The Oregonian: Boy banned from wearing Obama mask in skit
-
Christian Graus wrote:
As I said, the key thing to remember is that the phrase 'the face of the ground' represents the same thing as the area Cain was banished from. The other key thing is that knowing if the waters covered all the earth or not, is not really the core thing the bible is about, it doesn't particularly matter.
There's only one way that the flood water can be fifteen cubits above the highest mountain, and that's if it covers the entire planet. There is no way of getting around gravity. And yeah, I think it DOES matter. I could easily write a book telling people that they have to be nice to each other, but nobody would listen because they wouldn't believe it to be the inspired word of God. People do believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If it were to be so, God should at least show an understanding of the natural world beyond what would be expected of a mere mortal of the time. These aren't just mistranslations or misunderstandings, these Biblical stories show all of the sanity and restraint of fairy-tales.
Christian Graus wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. Gen 1 says that He created men and women ( plural ) and Gen 2 says He formed Adam and Eve, they are two accounts of two different things, with no indication of how far apart they were. Given that the earth is a lot older than 6,000 years, this is hardly surprising.
So you think it's more likely that God just majicked some people into existence, lets them do their own thing, and then creates two new people for apparently no reason? Why does he need Adam's rib to create Eve? I mean, he created women beforehand, no sweat. Why would he create them, anyway, if he knew that they were going to be tempted by one of his own creations? Why did he create the serpent? None of it makes sense!
Regarding the first point - the point of the bible is not to stand up to critical review. The old testament stories may well be largely allegorical. Either way, the height of a mountain does not affect the value of Jesus' teachings.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
None of it makes sense
Well, it does, but given your predisposition to assuming it doesn't, and the general worthlessness of the internet as a place to discuss such things, I'm not really feeling disposed to elucidate further. Nothing personal, I'm just seeing where this is headed and checking out early.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
He said virga, not viagra. :laugh: Virga: Light wispy precipitation that evaporates before it reaches the ground (especially when the lower air is low in humidity)
Cheers, Vıkram.
Carpe Diem.
I know. I should have used a smiley to indicate that I was kidding.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
led mike wrote:
It's against nature.
Of course. Humanity is unnatural.
-
Of course I do! For example: God created the Universe. God decides that wearing wool and linen together is abhorrent. Therefore, Christianity makes sense. Question: before Noah's ark, i.e. before God created rainbows, what existed instead of refraction? :confused:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
what existed instead of refraction?
Good question. Without refraction wouldn't our eye's not work? Was the world blind before refraction? That would make building that ark a bit harder. And I suppose to get the gender of the animals right you'd have to check by hand....
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The core issue is that it's not long enough ago since your forefathers dragged his forefathers into boats and enslaved them. So, everyone is worried that anything they do to make fun of Obama will be seen as racially inspired. This doesn't mean the Obama crowd is BEHIND such feeling. I am sure that if a child HAD been stopped from wearing a Bush mask, you'd be hard pressed to find Democrats stupid enough to blame Bush for it.
The core issue is that you're an ignorant git. Actually, and as always, the core issue is that you're intellectually dishonest (i.e. worse than a mere liar), but the phrase "ignorant git" is somewhat popular with your set.
Thanks for playing. Someone who I believe you claim to respect said 'by their fruits shall ye know them'. Your fruits appear to be rotten. Do you resort to insult because it helps your self righteousness, or is it a mask for when you don't have any comeback to things people say to you ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The core issue is that it's not long enough ago since your forefathers dragged his forefathers into boats and enslaved them.
That actually would not include Obama.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I know, and perhaps not even Ilion. That doesn't change the fact that everyone walks on eggshells because of it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
If he really believed all of that, why didn't he try to create a government which actually incorporated those concepts when he had the chance? Here's a news flash for ya - Jefferson's letters are not legally binding documents. However, not that it matters regarding the current conversation, but I do happen to agree with him on most of that. But, like Jefferson, I believe it has no more business being promoted by the state than does anyone else's religious opinions.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Why would someone in a more religious age, PRETEND to hold the views he was espousing ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Well, no, one cannot; one either believes or does not believe a thing.
Ilíon wrote:
And yet, "liberals" and 'atheists' (and "Darwinists," especially those called "theistic evolutionists") manage to pull it off all the time.
