 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:12:29 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> Neither would be "more" dangerous to someone who holds a particular
>> belief - because one who believes in the wrong deity might as well be
>> an atheist for all a believer in the "right" god thinks. Both are
>> heretical, and getting it wrong by believing in a god that "doesn't
>> exist" or just not believing are functionally equivalent to that
>> mindset.
>
> But worshipping idols and false gods is specifically stated in the Bible
> as an abhorrent thing in the eyes of God.
That's only relevant to those who believe that particular mythology is
true.
> An atheist is committing only one major "sin": Not believing in the One
> True God. A hinduist is committing two: Not only does he not believe in
> the One True God, in addition he worships false gods, which is
> abhorrent.
And for the majority of mainstream Christianity, both are "punished" in
the same way - so I don't see that you could say one is worse than the
other....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> > An atheist is committing only one major "sin": Not believing in the One
> > True God. A hinduist is committing two: Not only does he not believe in
> > the One True God, in addition he worships false gods, which is
> > abhorrent.
> And for the majority of mainstream Christianity, both are "punished" in
> the same way - so I don't see that you could say one is worse than the
> other....
Well, there's this widespread theology among many Christians (especially
the evangelical ones) that if a nation commits enough sin and wickedness
against God, then God will punish that nation. Therefore the less sin that
the nation commits, the better.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:07:14 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Well, there's this widespread theology among many Christians (especially
> the evangelical ones) that if a nation commits enough sin and wickedness
> against God, then God will punish that nation. Therefore the less sin
> that the nation commits, the better.
That's not very widespread - it's very widely reported, but it's a small
number of high-profile nutjobs who make comments like this.
I've met exactly one person who wasn't in a high-profile position who
claimed that about the SLC tornado that took place - and after calmly
informing him that if the tornado was caused by God's anger over a gay
bar in SLC (seriously, he did believe that), then God missed, because he
killed some innocent people setting up for an outdoor retailers
convention and left the bar in question completely unscathed.
Then we fired him (he is a contractor who we had used for years to clean
our chimney and do various minor roof repairs).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/12/2012 6:26 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:12:29 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> >
>> >But worshipping idols and false gods is specifically stated in the Bible
>> >as an abhorrent thing in the eyes of God.
> That's only relevant to those who believe that particular mythology is
> true.
>
Taking a tangent here. How do Christians who believe that square that
with the prominence of crucifixes and religious icons. Is it, don't do
what I do but do what I say?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 20:45:44 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Taking a tangent here. How do Christians who believe that square that
> with the prominence of crucifixes and religious icons. Is it, don't do
> what I do but do what I say?
I can only guess, but that iconography refers to their deity of choice,
so there's probably an obscure exception in the Bible that makes that OK.
I'd be more interested in how they square their beliefs with the crass
consumerism most exhibit starting on "Black Friday". Because *shopping*
is what Jesus is all about....yeah....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> >> >But worshipping idols and false gods is specifically stated in the Bible
> >> >as an abhorrent thing in the eyes of God.
> Taking a tangent here. How do Christians who believe that square that
> with the prominence of crucifixes and religious icons. Is it, don't do
> what I do but do what I say?
"Idols" is not the same thing as "icons". "Idol" is more like a false god.
OTOH, one of the 10 commandments forbids the creation and worshipping of
carved images (ie. icons.) How do they reconcile this? They dropped that
particular commandment. (The Roman church, which later split into the
Catholic and Orthodox churches, dropped that commandment a long time ago
because they wanted to use statues and paintings of biblical figures.
There's no actual biblical justification for this, other than the Roman
church declaring itself as the true representative of God, and therefore
having the power to do such things.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/12/2012 9:23 PM, Warp wrote:
>
> "Idols" is not the same thing as "icons". "Idol" is more like a false god.
>
True but Idol means:
A picture or object that people pray to as part of their religion.
Cambridge Dictionary
An image or representation of a god used as an object of worship. Oxford
Dictionary
Icon
a devotional painting of Christ or another holy figure, typically
executed on wood and used ceremonially in the Byzantine and other
Eastern Churches.
> OTOH, one of the 10 commandments forbids the creation and worshipping of
> carved images (ie. icons.) How do they reconcile this?
Is that not what I asked?
(I read an article about double negatives, the other day. So I will
rephrase that. Although that sentence is not a double negative it might
be confusing.)
That is what I asked.
> They dropped that
> particular commandment.
News to me.
> (The Roman church, which later split into the
> Catholic and Orthodox churches, dropped that commandment a long time ago
> because they wanted to use statues and paintings of biblical figures.
