That link is for the original article started in this thread, not the medication thing.
Lawsuit Over Prayer Is Settled
- Thread starter Mick Jagger
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Sorry you don't understand. Do you have any more questions?
It's a secular government.
Much of it's inspiration comes from religious teaching- and the ensuing philosophical discussions and theories that followed. Aquinos, and Hobbes, and Lockes, ect.
And that foundation in spiritual thought is clearly stated in the Deceleration of Independence. That our rights as individuals come from the creator and are not granted to us by the government. The power that government has is given to it by the people. At the time, this was a revolutionary concept.
The bible doesn't lay out our system of government. But our system of government would never have come about if not for the "radical" concepts of the individual laid out by the Bible.
Much of it's inspiration comes from religious teaching- and the ensuing philosophical discussions and theories that followed. Aquinos, and Hobbes, and Lockes, ect.
And that foundation in spiritual thought is clearly stated in the Deceleration of Independence. That our rights as individuals come from the creator and are not granted to us by the government. The power that government has is given to it by the people. At the time, this was a revolutionary concept.
The bible doesn't lay out our system of government. But our system of government would never have come about if not for the "radical" concepts of the individual laid out by the Bible.
i think your grasp of the english language is lacking. you don't have to be married to commit incest.
from concise oxford dictionary
incest; noun- sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
i suggest you pick up a dictionary sometime and learn the meanings to the words you are trying to use in your defence. makes you look pretty silly. and since you can't prove god, my arguement stands. the laws were written by man.
fossten, i think you have me confused as somebody looking for enlightenment on god. it does not exist, so i do not sit in mockery of it. as for being closed minded, it depends what side of the fence you are looking over. your point of view is religious/biblical, mine is without these encumberments. my mind is less closed than yours. when i want answers for things, i look for evidence. god is seriously lacking credibility to me.
reads like the saturday door knockers. pretty effed up logic.
That's your opinion. And my argument is that your logic is messed up. Back to square one.
How is that inconsistent with original intent?
To only look at this, you would be ignoring the ideas that lead to trial by jury.
That is like saying Galilao and his ideas had no influence on Einstiens special theory of relativity.
Again, this question (as stated and framed) overlooks a lot of relevant facts, and mischaracterizes the issue.
More questions that obfuscate the issue in question.
Elbridge Gerry was one of the people who voted against the Constitution and refused to sign it.
"Separation of church and state" wasn't in the constitution.
Fossten:You ever read Leviticus or Deuteronomy? Didn't think so. Next question.
MJ, the method Fossten used in that response is the exact method you have been using to respond throughout this thread.
MJ, the method Fossten used in that response is the exact method you have been using to respond throughout this thread.
They also believed that God was the source of their rights. They also constructed the government around an inherently Christian understanding of human nature.
Trying to impose logic on a matter of faith. doesn't work like that.
Relvance?
it's not logic or faith. it's reality. fossten said the laws WERE written by god. that put's the burden of proof on him. if he believed the laws were written by god, that would be faith. but i would still expect him to prove god to verify, otherwise you still have words written by man.
... through the inspiration of God.
In the case of the ten commandments, those laws were from the voice of God (if I remember my bible correct) as transcribed by Moses. The point still stands, faith is beyond logic and reason; as such, the rules of logic and reason don't apply to it. The whole idea of religion and God is based on faith; you can't expect it to be proven.
If Fossten said that the ten commandments were written by God, then he would be technically incorrect (if my memory of the Bible is correct); but the ten commandments, according to the Bible did come directly from God. Either way, the point is, they weren't something handed down for generations before they were codified in the Bible, and thus open to potential distortion from coming from multiple filters.
Claiming it is "reality" would mean you can prove God doesn't exist, which you can't. Best you can do is cast doubt, but not disprove it.
come on shag. "disprove" is the lamest arguement of religious holdouts. i can't disprove the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and santa claus. but ask somebody who doesn't know better(a young child), and you'll be told their real. all because of a perpetrated myth. you're not born with belief. you have to be told.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
To clarify, the original Ten Commandments were written BY GOD in stone tablets, and given to Moses.
Figured you would know better them me. Either way, the point stands that the commandments weren't handed down from generation to generation (and possibly distorted in the process) before they were written down.
You are trying to apply rules of intellect and reason to something that those have no bearing on; faith.
It really is a waste of time, because you can't disprove it, and, either way, no argument you say is gonna make any difference to a believer. That's just the nature of the issue.
While I am sure it isn't vindictive on your part, the general act of trying to intellectually disprove and argue faith really seems to have no purpose except to the person arguing against it. I know a number of adament athiests who basically do that to try and intellectually bludgeon someone of faith. It is nothing more then the the school bully trying to beat up some kid, at an intellectual level. You are taking religion out of context and attacking it in a way that is ultimatley irrelevant to the believer; intellectually banging your head against the wall.
religious believers aren't people to be chastised, made fun of and marginalized, which seems to be all this line of argument is about.
In fact, these people (hardcore athiests) seem to argue like the most extreme religious nut, trying to force you to their religion through argument (and, many times, dishonest argument at that). That is why I view them as at least as religious as what they are arguing against.