Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:36 PM   #121
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Very funny too that it's the Christofascists who advocate group prayer in public schools, given what their own bible babble commands:

Quote:
Matthew 6:5-6

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.


IT, you're the sort of hypocrite your Jesus was talking about.




Jesus was referring to the Pharisees in that quote, why do you assume it applies to everyone?



Here's what Jesus told us to do:



Mark 16:15-16



15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world , and preach the gospel to every creature.



16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

KJV
garysher is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:36 PM   #122
Your Own Moderator
 
pensacola_niceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 31,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist View Post
Pen, see what you have done. This is all your fault.
Please explain yourself.
pensacola_niceman is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:37 PM   #123
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
These claims that you are making Imaginethat, are absolutely bunk. There is no "creeping secularism", you consistently mirror the arguments of others and replace key words. It doesn't prove your point, nor does it refute Skrekk's point.



How is it not obvious that government of the people, by the people and for the people is what secures our rights for us? Not God. We humans decided what rights we think that people should all be entitled to, out of the education in philosophy and classics that the founders possessed. And then they actually took it from something unprecedented, to our being founded as a nation.If in fact God was the being that gave us our rights, it would be a pretty crappy supreme being if it couldn't secure them for us as well. And if it just didn't want to secure them for us, then it is not really endowing us with those fundamental rights. The founders were Deists, not evangelical Christians. Atheists are not evangelists, and neither is a secular government.
waitingtables is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:41 PM   #124
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat' timestamp='1319662894' post='364133

[quote name='skrekk' timestamp='1319659395' post='364119']

This conversation shows how vital our bill of rights and court system is to prevent the sort of creeping Christofascism wingnuts are prone to.
Yes, I oppose creeping Christofascism too, and I oppose creeping Secularofascism too.



You're OK with the latter.
You seem to confuse the state's silence on religious matters with hostility towards religion.



Perhaps you could explain why of all western nations the US has the highest level of religiosity, while those countries with a state religion have the lowest? Given those stats, maybe I as an atheist should be endorsing your viewpoint to further advance my "Secularofascism".

[/quote]



No, you do confuse state endorsement of your religion with a "neutral" stance.



As an atheist, you do, [s]religiously[/s] diligently, seek to advance your Secularofascism. Every day. Numerous times a day. You, and your imaginary friend (yourself).
imaginethat is online now  
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:41 PM   #125
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319596420' post='363957

But just so that I am at least more fully informed as to the position of the atheist in such things as Constitutional interpretation, Shrekk, I hope that you will give me your Atheists interpretation of the following passage of the Constitution from Article VII, which states:

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."
Since you appear to be some sort of extreme strict constructionist who uses a very odd literalist interpretation of a linguistic convention to read into the founder's intent something which is directly contradicted by the clauses of the constitution, are we also to assume that the phrase in the Declaration that "All men are created equal" did not also refer to women and children, and that they are thus still subjects of the King of England?


In a sense that was true, as women and children were not allowed to vote they were not equal. I don't see the connection to them remaining British citizens?



And how can "the year of Our Lord" be taken as an "odd literalist interpretation" when taken to mean that they believed in Christ??



That is ridiculous even by your bizarre standards of linguistics.



Is it just another coincidence that we don't base our calendar on the birth of Zeus or Quetzal?
garysher is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:44 PM   #126
Banned
 
garysher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
These claims that you are making Imaginethat, are absolutely bunk. There is no "creeping secularism", you consistently mirror the arguments of others and replace key words. It doesn't prove your point, nor does it refute Skrekk's point.



How is it not obvious that government of the people, by the people and for the people is what secures our rights for us? Not God. We humans decided what rights we think that people should all be entitled to, out of the education in philosophy and classics that the founders possessed. And then they actually took it from something unprecedented, to our being founded as a nation.If in fact God was the being that gave us our rights, it would be a pretty crappy supreme being if it couldn't secure them for us as well. And if it just didn't want to secure them for us, then it is not really endowing us with those fundamental rights. The founders were Deists, not evangelical Christians. Atheists are not evangelists, and neither is a secular government.




Not all the founders were Deists, but the ones that were believed in the one and true Judeo-Christian God.



You are trying to put the cart before the horse



God gave men rights, then men formed a government based on those rights. Not vice versa
garysher is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:45 PM   #127
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 654
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1319662678' post='364131

[quote name='Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319662013' post='364127']

The people are sovereign using rights given to them by God. So yes, the people are sovereign over their government. But God is sovereign over the entire universe.



The case and the law to which you refer are all acts of men. Men can use God as their free will gives them leave. Your free gives you leave to mock God. That is up to you. The decisions these men made were up to them. They all knew better, as I expect you do. But God gives fair warning that He will not be mocked. Whether God is irrelevant is a decision we all must make. You have apparently made yours.
So you're saying that your imaginary friend gave blacks their fundamental rights, and then ignored them when those rights were denied?



Does your imaginary friend have any sort of enforcement mechanism to insure people actually can exercise the rights he supposedly gave them? Apparently he let female slaves be freely raped by their masters because there was no enforcement mechanism, right? Or is your imaginary friend simply impotent? If that's the case, what sort of authority is he really?