Then brought it back, then dropped it, then brought it back, then
ignored it.
> There's no actual biblical justification for this, other than the Roman
> church declaring itself as the true representative of God, and therefore
> having the power to do such things.)
>
Well, I would not put money on that. I bet a pound to a penny someone
can find something in the bible that says that it is okay. (And if not,
dreamed that God spake unto him, that it was so.)
BTW I prefer graven image to carved image. It sounds nicer, to my ears.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:23:56 -0500, Warp wrote:
> They dropped that particular commandment.
Well, no, they didn't "drop" it - there were 10 commandments, and there
still are. They changed the wording/translation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > They dropped that particular commandment.
> Well, no, they didn't "drop" it - there were 10 commandments, and there
> still are. They changed the wording/translation.
Actually they did. In order to keep the count at 10, the split the last
commandment into two, so that they have now 2 commandments about coveting.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> > They dropped that
> > particular commandment.
> News to me.
The second commandment according to the Catholic church (as well as the
Lutheran one, which adopted this from the former) is not "you shall not
make a carved image", but "you shall not take the name of the Lord your
God in vain."
> > There's no actual biblical justification for this, other than the Roman
> > church declaring itself as the true representative of God, and therefore
> > having the power to do such things.)
> >
> Well, I would not put money on that. I bet a pound to a penny someone
> can find something in the bible that says that it is okay. (And if not,
> dreamed that God spake unto him, that it was so.)
There's no biblical rationale for dropping it. The Lutheran church uses
extra-biblical theology to rationalize why they don't have to follow the
commandment about not making images. (It's a bit contrived. Something
about Jesus having nullified that commandment by showing himself in
person.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:46:53 -0500, Warp wrote:
> There's no biblical rationale for dropping it.
It sounds like you're surprised that there's no rationale about something
written in the Bible.....Um, you do remember what we're talking about,
don't you? ;)
Rationale doesn't figure into it. It's about faith - with faith, you
don't need rationale, proof, or reason.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:43:24 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > They dropped that particular commandment.
>
>> Well, no, they didn't "drop" it - there were 10 commandments, and there
>> still are. They changed the wording/translation.
>
> Actually they did. In order to keep the count at 10, the split the last
> commandment into two, so that they have now 2 commandments about
> coveting.
Have you a citation for that? (Not for the last two being about
coveting, but about it being changed and the last being split)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/12/2012 3:46 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>> They dropped that
>>> particular commandment.
>
>> News to me.
>
> The second commandment according to the Catholic church (as well as the
> Lutheran one, which adopted this from the former) is not "you shall not
> make a carved image", but "you shall not take the name of the Lord your
> God in vain."
>
Comparing Jewish, RC & Proddy: It seems to me that Christians could not
use the Jewish first commandment as they had not been delivered out of
bondage from the Egyptians so the RCs split the verses about coveting
into two and the Proddies added the one about graven images to get at
the Catholics.
Now, I don't think that I have an axe to grind as I was baptised a RC,
brought up C of E (or as near as you can in Scotland), went to a
Presbyterian school and finally the youth group I attended was afiliated
to the United Free Church of Scotland (or the Wee Free as they are
known, sometimes, the Talaban without guns).
At this point I run out of words and enthusiasm as I remember that I
think they are all the product of power games to keep the common herd in
their place. So as Robert Burns our national poet one said.
"Where ere ye be
Let the wind gang free
So (fart noise) to the lot o' them."
>>> There's no actual biblical justification for this, other than the Roman
>>> church declaring itself as the true representative of God, and therefore
>>> having the power to do such things.)
>>>
>
>> Well, I would not put money on that. I bet a pound to a penny someone
>> can find something in the bible that says that it is okay. (And if not,
>> dreamed that God spake unto him, that it was so.)
>
> There's no biblical rationale for dropping it.
Eh! you say that as if the bible was the word of God. It was written by
men. The King James VI version, which most English speaking people used
for more than 300 years, was commissioned to to rationalise the
different versions being used at the time. It was finished in 1611 which
was a very long time after Jesus. So what do you think about it being an
accurate source of Jesus's life and sayings?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/12/2012 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'd be more interested in how they square their beliefs with the crass
> consumerism most exhibit starting on "Black Friday". Because*shopping*
> is what Jesus is all about....yeah....
You, my friend are going to Hell for doubting the word of Mammon.