That would be pretending to believe, which, while dishonest, is not believing. Are you saying that "liberals", 'atheists', and "Darwinists" (especially those called "theistic evolutionists") really believe all that you believe, but are pretending not to? Are being dishonest? To what end? Why would they perpetuate this charade?
Bob Emmett
-
Regarding the first point - the point of the bible is not to stand up to critical review. The old testament stories may well be largely allegorical. Either way, the height of a mountain does not affect the value of Jesus' teachings.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
None of it makes sense
Well, it does, but given your predisposition to assuming it doesn't, and the general worthlessness of the internet as a place to discuss such things, I'm not really feeling disposed to elucidate further. Nothing personal, I'm just seeing where this is headed and checking out early.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Oakman wrote:
"I don't know and there doesn't seem to be good evidence for it or against it."
In which case (for the purpose of my argument) you would not believe it. But never mind. :(
Bob Emmett
-
Thanks for playing. Someone who I believe you claim to respect said 'by their fruits shall ye know them'. Your fruits appear to be rotten. Do you resort to insult because it helps your self righteousness, or is it a mask for when you don't have any comeback to things people say to you ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you resort to insult because it helps your self righteousness, or is it a mask for when you don't have any comeback to things people say to you ?
I'm not sure those choices are mutually exclusive.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
If he really believed all of that, why didn't he try to create a government which actually incorporated those concepts when he had the chance? Here's a news flash for ya - Jefferson's letters are not legally binding documents. However, not that it matters regarding the current conversation, but I do happen to agree with him on most of that. But, like Jefferson, I believe it has no more business being promoted by the state than does anyone else's religious opinions.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
f he really believed all of that, why didn't he try to create a government which actually incorporated those concepts when he had the chance?
I keep reminding you that Jefferson was in France - screwing Sally Hemings, his personal body slave - while the rest of the boyos were back in Philadephica writing the Constitution. The only government in which he can said to have taken a hand in the creation of, was the first confederation of states which had a constitution very different from the Hamiltonian one we ended up with. I guess when I bring up these historical facts, it's pretty much the same thing as pissing in the holy water, isn't it. :(
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
f he really believed all of that, why didn't he try to create a government which actually incorporated those concepts when he had the chance?
I keep reminding you that Jefferson was in France - screwing Sally Hemings, his personal body slave - while the rest of the boyos were back in Philadephica writing the Constitution. The only government in which he can said to have taken a hand in the creation of, was the first confederation of states which had a constitution very different from the Hamiltonian one we ended up with. I guess when I bring up these historical facts, it's pretty much the same thing as pissing in the holy water, isn't it. :(
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I guess when I bring up these historical facts, it's pretty much the same thing as pissing in the holy water, isn't it.
No, it is simply irrelevant. He had his chance to get all those radical views into the US constitution and didn't. The views he did see fit to include all clearly refer to a devine, intelligent creator as the source of our rights. I'm not the one trying to change or disregard history for my own political preferences.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
If he really believed all of that
"If"? How do you come about questioning that? Please explain.
Stan Shannon wrote:
why didn't he
What? You, the Jeffersonian Soapbox expert are asking me why Jefferson did or said something? WTF dude? I never claimed to be a Jefferson expert. I only claimed to know that you don't know shit about him.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Here's a news flash for ya - Jefferson's letters are not legally binding documents.
Oh, really? All those past statements you made about what Jefferson stood for and how it proved that I and many others were wrong had only to do with legally binding documents? I see you are in full spin mode now trying to escape the facts again. Here's a news flash for ya - facts are facts regardless of being in legally binding documents or not. What these facts prove and I clearly stated in the first post, is that you don't know shit when it comes to what Jefferson believed and what he stood for in regards to the United States of America and, wait for it, FREEDOM.
Stan Shannon wrote:
not that it matters regarding the current conversation
No it doesn't that's why I posted to you and not someone else. It pertains to you being full of shit in general.
led mike wrote:
"If"? How do you come about questioning that? Please explain.
