The Oregonian: Boy banned from wearing Obama mask in skit
-
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.
-
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.
But you do have to understand that Jefferson would have been perfectly comfortable with religion being expressed by the common people in their own governance of their communities. In fact, it was one of the things they counted on in helping to keep the federal government small and unobtrusive. A christian society was largely self governing. It didn't need a powerful central state to control it.
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.
-
But you do have to understand that Jefferson would have been perfectly comfortable with religion being expressed by the common people in their own governance of their communities. In fact, it was one of the things they counted on in helping to keep the federal government small and unobtrusive. A christian society was largely self governing. It didn't need a powerful central state to control it.
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:
A christian society was largely self governing. It didn't need a powerful central state to control it.
In theory.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
A christian society was largely self governing. It didn't need a powerful central state to control it.
In theory.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
A 200 year test is pretty convinceing.
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.
-
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.
Stan Shannon wrote:
He could have easily written one letter stating: "For the sake of secular humanity, outlaw christianity!!!!"
Unlike you, Jefferson believed in a free market of ideas. He wrote extensively on the subject of truth overcoming falsehood in any informed society. He would have never written the letter you describe, but he did, in letter after letter after letter indicate a dislike of, and antipathy towards, organized religion. You disregard history to support your own political agenda when you ignore him.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You know, "endowed by our creator"
There is some indication that Jefferson was a theist and believed in a God without accepting any of the mummery and snake oil that is associated with organized religion. He was also a politician writing a document that had to get the vote of the representatives of 13 states, some of those representatives being devout Christians and at least one being a minister.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They would have increased the influence of religion in American society.
Whether they would have done so or not is an tale of alternate history. The fact is that Hamilton and Madison overthrew the Articles at the first opportunity, ironically exceeding their authority to do so in a manner that today would be unconstitutional.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There would certainly have never been 'judicial review' of any kind had the actual constitution not become the law of the land.
Indeed, it would seem possible, even likely, that under the Articles, the Louisiana Purchase would never have taken place and US would have been spared the ignominy of having to grant statehood to Indiana.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
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:
I've been kind of disappointed in it.
I have, too. And for pretty much the same reasons. I understand that some of the actors are pretty pissed about the way their roles have been rewritten to suit the new outlook.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
A 200 year test is pretty convinceing.
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:
A 200 year test is pretty convinceing.
Vatican City has been around a lot longer than that, Stan. It seems to be doing quite well with the Christian concepts of divine right, and the Priest as King.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
He could have easily written one letter stating: "For the sake of secular humanity, outlaw christianity!!!!"
Unlike you, Jefferson believed in a free market of ideas. He wrote extensively on the subject of truth overcoming falsehood in any informed society. He would have never written the letter you describe, but he did, in letter after letter after letter indicate a dislike of, and antipathy towards, organized religion. You disregard history to support your own political agenda when you ignore him.
Stan Shannon wrote:
You know, "endowed by our creator"
There is some indication that Jefferson was a theist and believed in a God without accepting any of the mummery and snake oil that is associated with organized religion. He was also a politician writing a document that had to get the vote of the representatives of 13 states, some of those representatives being devout Christians and at least one being a minister.
Stan Shannon wrote:
They would have increased the influence of religion in American society.
Whether they would have done so or not is an tale of alternate history. The fact is that Hamilton and Madison overthrew the Articles at the first opportunity, ironically exceeding their authority to do so in a manner that today would be unconstitutional.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There would certainly have never been 'judicial review' of any kind had the actual constitution not become the law of the land.
Indeed, it would seem possible, even likely, that under the Articles, the Louisiana Purchase would never have taken place and US would have been spared the ignominy of having to grant statehood to Indiana.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Unlike you, Jefferson believed in a free market of ideas. He wrote extensively on the subject of truth overcoming falsehood in any informed society. He would have never written the letter you describe, but he did, in letter after letter after letter indicate a dislike of, and antipathy towards, organized religion. You disregard history to support your own political agenda when you ignore him.
He never incorporated, or tried to incorporate, those views into actual political doctrine. Thats history. Sorry.
Oakman wrote:
There is some indication that Jefferson was a theist
blah, thiest, blah, diest, blah,blah blah... He wrote it. Thats history. Sorry.
Oakman wrote:
Indeed, it would seem possible, even likely, that under the Articles, the Louisiana Purchase would never have taken place and US would have been spared the ignominy of having to grant statehood to Indiana.
I'm actually pretty damn sure Indiana was not part of the Louisiana Purchase. Oklahoma certainly was, however, which is actually my home state. The articles of confederation would have produced an even more decentralized government, which, I agree, would probably have been more to Jefferson's likeing. However, a decentralized society requires a religious base. It needs something to hold it together, a common bond, so that a massive central state is not required. Jefferson clearly understood that. He might have not like much that comes with religion, but he understood its importance. When confronted with a choice between a centralized, secular state, and a decentralized, religious society, he chose the latter.
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.