To which you could reply. "Why this is hell, nor am I out of it"
Incidentally the play (Doctor Faustus) has a scene, mostly missed out
nowadays, where an invisible Dr. F tweaks the nose of the Pope. Showing
the disdain for Catholicism in England at the time.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:10:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 19/12/2012 8:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'd be more interested in how they square their beliefs with the crass
>> consumerism most exhibit starting on "Black Friday". Because*shopping*
>> is what Jesus is all about....yeah....
>
> You, my friend are going to Hell for doubting the word of Mammon.
> To which you could reply. "Why this is hell, nor am I out of it"
That's where the better party will be. ;)
> Incidentally the play (Doctor Faustus) has a scene, mostly missed out
> nowadays, where an invisible Dr. F tweaks the nose of the Pope. Showing
> the disdain for Catholicism in England at the time.
:)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 9:45 AM, Warp wrote:
> Article 6 of the United States constitution says the following:
>
> "[...] but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification
> to any office or public trust under the United States."
>
> Article 6 of the North Carolina constitution states the following:
>
> "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
>
> First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"
>
> The contradiction could not be clearer.
>
> Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
> United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
> member states follow it?
There is a legal concept known in English as a "dead letter," which
refers to laws which are still on the books but which are no longer
enforced and which would certainly be tossed out if anyone tried to
enforce them.
That being said, the people who wrote the US's founding documents wrote
a lot of other stuff, too, and they they made it pretty plain that all
of the talk about freedom of religion was meant to apply to variants of
Christianity only.
Some of the men who held the pens by which our Constitution was written
favored laws to purchase Bibles for schools and also favored laws making
it punishable to publicly deny the existence of God; and these include
men like Jefferson and Franklin.
For these men, the history of religious persecution that was most
important to them was the European one, in which various Christian
denominations managed to secure official status for themselves, and used
the apparatus of the state to make life unpleasant for other Christian
denominations.
Jefferson's famous statement about the separation of church and state
was addressed to that very specific concern. After the Constitution had
been written, a group representing one of the Christian denominations
(IIRC, Baptist) wrote asking if the newly formed government was going to
have an official church, just like every European nation had an official
church, which would behave towards other churches in the same way that
the official state churches of Europe were accustomed to behaving.
Jefferson's reply was directed specifically at that particular concern.
It was never intended to mean that the government can never do
anything that appears to be religious; that is an interpretation that
did not come about until long after the Founding Fathers passed from
this life.
The reason they did not explicitly enshrine Christianity in the US
Constitution is because they did not think it necessary.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> There's no biblical rationale for dropping it.
>
> It sounds like you're surprised that there's no rationale about something
> written in the Bible.....Um, you do remember what we're talking about,
> don't you? ;)
>
> Rationale doesn't figure into it. It's about faith - with faith, you
> don't need rationale, proof, or reason.
Reminds me of some comments I saw on a religious news article, people
were quoting parts of the bible to prove their views in the same way you
might quote a scientific paper or textbook in a debate. See page 324 in
Harry Potter, it mentions dragons flying, proof they exist!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Well, no, they didn't "drop" it - there were 10 commandments, and there
>>> still are. They changed the wording/translation.
>>
>> Actually they did. In order to keep the count at 10, the split the last
>> commandment into two, so that they have now 2 commandments about
>> coveting.
>
> Have you a citation for that? (Not for the last two being about
> coveting, but about it being changed and the last being split)
Proof they were dropped:
http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/15-commandments
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> That being said, the people who wrote the US's founding documents wrote
> a lot of other stuff, too, and they they made it pretty plain that all
> of the talk about freedom of religion was meant to apply to variants of
> Christianity only.
> The reason they did not explicitly enshrine Christianity in the US
> Constitution is because they did not think it necessary.
Yeah, because "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion" and "no religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
sounds exactly like "Christianity is the de-facto religion of the
United states, that should be clear even without saying it."
I just can't see how "shall make no law" and "no religious test shall
ever be required" can be read as "the United States government and the
constitution are Christian."
I just love how some Americans are trying so hard to rewrite their own
history and their own constitution.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:01:47 +0000, scott wrote:
>>>> Well, no, they didn't "drop" it - there were 10 commandments, and
>>>> there still are. They changed the wording/translation.
>>>
>>> Actually they did. In order to keep the count at 10, the split the
>>> last commandment into two, so that they have now 2 commandments about
>>> coveting.
>>
>> Have you a citation for that? (Not for the last two being about
>> coveting, but about it being changed and the last being split)
>
> Proof they were dropped:
>
> http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/15-commandments
I wondered if someone would use that one. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/20/2012 1:59 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/12/2012 3:46 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>>>> They dropped that
>>>> particular commandment.
