Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
tiget, you're obviously missing the point.
Others agree that you're missing the point.
In 128 posts, you've received 2 rep comments.
It's pretty telling that you're out of touch here.
tiget, you're obviously missing the point.
Others agree that you're missing the point.
In 128 posts, you've received 2 rep comments.
It's pretty telling that you're out of touch here.
Whenever an attempt is made to get to a point through rational discussion, everyone, including you, decides to duck out because your position becomes apparent to any logical thinking person as total irrational nonsense.
I've answered every "rep comment" point by point - to the extent of being criticized as "dissecting" other comments.
One thing we see very clearly throughout this thread is that the majority of commentators can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Wrong.
If you don't like what someone writes, you say it's not logical.
Perhaps it's your logic that's faulty.
The comment has been made over dozen times so far, perhaps you should listen.
Are you familiar with a document known as the Mayflower Compact?
Yes. And it doesn't help you make a case. The very reason the pilgrims left for America was because religion had become a governing body, preventing them to practice their own religion. Sure, we're talking about Christianity versus Christianity but that actually helps makes a case against your ideas that we live in a much more complex society. When people within a religion couldn't get along, I can't imagine the idea being extended across the board when one religion is given the power to rule all. But then, I don't have to imagine, just see what it gets down to in a set up that you profess, like in Iran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
The founders envisioned a nation where everyone would be free to hold to whatever particular flavor of world view desired. A nations government does not have to be secular (i.e., purely materialistic/worldly) in it's world view (even if such a thing were possible) in order to facilitate tolerance toward all world views.
You have maintained your confusion between "government" and "individual". You're mixing and matching per your whim. The government is NOT an individual and is not designed to enforce a rule on religion, but to be the defense of the nation and accountable to the welfare of every individual within the boundaries.
If I have a world view that differs from yours, if I become a part of the government, explain to me why you would be fine me enforcing my world view on you.
Quote:
The founders never intended America to be a theocracy - as I stated, they were going on Biblical principles in order to establish those functions belonging to the state and those functions belonging to the church.
You're right but your assumption that they actually wanted America to be governed by Christian laws for all is where you're contradicting yourself (essentially professing theocracy). They didn't design the system to take away the individual's religion out of picture while being a part of the government. However they did ensure that that person didn't design laws to respect the establishment he belongs to (the religion that is).
Quote:
The process of establishing law in society is done by people. All people have a world view. Their world view will, by absolute necessity, influence the type of laws enacted. Now, why is that so hard to comprehend? How many more ways do I need to explain this before YOU comprehend?
Wrong. Your professing of the constitution endorsing Christianity as a guiding religion to making laws is simply a self-made prophecy by those who want to turn America into a theocratic nation. My world view differs greatly from yours. Would you like to take a guess why?
Quote:
My use of of the term secular also translates to materialistic or worldly. Therefore, it is actually a very apt/valid example. Don't hide in semantics - it's unbecoming.
And therein lies the problem. You're leaving logic aside and using emotion to drive your views. And the idea that "my way or highway" is a dangerous one, especially if spoken at the top level.
Your translation: Fail.
Quote:
Look, I love checks and balances and a Constitution designed to limit the power of GOVERNMENT. Still, the democratic process is what it is. In the end, the majority gets it's way.
But it is a democracy where individual rights are not to be suppressed. This is fundamental to our differences.
Quote:
I believe in a sovereign and all powerful transcendent and eternal being - otherwise known as God. Our supposed liberty is limited by whatever liberty God sovereignly allows us to have.
That's fine and it is your right to believe in whatever you do. The problem is, you're not entitled to force it on everybody else.
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12).
Whenever an attempt is made to get to a point through rational discussion, everyone, including you, decides to duck out because your position becomes apparent to any logical thinking person as total irrational nonsense.
I've answered every "rep comment" point by point - to the extent of being criticized as "dissecting" other comments.
One thing we see very clearly throughout this thread is that the majority of commentators can dish it out, but they can't take it.
From the beginning, you have not tried to have a rational discussion. You have repeatedly changed what you say the purpose of the discussion is as it suited your purpose in the moment. You have either responded to opposing viewpoints with insults and diversion, or you have not responded to them at all. You alternately tell people that you are not responsible for providing proof of your assertions, and demand from others that they prove theirs. Many posters find your condescending attitude to be offensive and ignorant. Many have begun to wonder what your true intentions are.
Here are a few example for your perusal:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If so, you would note that there were no cogent/reasonable counters to my original assertions. If you have what you feel is a cogent/reasonable response to those assertions please respond in that thread.
Right off the bat you insult people.
Quote:
Please, please read my original post in this thread carefully. I am merely maintaining that all world views contain the same basic elements such as faith, moral/value codes, guide books, even prophets. If you disagree, please point out what you see as the different characteristics between the religious and non-religious world views.
Ostensibly your original premise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Please set aside your rage and address the topic.
No one seems willing to point out the differences between the religious and non-religious viewpoints that would effectively counter my assertion.
Gosh, is there anyone out there that can speak to the issue?
Insults again, and ignoring the arguments which have been presented to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You appear to have accidentally stumbled on to my point.
Explain how we can have people that are amoral, areligious and totally without faith - you apparently have things all figured out - please clue me in.
