
Seriously, I believe the schools had those two books from the colonial days. The New England Primer was a standard as well from the times of the colonies. It was the book which taught the primary children the alphabet, the Ten Commandments and all. It was totally Biblical based; all of it. I'll do some research and get back to you as to whether I have it all correct, with some specifics. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
Hi Buz,
I was going by memory and if my memory serves me will we all, back there, my ole buds Washington, Adams and Jefferson all had the Bible and Watts Hymnal in our schools. For a start, none of your good buddies could be compared to modern Christian fundamentalists. Adams was a Unitarian, Jefferson arguably a deist and Washington used to walk out of Church services before taking communion. When it was pointed out to Washington that this was impolitic, he stopped attending altogether. Secondly, the mere presence of the hymnal in schools does not argue that it was "that our founders advocated the Bible and Watts Hymnal IN ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS" as you first suggested (you did not, as I claimed above refer specifically to Jefferson, so my apologies for that). You say yourself that the use of the hymnal was a continuation of the practise in England. You need to to advocacy, not mere presence. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
When you stress that the US is a "Christian Nation" does that imply that you, and other Christians, want to use the power of government to impose your particular version of morality upon all residents?
And if so, how does this differ from a theocracy (such as Iran)? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
We can all quote mine arguments pro and con. to quote mine means taking a quote out of context. Please show me where I took any of the quotes out of context.
The quotes of Adam and Jefferson implicated the oppressive Angican Church/state of England and the popes and bishops of Roman Catholicism during the dark ages. No central organized religion was to be established by the government in its Constitution or laws. This did not forbid the practice of religion in and out of government as the policies of Jefferson, Adams and all of the founders demonstrated. I never said it forbids religion. I am quite pleased that it does not forbid religion and am quite displeased by some of the EvC members that insist on "abolishing religion." The point of the Separation of Church and State is that people may practise freely in the New World without the fear of the government showing partiality towards a religion. If, however, you feel that because the majority of people emigrating from Europe identified themselves as Christian, I would dare say that means very little. What exactly does a "Christian Nation" even mean? Please define your terms, because popularity seems utterly irrelevant in the face of the clear intent of the Framers; which is that no religion shall be a state religion, including Christianity of any denomination.
Now that the electorate has liberalized to a more secularistic mindset, the role of Christianity in government diminishes. Nonsense. In fact, terms such as "In God We Trust" are late additions, as in, 1952. The government got progressively more religious (which is an infringement upon itself). It is only as of late that it is going back to its secular roots -- secular in this instance meaning that it intentionally refrains from honoring any religion at all, not that religion is disallowed.
The solution to one's wishes is to muster up majority vote in the poles; not to implement new laws, forbiding the exercise of religion and free speech which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees for our republic. Buzsaw, I in no way intend whatsoever not to allow ANY citizen the right to freely congregate peaceably under the religious pretense of its choosing. That is not even part of the debate. We are debating what a "Christain Nation" is and what the entailments/repurcussions of that might include. If America is a Christian Nation, what is that supposed to mean to people that aren't Christian? "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024