- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 36,235
- Reaction score
- 8,380
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Absolutly.
If we cannot trust something as benign as an encyclopedia, then why should we trust anything?
I have read the entire thread including what led up to your comment and then I quoted that comment and used it to make a counter argument in a particular style. Was I mistaken on what the meaning of your comment was?
At least we agree on that point.No, it was the Supreme Court's opinion. 1 person or 1 million only counts as far as what a reasonable person would react to with violence,
In your opinion. Sounds like you're pretty bitter to me.only an extremist would get pissy about a manger
I never claimed that it does. Simply saying that religious symbols are used for communal celebration on holidays doesn't make it right or necessary to have those symbols on public property.Not everybody does.....does not equate to prohibited OR offensive.
In your opinion. In my opinion placing the nativity on tax payer property, knowing that not all tax payers are xian, is condescending, insulting, rude, and placed in a disrespectful manner.What else would you describe it as, it was condescending, insulting, rude, and placed in a disrespectful manner.
I am a reasonable person. Making an appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Not to mention that your statement could also be construed as an ad hominem.But a reasonable person wouldn't find the nativity offensive, whereas a moderate Atheist or other such reasonable person might find offense with the sign.
I have one. And a thesaurus and a bible and a lot of other books. Now you're just being obtuse. I'll play along. Right, anyone could be offended by anything. Are we done with that game now?You need a dictionary, I said could be, and many of the standards provided in Supreme Court cases already demonstrate the principle. I didn't say "people of other faiths got offended" I said "people of other faiths COULD be offended".
Should I say -no YOU sound bitter to me... oh wait, too late.Sounds like you're pretty bitter to me.
I don't think it misrepresents your stance at all. Looking back at the content of the thread, your stance is pretty clear.WOW! Way to completely misrepresent my stance and miss the point. Bravo!
Oh OK, I see that when the onus is on you ideology seems fine but when used against you, you demand quotation. OK then instead I'll simply say, Show me where it is written that the basis of our laws are Judeo-xian. :2wave:Provide that quote that Jefferson stated there shall be no religious expression in public less it be considered endorsement. Don't be obtuse, the basis of our laws is Judeo-Christian. Your side has constantly misrepresented Jefferson over the years, but please, show me where he said prayer in government and religious symbols amount to endorsement.
I never said there was no xian influence. You seem to be implying that xians cannot govern in a secular manner. I don't believe this to be true.This is a secular nation but that makes it no less a nation influenced by the majority who were and are Christian. The only way for the government to be uninfluenced by Christianity would be to take away the voting privilege from Christians, and not allowing them to run for public office.
This has been argued endlessly and seems to be an open debate only among xians who want favoritism for their religion, which they get anyway. If we are to be strict Constitutionalists then there needs to be a lot of change, the first should be the dissolution of our military. But I digress.The fact is he is absolutely correct in that freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment and freedom from religion is not.
Oh OK, I see that when the onus is on you ideology seems fine but when used against you, you demand quotation. OK then instead I'll simply say, Show me where it is written that the basis of our laws are Judeo-xian. :2wave:
RandomHouse.ca | Books | The 10 Big Lies About America by Michael Medved
Myth: The Founders intended a secular, not Christian, nation.
Fact: Even after ratifying the Constitution, fully half the state governments endorsed specific Chris*tian denominations. And just a day after approving the First Amendment, forbidding the establishment of religion, Congress called for a national “day of public thanksgiving and prayer” to acknowledge “the many signal favors of Almighty God.”
I never said there was no xian influence. You seem to be implying that xians cannot govern in a secular manner. I don't believe this to be true.
This has been argued endlessly and seems to be an open debate only among xians who want favoritism for their religion, which they get anyway.
If we are to be strict Constitutionalists then there needs to be a lot of change, the first should be the dissolution of our military. But I digress.
If I'm not going to put any stock in what a liberal political commentator says I'm certainly not going to put any in what a conservative political commentator says.
The facts support his position, not yours, and there is no error in being biased in favor of the truth.
America was not founded as or intended to be seculer; it was meant to be a Christian nation, and that in no respect implies or mandates a theocracy.
I hear people get into this argument time and time again and it always turns into a war of Thomas Jefferson quotes back and forth. I'd say the fact that we have freedom of religion in this country and that the government doesn't favor one over the other shows that we are pretty secular. If this was in fact a crystal clear issue there would be no debate, but people have different interpretations of what our founding fathers meant and both arguments have their own merit. Just because a conservative political commentator writes a book stating that his own interpretation of it is fact doesn't mean that it is. I guarantee that there is a liberal commentator who would state the contrary and would state it as fact as well. And you can get into the whole argument of "well, my guy is right," but you are really only stating so because you are also a conservative.