Most of these out of context quotes are in letters that the recipients happened to save. As much as any thing else, they represent the musing and ramblings of a great mind. But they represent little of Jefferson's actual, stated, political beliefs. And frankly, I have rarely stated any expertise in Jefferson. I refer to 'Jeffersonian Democracy' - that is, the actual form of government that generation created. The government they gave us was a decentralized republic with very limited, strictly limited federal power. None of which is reflected in the principles of the modern democrat party, which is purely a Marxist political affiliation. What is clear is that if Jefferson had thought for one moment that the letters he wrote would be used to change the fundamental structure of the government, he would have burned them all.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Why would someone in a more religious age, PRETEND to hold the views he was espousing ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why would someone in a more religious age, PRETEND to hold the views he was espousing ?
I didn't say he was pretending anything. I'm sure those letters reflect much of Jefferson's true perspective. But they do not reflect any of his political theories. Jefferson never said "You know, this christianity bull shit really sucks. Lets form a government that actively forces it from the public arena." Jefferson didn't believe that the state should promote anyone's religious beliefs - even his own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Do you resort to insult because it helps your self righteousness, or is it a mask for when you don't have any comeback to things people say to you ?
I'm not sure those choices are mutually exclusive.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
*sigh* I guess you are right. It's sad to see him resorting to his old ways again, tho, for a while things seemed to be better.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Why would someone in a more religious age, PRETEND to hold the views he was espousing ?
I didn't say he was pretending anything. I'm sure those letters reflect much of Jefferson's true perspective. But they do not reflect any of his political theories. Jefferson never said "You know, this christianity bull shit really sucks. Lets form a government that actively forces it from the public arena." Jefferson didn't believe that the state should promote anyone's religious beliefs - even his own.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Jefferson didn't believe that the state should promote anyone's religious beliefs - even his own.
Yes, that appears to me to be the case, also. I just didn't get that this was what you were saying.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Oakman wrote:
I guess when I bring up these historical facts, it's pretty much the same thing as pissing in the holy water, isn't it.
No, it is simply irrelevant. He had his chance to get all those radical views into the US constitution and didn't. The views he did see fit to include all clearly refer to a devine, intelligent creator as the source of our rights. I'm not the one trying to change or disregard history for my own political preferences.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
He had his chance to get all those radical views into the US constitution and didn't.
How? Satellite radio? Telepathy? Stan, you know, or should know, that the ship from France to Philadelphia took a month. Why do you keep talking as if Jefferson were present?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not the one trying to change or disregard history for my own political preferences.
If pretending that Jefferson wrote the Constitution or even had any input in it isn't disregarding history, I'd like to know what is.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
You've been watching way too much BSG!!!!
:laugh: :laugh: No doubt. Have you seen the Hitler parody on You Tube? Hitler's BSG Breakdown (SPOILERS)[^]
Thanks. That was funny. What movie was that from? What do you think of the final season of BSG? I've been kind of disappointed in it. I mean Ellen was the final cylon? That sucks. I was sure it was going to be Admiral Adama. And now they've turned the cylons into a race being persecuted by all the red neck humans. It turned into just another typical hollywood lefty morality play after all...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
He had his chance to get all those radical views into the US constitution and didn't.
How? Satellite radio? Telepathy? Stan, you know, or should know, that the ship from France to Philadelphia took a month. Why do you keep talking as if Jefferson were present?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not the one trying to change or disregard history for my own political preferences.
If pretending that Jefferson wrote the Constitution or even had any input in it isn't disregarding history, I'd like to know what is.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
How? Satellite radio? Telepathy? Stan, you know, or should know, that the ship from France to Philadelphia took a month. Why do you keep talking as if Jefferson were present?
Jefferson corresponded regularly with madison and others just as he did throughout his life, from France or Virginia. He could have easily written one letter stating: "For the sake of secular humanity, outlaw christianity!!!!" But apparenlty he didn't. He could have abandoned his post and returned to the US. He could have done a lot of things. He didn't. Clearly he had more important things to attend to.
Oakman wrote:
If pretending that Jefferson wrote the Constitution or even had any input in it isn't disregarding history, I'd like to know what is.
No, but he did write the Declaration of Independence. You know, "endowed by our creator" and all. And his views on the nature and meaning of the constitution as written are well defined. He did little if anything to remove religious influence from public life. And the articles of confederation were an overtly anti-federalist contract. They would have increased the influence of religion in American society. There would certainly have never been 'judicial review' of any kind had the actual constitution not become the law of the land.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.