>>
>>> News to me.
>>
>> The second commandment according to the Catholic church (as well as the
>> Lutheran one, which adopted this from the former) is not "you shall not
>> make a carved image", but "you shall not take the name of the Lord your
>> God in vain."
>>
>
> Comparing Jewish, RC & Proddy: It seems to me that Christians could not
> use the Jewish first commandment as they had not been delivered out of
> bondage from the Egyptians so the RCs split the verses about coveting
> into two and the Proddies added the one about graven images to get at
> the Catholics.
Except, of course, they where not. The only evidence of Semites "in"
Egypt, ever, is several hundred years earlier, when they temporarily
ruled it, then got their asses kicked out. None of the dates, based on
the Bible, line up with any pharaoh that could have done it. There is no
evidence of mass famine, the loss of most of the male population of
Eqypt (they would have either died in the army, or as "first born"
during the plagues), no sign of them being attacked by their enemies
during any time period it could have happened, based on the chronology,
etc. Worse, there is evidence of his "people" having had settlements,
for centuries, in the areas they supposedly wandered only 40 years (and
its not even the right 40 years, but like.. again *prior* to the
supposed Exodus.
Of course, Christians had no way of knowing this, since they where
basing it all on the same mythology. Of course, there is always the
possibility that they did know, and a lot of the NT was scripted
"specifically" to attempt to replace the OT, and, in the process,
justify Roman attempts to rule over, and control Jewish lands, which
they had been spending decades trying, not entirely successfully, to
conquer. How much better to undermine their religion, than to conquest
them via an ineffective war.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/21/2012 5:16 AM, Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> That being said, the people who wrote the US's founding documents wrote
>> a lot of other stuff, too, and they they made it pretty plain that all
>> of the talk about freedom of religion was meant to apply to variants of
>> Christianity only.
>
>> The reason they did not explicitly enshrine Christianity in the US
>> Constitution is because they did not think it necessary.
>
> Yeah, because "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
> of religion" and "no religious Test shall ever be required as a
> Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"
> sounds exactly like "Christianity is the de-facto religion of the
> United states, that should be clear even without saying it."
>
> I just can't see how "shall make no law" and "no religious test shall
> ever be required" can be read as "the United States government and the
> constitution are Christian."
>
> I just love how some Americans are trying so hard to rewrite their own
> history and their own constitution.
>
Well, California, and now one other state, has explicitly passed state
laws that "deny" the purchase, or teaching, or revisionist history,
and/or creationism, in schools, based on precisely this sort of nonsense
being rewritten into text books, in Texas.
Strictly speaking, some of that might be vaguely true, if you a) ignore
the number of them that where basically deists, b) the one or two that
might have been pagans, or c) the fact that many, including Jefferson,
might, if such a thing had been an option, declared themselves agnostic,
or even atheist. The man, after all, rewrote the Bible, taking out every
single thing in it that might have been called "supernatural", which I
presume included creationism, Adam and Eve, in the sense most Christians
understand, etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Strictly speaking, some of that might be vaguely true, if you a) ignore
> the number of them that where basically deists, b) the one or two that
> might have been pagans, or c) the fact that many, including Jefferson,
> might, if such a thing had been an option, declared themselves agnostic,
> or even atheist. The man, after all, rewrote the Bible, taking out every
> single thing in it that might have been called "supernatural", which I
> presume included creationism, Adam and Eve, in the sense most Christians
> understand, etc.
Besides, even if we assumed that all the Founding Fathers were 100%
fundamentalist creationist Christians and had the full intent on making
the United States a Christian theocracy... so what?
I have always wondered why Americans take the constitution and other
founding documents as Holy Scripture. They are the unchanging truth.
If the Founding Fathers intended for thing X, then that's the absolute
truth and it's set in stone forever, and cannot be changed, ever. It's
just a question of understanding what they meant.
Even the idea that the Founding Fathers might have been wrong, that they
were just flawed humans who lived in the 18th century, that they were not
perfect, is tantamous to blasphemy.
I don't know of any other country where the Constitution is considered
such a Holy Scripture that even the idea of correcting it, or even just
clarifying it, seems blasphemous.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/12/2012 10:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:10:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> >You, my friend are going to Hell for doubting the word of Mammon.