Sounds like a rather worthless cult, to say nothing of its endorsement of things like ritualistic child sacrifice, genocide, pedophilia, symbolic cannibalism, homophobia, misogyny, slavery, etc.


Making the case for your religion ... again?



I admire the passion of theists and atheists, but, I think some of both are wrong to defend using the government to impose their faith-based beliefs on citizens who don't hold their beliefs.

[/quote]



There is no imposition of Christianity on the people by a nation authorized by the Christian God. Any attempt to impose Christianity would be a bastardization of Christian principles. To Shrekk, that may seem inconsistent, with what else I have posted here. But it truly is not. A nation founded on the authority of Jesus Christ cannot impose a belief in Christ on its people, which is what Shrekk is afraid of. The will of God is that all men come to Him of their own free will. Love cannot be coerced.



However, since the authority of the American government comes from God, tools of that same government have no authority to deny that fact. For a tool of government, acting in the capacity of the government, to deny that God exists would be to deny any authority by which it might try. In this manner, American government, when asked, must respond truthfully that God is its source of authority. And that same government has no authority to either deny that source or to impose a belief in that source on its people. So that is why the Constitution says that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. According to Christian principles, there is no authority for that. Doing so would violate the people's free will.
Radicalcentrist is offline  
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:46 PM   #128
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319596420' post='363957

But just so that I am at least more fully informed as to the position of the atheist in such things as Constitutional interpretation, Shrekk, I hope that you will give me your Atheists interpretation of the following passage of the Constitution from Article VII, which states:

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."
Since you appear to be some sort of extreme strict constructionist who uses a very odd literalist interpretation of a linguistic convention to read into the founder's intent something which is directly contradicted by the clauses of the constitution, are we also to assume that the phrase in the Declaration that "All men are created equal" did not also refer to women and children, and that they are thus still subjects of the King of England?






"...directly contradicted...." Yes, I understand that's how an atheist who is fine with imposing his religion on citizens would think that. You're wrong, of course, though that's an impressive line of strawmen you've set up there.
imaginethat is online now  
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:48 PM   #129
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 60,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skrekk' timestamp='1319664921' post='364145

[quote name='Radicalcentrist' timestamp='1319596420' post='363957']

But just so that I am at least more fully informed as to the position of the atheist in such things as Constitutional interpretation, Shrekk, I hope that you will give me your Atheists interpretation of the following passage of the Constitution from Article VII, which states:

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."
Since you appear to be some sort of extreme strict constructionist who uses a very odd literalist interpretation of a linguistic convention to read into the founder's intent something which is directly contradicted by the clauses of the constitution, are we also to assume that the phrase in the Declaration that "All men are created equal" did not also refer to women and children, and that they are thus still subjects of the King of England?


In a sense that was true, as women and children were not allowed to vote they were not equal. I don't see the connection to them remaining British citizens?



And how can "the year of Our Lord" be taken as an "odd literalist interpretation" when taken to mean that they believed in Christ??



That is ridiculous even by your bizarre standards of linguistics.



Is it just another coincidence that we don't base our calendar on the birth of Zeus or Quetzal?

[/quote]



Yep, it's just a coincidence. Now, move on folks. Nothing to see here.
imaginethat is online now  
Old October 26th, 2011, 01:51 PM   #130
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 44,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1319665028' post='364150

These claims that you are making Imaginethat, are absolutely bunk. There is no "creeping secularism", you consistently mirror the arguments of others and replace key words. It doesn't prove your point, nor does it refute Skrekk's point.



How is it not obvious that government of the people, by the people and for the people is what secures our rights for us? Not God. We humans decided what rights we think that people should all be entitled to, out of the education in philosophy and classics that the founders possessed. And then they actually took it from something unprecedented, to our being founded as a nation.If in fact God was the being that gave us our rights, it would be a pretty crappy supreme being if it couldn't secure them for us as well. And if it just didn't want to secure them for us, then it is not really endowing us with those fundamental rights. The founders were Deists, not evangelical Christians. Atheists are not evangelists, and neither is a secular government.




Not all the founders were Deists, but the ones that were believed in the one and true Judeo-Christian God.



You are trying to put the cart before the horse



God gave men rights, then men formed a government based on those rights. Not vice versa


Oh no I'm not. And many of the founders were in fact Deists, and the Christian founders wouldn't have a problem with equal protections under the law for all, as it is basically a tenet of Jesus' ministry anyway. God cannot be attributed, aside from mythologically, with endowing us with anything. Human beings created this government, and this government secures our freedoms and our rights. It could easily be changed tomorrow, if we were overtaken by a theocratic fundamentalist nation. And then what wold you claim? That God is punishing us for our wickedness by allowing our GOd given rights to be taken away, by humans? Please.
waitingtables is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Africa

Tags
law, libya, sharia, strict



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Libya Embassy Security Zack Current Events 44 October 28th, 2012 09:19 AM
Top Revelations from Libya Hearing Jimmyb Current Events 21 October 12th, 2012 09:57 AM
$25 MILLION in aid on its way to Libya Dude111 Americas 2 April 22nd, 2011 02:08 PM
One more reason to Despise Sharia... tadpole256 Religion 5 August 6th, 2010 04:59 PM
Canada struggles with Islam's Sharia law Steven M Religion 3 September 8th, 2005 08:11 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.