Could you please link to those statements or PM me with the thread? Thanks.
Wait, you're not trying to use the bible as evidence of something in the bible, are you?
Now would the "Put up or shut up" comment be inciting acrimony and unnecessary? :roll:
Doesn't matter, his facts are not conclusive, hence it amounts to fervent belief.
Actually, I'm quite happy, I live in the greatest nation on the planet, neither of us will be executed for our viewpoints nor beaten severely, it's Christmas time, my friends are great, and my religious beliefs are protected, as are yours. Nope, I'm good.In your opinion. Sounds like you're pretty bitter to me.
Necessary? No. Right? possibly, depending on the Time Place and Manner. The subject of this debate, the particular sign in question, unwarranted.I never claimed that it does. Simply saying that religious symbols are used for communal celebration on holidays doesn't make it right or necessary to have those symbols on public property.
I don't see a problem with it, I will concede that taxpayer money is the problem, but if a church wanted to donate the manger scene, would you not agree that it would be more tolerable?In your opinion. In my opinion placing the nativity on tax payer property, knowing that not all tax payers are xian, is condescending, insulting, rude, and placed in a disrespectful manner.
Fair enough, but I am not necessarily making an appeal to popularity, more or less the community standards argument, which is more or less what is deemed acceptable and proper in a communtiy versus what is taboo, I don't necessarily believe in that argument when it comes to censorship, but rather for expression of sentiment, such as the manger scene, hell, I'd even let the sign go if it didn't have at least one of the TPM standard trifecta involved.I am a reasonable person. Making an appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Not to mention that your statement could also be construed as an ad hominem.
Yes I'm using "you, your" et al in the general sense and if it doesn't apply to you then it wasn't directed at you. If you are arguing for or against one side then I am assuming it's OK to present my argument against your words.
I don't think I can be more clear on that subject.
If lumping together all those who believe in an a deity makes me an extremist then either you don't understand the term or are using it incorrectly.
I am using the Bible to show that there is Scriptural evidence for the December 25th date to counter those who say it was solely chosen to convert pagans.
The Gospel According to Luke gives us the most information regarding the Birth of Jesus. In Luke 1:26, it says "In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, (27) to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David." Measureing the Jewish Calendar from Rosh Hoshanna, the sixth month frequently falls in March in the modern solar calandar. This is the time we celebrate the Annunciation.
BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Luke 1;Luke 1: 24 And after these days Elisabeth his wife conceived; and she hid herself five months, saying,
Luke 1: 25 Thus hath the Lord done unto me in the days wherein he looked upon me, to take away my reproach among men.
Luke 1: 26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Luke 1: 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1: 28 And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee.
BS. You have only stated one passage backing the date and you are using it completely out of context...
You seem to think the sixth month means a month in the calendar year. If we look as this passage in context though we find that the "sixth month" is actually refrencing Elizabeth's sizth month of gestation with John the Baptist.
BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Luke 1;
Why did you change the name in that quote to say my name, even though it was Slippery Slope who said it?
Obviously you thought wrong. Since when has the concept of good or evil been the sole property of religion?
I simply hear that argument a lot from athiest. Mostly in reference to Bush and his axis of evil comments.
If you do not believe in the Christian concept of God, it should not really matter. People tell me if I kill someone I can go to jail and get the death penalty, I am not offended. If you told me I was going to hell to burn because I did not worship your God, most reasonable people would laugh and not be offended, I would not.
The only reason I can think that this mite offend is because you think the offending Christian may be right?
You say everyone should respect each others beliefs, then you rally against Christians and they are somehow hypocrites? :lol:
I should laugh at people when they insult me and imply that I am gonna go burn in Hades forever? Maybe you have a better sense of humor than me but I do not take kindly to insults about getting tossed into fire! :shock:
Actually you are not correct on many points.
#1 In stating the truth it makes you no less a hypocrite.
#2 The Judo/Christian religions are not a rip off of other religions do to the fact religions from different regions of the world have great flood epics and yet no plagiarism was involved. Many such things exist with all religions. This does not mean they where copied.
Satan is not a name given to Lucifer in the Bible. The Hebrew name "Satan" actually means "adversary," and most often in the Hebrew Bible it is prefaced by the direct object, meaning "the adversary" rather than a distinct personal name. His name in the Bible is "Lucifer." It was the Catholic church which started using it as a proper name for the devil.
So as you can see you are operating under a few biblical misconceptions.
Winter Solstice isn't in December?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?