>> >To which you could reply. "Why this is hell, nor am I out of it"
> That's where the better party will be.;)
>
Partying aside, I don’t fancy spending the rest of eternity singing
“Hosannas”. With my voice that would be purgatory.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/12/2012 8:30 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Except, of course, they where not. The only evidence of Semites "in"
> Egypt, ever, is several hundred years earlier, when they temporarily
> ruled it, then got their asses kicked out. None of the dates, based on
> the Bible, line up with any pharaoh that could have done it. There is no
> evidence of mass famine, the loss of most of the male population of
> Eqypt (they would have either died in the army, or as "first born"
> during the plagues), no sign of them being attacked by their enemies
> during any time period it could have happened, based on the chronology,
> etc. Worse, there is evidence of his "people" having had settlements,
> for centuries, in the areas they supposedly wandered only 40 years (and
> its not even the right 40 years, but like.. again *prior* to the
> supposed Exodus.
Very interesting, I did not know any of that. You are obviously better
at research than I am, possibly you have a lower boredom level. ;-)
Do you have any references as I would like to read them before shooting
my mouth off.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22/12/2012 9:23 AM, Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered why Americans take the constitution and other
> founding documents as Holy Scripture. They are the unchanging truth.
> If the Founding Fathers intended for thing X, then that's the absolute
> truth and it's set in stone forever, and cannot be changed, ever.
You are not the only one to think that. It seems such a backward idea
for a progressive country.
> It's just a question of understanding what they meant.
>
And to do that they use Dr. Johnson's dictionary as the American
Constitution was written using it. I read somewhere (I can't find the
article) that about 200, of the dictionaries, a year are sent to America
to help interpret what was actually meant when their constitution was
written. (Don't take me up on that. Even I can see some questions that
should be asked. But it makes a nice story. I seem to remember that they
were sent as a gift. Maybe a plot by HM government's dirty tricks
department, to keep the rebels in the 18th Century. :-) .
> Even the idea that the Founding Fathers might have been wrong, that they
> were just flawed humans who lived in the 18th century, that they were not
> perfect, is tantamous to blasphemy.
>
I get that feeling too.
> I don't know of any other country where the Constitution is considered
> such a Holy Scripture that even the idea of correcting it, or even just
> clarifying it, seems blasphemous.
True. But it gives people a lot of amusement watching the hoops some
jump through, to justify their opinions. If it weren't to serious it
would be funny.
"To comma, or not to comma, that is the question:"
"The answer, my friend, lies dying in the wind."
To mangle two well known lines.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/22/2012 2:38 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 22/12/2012 8:30 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Except, of course, they where not. The only evidence of Semites "in"
>> Egypt, ever, is several hundred years earlier, when they temporarily
>> ruled it, then got their asses kicked out. None of the dates, based on
>> the Bible, line up with any pharaoh that could have done it. There is no
>> evidence of mass famine, the loss of most of the male population of
>> Eqypt (they would have either died in the army, or as "first born"
>> during the plagues), no sign of them being attacked by their enemies
>> during any time period it could have happened, based on the chronology,
>> etc. Worse, there is evidence of his "people" having had settlements,
>> for centuries, in the areas they supposedly wandered only 40 years (and
>> its not even the right 40 years, but like.. again *prior* to the
>> supposed Exodus.
>
> Very interesting, I did not know any of that. You are obviously better
> at research than I am, possibly you have a lower boredom level. ;-)
> Do you have any references as I would like to read them before shooting
> my mouth off.
>
I could look around. Its not my research. Its stuff that people who have
more time and interest than I do have found out. However, a quick search
finds that even some Jewish people have some of the details:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx?p=1
Ah, here is one that goes into more detail (rational wiki):
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus
I am sure, with some work, it would be possible to find details on the
time when they briefly ruled Egypt, and the other details. But, mostly,
just the stuff already on those pages, and the references they come
from, are damning enough, without including the total lack of pottery,
or other artifacts, that show any connection to the Semitic people,
during any of the possible time frames, in Egypt itself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/22/2012 1:23 AM, Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered why Americans take the constitution and other
> founding documents as Holy Scripture. They are the unchanging truth.
> If the Founding Fathers intended for thing X, then that's the absolute
> truth and it's set in stone forever, and cannot be changed, ever. It's
> just a question of understanding what they meant.
>
Especially giving how nearly everything, including the idea of rule by
democracy, instead of via a king, and economics based on capitalism,
instead of communism, is about as anti-Christian as you can get, without
going full on, 'King and Country', and turning everyone else back into
peasants.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 10:21:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 20/12/2012 10:52 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:10:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> >You, my friend are going to Hell for doubting the word of Mammon.
>>> >To which you could reply. "Why this is hell, nor am I out of it"
>
>> That's where the better party will be.;)
>>
>>
> Partying aside, I don’t fancy spending the rest of eternity singing
> “Hosannas”. With my voice that would be purgatory.
I know what you mean. Also the idea of being separated from those I like
who "didn't make the cut" doesn't seem like any sort of reasonable
paradise.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:36:18 -0800, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Well, California, and now one other state, has explicitly passed state
> laws that "deny" the purchase, or teaching, or revisionist history,
> and/or creationism, in schools, based on precisely this sort of nonsense
> being rewritten into text books, in Texas.
Interestingly, there's a school district in Louisiana that's done this as
well - Orleans Parish, IIRC.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/12/2012 2:20 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> I know what you mean. Also the idea of being separated from those I like
> who "didn't make the cut" doesn't seem like any sort of reasonable
> paradise.
I don't have to worry on that score. All the people I care for will be
there, passing a big juicy one around.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:28:48 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 23/12/2012 2:20 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I know what you mean. Also the idea of being separated from those I
>> like who "didn't make the cut" doesn't seem like any sort of reasonable
>> paradise.
>
> I don't have to worry on that score. All the people I care for will be
> there, passing a big juicy one around.
:)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-12-22 05:38, Stephen a écrit :
> On 22/12/2012 8:30 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Except, of course, they where not. The only evidence of Semites "in"
>> Egypt, ever, is several hundred years earlier, when they temporarily
>> ruled it, then got their asses kicked out. None of the dates, based on
>> the Bible, line up with any pharaoh that could have done it. There is no
>> evidence of mass famine, the loss of most of the male population of
>> Eqypt (they would have either died in the army, or as "first born"
>> during the plagues), no sign of them being attacked by their enemies
>> during any time period it could have happened, based on the chronology,
>> etc. Worse, there is evidence of his "people" having had settlements,
>> for centuries, in the areas they supposedly wandered only 40 years (and
>> its not even the right 40 years, but like.. again *prior* to the
>> supposed Exodus.
>
> Very interesting, I did not know any of that. You are obviously better
> at research than I am, possibly you have a lower boredom level. ;-)
> Do you have any references as I would like to read them before shooting
> my mouth off.
>
That's a convoluted way of saying "[Citation needed]".
;)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/12/2012 1:55 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> That's a convoluted way of saying "[Citation needed]".
And a politer way too, I think.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I just love how some Americans are trying so hard to rewrite their own
> history and their own constitution.
Btw, I also love how some Americans try to get around the constitution
by playing with words. For example, some argue that Christianity is not
a religion, that it's a "philosophy", and therefore it's completely ok
for the government to promote it. (Yes, this *is* an actual argument that
some make, eg. Bill O'Reilly.)
Yes, who cares about the spirit of the law? Let's twist the letter of the
law so that we can get around it. Let's change the meaning of words so
that they mean something else than was originally intended. If we *call*
things with different words, then we can avoid the restrictions. It's all
about how we name things. Who cares what the *intent* of the constitution
is...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 03:37:44 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Btw, I also love how some Americans try to get around the constitution
> by playing with words. For example, some argue that Christianity is not
> a religion, that it's a "philosophy", and therefore it's completely ok
> for the government to promote it. (Yes, this *is* an actual argument
> that some make, eg. Bill O'Reilly.)
I find that amusing as well. But O'Reilly is an ass, plain and simple.
He thinks the tides are magic and proof that God exists ("Tide goes in,
tide goes out - never a miscommunication." - WTF?)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/12/2012 5:37 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 03:37:44 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Btw, I also love how some Americans try to get around the constitution
>> by playing with words. For example, some argue that Christianity is not
>> a religion, that it's a "philosophy", and therefore it's completely ok
>> for the government to promote it. (Yes, this *is* an actual argument
>> that some make, eg. Bill O'Reilly.)
>
> I find that amusing as well. But O'Reilly is an ass, plain and simple.
> He thinks the tides are magic and proof that God exists ("Tide goes in,
> tide goes out - never a miscommunication." - WTF?)
>
Barnum: Roll up! Roll up! Only a quarter to see the Egress.
O'Reilly: I’ll have two.
I have seen a clip of him. Seriously, “care in the community”, with an ego.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:47:26 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Barnum: Roll up! Roll up! Only a quarter to see the Egress.
> O'Reilly: I’ll have two.
:)
> I have seen a clip of him. Seriously, “care in the community”, with an
> ego.
Yeah, that probably sums him up well. Never liked him, though I remember
seeing him on a "pulp news show" called Inside Edition. It /is/ fun to
watch him and Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert get into it - they play off
each other to an extent (Stephen calls him "Papa Bear", since Stephen's
character on The Colbert Report is a caricature of the conservative
mindset based on O'Reilly).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> He thinks the tides are magic and proof that God exists ("Tide goes in,
> tide goes out - never a miscommunication." - WTF?)
When he was given an elementary school level lecture on what makes tides
happen, rather than admitting he was wrong about them, he just moved the
goalposts. "How did the Moon get there?"
This is so typical of creationists, conspiracy theorists and the like.
When a claim they make is refuted so completely that even they cannot
deny the explanation anylonger, they still cannot admit being wrong.
They will simply try to evade by moving to something else.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:37:46 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> He thinks the tides are magic and proof that God exists ("Tide goes in,
>> tide goes out - never a miscommunication." - WTF?)
>
> When he was given an elementary school level lecture on what makes tides
> happen, rather than admitting he was wrong about them, he just moved the
> goalposts. "How did the Moon get there?"
I remember it - Jon Stewart made a huge deal about it, and either he or
Colbert had Neil DeGrasse Tyson on to explain it to O'Reilly.
> This is so typical of creationists, conspiracy theorists and the like.
> When a claim they make is refuted so completely that even they cannot
> deny the explanation anylonger, they still cannot admit being wrong.
> They will simply try to evade by moving to something else.
Yep.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/17/2012 11:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 17/12/2012 9:52 PM, clipka wrote:
>>
>> The truth is that they never sought religious tolerance in the first
>> place - they had always strived for their own rules to be law.
>> Unfortunately for them those rules contradicted the Church of England's,
>> so they did suffer from religiously-motivated oppression, and this
>> indeed happened to be the one factor that drove them to America. But
>> that's about it.
>>
>
> You are correct of course but it is received wisdom that it is true. And
> IMNSHO England was well rid of them. I only wish that they had taken the
> Scottish Presbyterians with them.
>
>> It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
>> oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for
>> tolerance.
>
> Now that is very true. For an example you only have to look at a certain
> state in the middle East, founded after WWII.
Or for an even better example, the people who claim to be oppressed by them.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 5:21 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or de-criminalizing
> the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a seemingly-overarching Federal
> law. It's a current example of this State-vs-Federal system that we have. If no
> one in California challenges it, then I'm *guessing* it will remain valid. I'm
> not sure if the Federal government itself can summarily strike it down simply
> because it differs from the 'higher' law.
The US Constitution does not authorize Congress to ban marijuana[1].
And unless words have no meaning, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the
states those powers which are not reserved to the federal government,
but the courts have generally failed to enforce the Tenth.
Regards,
John
[1] Or to do a whole host of other things that add up to around 80% of
our federal budget.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 9:45 AM, Warp wrote:
> Article 6 of the United States constitution says the following:
>
> "[...] but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification
> to any office or public trust under the United States."
>
> Article 6 of the North Carolina constitution states the following:
>
> "The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
>
> First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. [...]"
>
> The contradiction could not be clearer.
>
> Could someone explain to me how this is *possible*? Does nobody in the
> United States actually enforce the constitution and make sure that the
> member states follow it?
In the Constitution, the term "United States" refers to the federal
government of the United States, and not the government of any single
state underneath it. When referring to the state governments, the
Constitution employs the term "State" or "the several States."
As an example, the Fourteenth Amendment makes use of specific language
to indicate that it applies to the state governments as well as the
federal government: "But neither the United States nor any State shall
assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or
rebellion against the United States..."
The phrase "any office or public trust under the United States" means
offices of the *federal* government only, and thus the prohibition on
religious tests applied only to federal offices at the time these were
written. It is not a prohibition on the state governments.
But as I mentioned before, the provision in the NC state constitution is
a dead letter. I'm not aware of any court decision upholding it,
certainly not in our lifetimes. Wikipedia discusses this at some length
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Constitution#Infeasible_Provisions
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-01-24 19:55, John VanSickle a écrit :
> On 12/12/2012 5:21 PM, Kenneth wrote:
>
>> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or
>> de-criminalizing
>> the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a
>> seemingly-overarching Federal
>> law. It's a current example of this State-vs-Federal system that we
>> have. If no
>> one in California challenges it, then I'm *guessing* it will remain
>> valid. I'm
>> not sure if the Federal government itself can summarily strike it down
>> simply
>> because it differs from the 'higher' law.
>
> The US Constitution does not authorize Congress to ban marijuana[1]. And
> unless words have no meaning, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states
> those powers which are not reserved to the federal government, but the
> courts have generally failed to enforce the Tenth.
>
I'm sure they would argue the commerce clause applies.
> Regards,
> John
> [1] Or to do a whole host of other things that add up to around 80% of
> our federal budget.
Like having a standing army, for one.
(yeah, yeah, I know, it's only funded for one year, and gets renewed
every year, but no one is really fooled)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27-12-2012 10:37, Warp wrote:
> This is so typical of creationists, conspiracy theorists and the like.
> When a claim they make is refuted so completely that even they cannot
> deny the explanation anylonger, they still cannot admit being wrong.
> They will simply try to evade by moving to something else.
>
Took a while to find it again, but It reminds me of the following, I
noted down:
Some years ago, NASA released the first deep-space photographs of the
beautiful cloud-swirled blue-green agate we call Earth. A reporter
showed one of them to the late Samuel Shenton, then president of
International Flat Earth Research Society. Shenton studied it for a
moment and said, “It's easy to see how such a picture could fool the
untrained eye.”
From: Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer
© 1982 by Robert J. Schadewald
Reprinted from Creation/Evolution IX (1982)
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/6flood.htm
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/01/2013 12:25 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> On 12/17/2012 11:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 17/12/2012 9:52 PM, clipka wrote:
>>> It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
>>> oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for
>>> tolerance.
>>
>> Now that is very true. For an example you only have to look at a certain
>> state in the middle East, founded after WWII.
>
> Or for an even better example, the people who claim to be oppressed by
> them.
I disagree. They are "freedom fighters" they will only become oppressors
if they gain power and start oppressing.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
> The US Constitution does not authorize Congress to ban marijuana[1].
> And unless words have no meaning, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the
> states those powers which are not reserved to the federal government,
> but the courts have generally failed to enforce the Tenth.
I saw somewhere a graph showing homicide rates (ie. homicides per capita)
in the United States during the last about 100 years.
There was a big slope up in the 20's, about coinciding with the
ratification of the 18th amendment, and a slope down somewhere after
the 21st amendment was ratified.
Decades later there was another big slope up (not as steep, but reaching
about the same height), coinciding with the start of the so-called "war
on drugs" in the US. The curve is still pretty high since those times.
Now, I understand that correlation does not necessarily imply causation,
but I would like to see really good reasons why that's not the case here.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/25/2013 6:40 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 25/01/2013 12:25 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>> On 12/17/2012 11:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2012 9:52 PM, clipka wrote:
>
>>>> It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
>>>> oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for
>>>> tolerance.
>>>
>>> Now that is very true. For an example you only have to look at a certain
>>> state in the middle East, founded after WWII.
>>
>> Or for an even better example, the people who claim to be oppressed by
>> them.
>
> I disagree. They are "freedom fighters" they will only become oppressors
> if they gain power and start oppressing.
They already have power (the leadership over the rest) and the
oppression is well underway.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/25/2013 10:05 AM, Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] kosherhotmailcom> wrote:
>> The US Constitution does not authorize Congress to ban marijuana[1].
>> And unless words have no meaning, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the
>> states those powers which are not reserved to the federal government,
>> but the courts have generally failed to enforce the Tenth.
>
> I saw somewhere a graph showing homicide rates (ie. homicides per capita)
> in the United States during the last about 100 years.
>
> There was a big slope up in the 20's, about coinciding with the
> ratification of the 18th amendment, and a slope down somewhere after
> the 21st amendment was ratified.
>
> Decades later there was another big slope up (not as steep, but reaching
> about the same height), coinciding with the start of the so-called "war
> on drugs" in the US. The curve is still pretty high since those times.
>
> Now, I understand that correlation does not necessarily imply causation,
> but I would like to see really good reasons why that's not the case here.
It's well-known here in the States that a great deal of the murders that
go on are gang-related. Much of it is one gangster killing another in
turf wars.
In our suburbs and rural areas, the homicide rates are much like
Canada's or Europe's.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/01/2013 1:54 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
> On 1/25/2013 6:40 AM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 25/01/2013 12:25 AM, John VanSickle wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2012 11:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
>>>> On 17/12/2012 9:52 PM, clipka wrote:
>>
>>>>> It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
>>>>> oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for
>>>>> tolerance.
>>>>
>>>> Now that is very true. For an example you only have to look at a
>>>> certain
>>>> state in the middle East, founded after WWII.
>>>
>>> Or for an even better example, the people who claim to be oppressed by
>>> them.
>>
>> I disagree. They are "freedom fighters" they will only become oppressors
>> if they gain power and start oppressing.
>
> They already have power (the leadership over the rest) and the
> oppression is well underway.
>
I won't bandy words.
Both statements support Clipka's
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