Insults and condescension, again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You responded in this thread, so I responded in this thread and am responding again. Yes, this part of the discussion belongs in the other thread - if you want to continue on this specific topic - I advise you to respond in the other thread.
Why are you avoiding my question about what differentiates the religious from the non-religious? Possibly because you can't see or articulate any differences?
Please pick one thread and stick to it. Also, more ignoring of arguments which had been presented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
That's part of what the discussion is about - is it not? Whether or not I have a premise to begin with?
That, I suppose, is the real question at hand.
Quote:
Again, those who deny do so utilizing the same methodology as believers. I would agree that you can make a case for a distinction between the two groups - obviously. However, going back to my premise (religion thread) I assert no difference in the basic methods of both groups to arrive at their conclusions.
What? A change in the premise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I'm not asserting that the religious are actually non-religious and/or vice versa. I realize that the religious are different from the non-religious - hence the distinction in the titles of religious and non-religious.
Sort of answered your own question, there.
Quote:
Why exclude from the public square the believer because they believe or the non-believer because the deny belief? Should we exclude only those who claim an officially sanctioned religion even though there is no basic difference in the way each arrives at their individual beliefs?
Nobody said anything like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Secularists still have a moral code. It is impossible to have an amoral position. Democracy, by necessity, involves the imposition of the morals and beliefs of the majority upon the minority.
That would be why we have a Constitution, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Sound familiar?
Quote:
Hmmmm, do I sense an agenda here?
I don't know if you do, but I certainly do. We all have agendas, as you pointed out yourself. So someone arguing against your premise is not allowed to have one?
Quote:
I guess you see all non-secularists as nothing more than lower life forms that should have no right to take part in any debate taking place in the public square. They are not equal to those holding to the "superior" viewpoint. I suspect that you and all the other like minded will soon create the new super race.
Could you stick to the discussion, please?
Quote:
NEWS FLASH: Judges are appointed by Politicians - politicians are ELECTED through the DEMOCRATIC process. The politicians, by and large, reflect the world views and moral values of the majority that elected them to power. The MAJORITY forcing it's views and values on the MINORITY. It's the American way and will remain so until folks like you succeed in creating something improved - like fascism perhaps?
I'll say it again, this is why we have a Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You're right about at least one thing, this is going nowhere.
It's going nowhere because your so caught up in your agenda and rage that you can't even attempt to make a rational argument. I guess I can't blame you. There are really few options left when you have no argument to begin with.
More arrogance and condescension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Here is the problem. Over the years the political left, groups such as the American Communists and Liberals Union aka ACLU, have used the Joseph Goebbels method (If you repeat a lie long enough, it will eventually become the truth) to redefine the church and state relationship.
What I'm doing here in these threads is pointing out the fallacy of their false premise.
I don't know if you've noticed, but they aren't too happy about it.
It's been fun though. I have to say that I'm amused by their inability to mount a rational counter argument.
More arrogance and condescension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Big woop. You illustrate the semantics of the English language.
The English language is all I'm using here - it's not rocket science. You may not have a dictionary but you obviously have a computer with internet capability. You can find the basic dictionary terms/definitions quite easily.
You have argued semantics many times in this thread. In fact, one could argue that your entire premise is based on semantics. Apply your own standard to yourself, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
We're getting circular because you can't seem to let go of this nonsense concerning burden of proof.
...
Let go of the burden of proof thing. In order to have this discussion, there is absolutely no need whatsoever for me to prove, or for you to disprove, the existence of the supernatural and/or existence of a transcendent eternal being.
Many times you demanded proof of other posters. Why the double standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If Wikipedia gave advice for you to jump off the top of the nearest ten story building - would you do it?
Insults. Wiki was a sufficient reference to the poster's point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
The relationship between church and state, as originally intended, is Biblical in methodology. The Bible is the base document for our founding documents.
Nay, you say. We have this obscure personal letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists asserting a wall of separation.
Gee whiz, what if I were to assert an obscure letter written by some old dead white slave owning founder as justification for overturning Roe vs. Wade - how much play would that get?
Also, the Danbury Baptists were worried about the state intervening in the affairs of the church - not the other way around as is commonly accepted as fact by today's educated fools and ignorant masses.
Well, I have to give you credit for sticking to your guns. This point had already been addressed several times over. You could leave out the insults, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You state that "there is no God" and then ask "which god I believe in."
Are you familiar with the law of non-contradiction?
You never did teach us ignorant masses about this nebulous concept. Yet, repeatedly you demanded other posters to explain simple concepts, which happenned to be inconvenient to your premise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Do you believe in the inerrancy of sacred scripture?
In a word, no. Not relevant to the discussion. Diversion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
But the book written about Jesus Christ, what he did, what he taught was penned by fallible men, presumably in a fallible manner. if scripture is fallible, how can we possibly know the truth about Jesus Christ?
Does it relate to the point? Figure it out yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Fine, fine, OK. Now why don't you just tell me how to separate the fiction parts from the fact parts. Please go ahead and tell us which parts are fiction so that all the rest of Christendom can have the benefit of knowing as well.
That is for each individual to determine for himself. Unrelated, insulting, and condescending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
My, my, where to begin.
First, This is a discussion forum where we ask questions, make assertions and so forth. I, for one, happen to believe in such things as truth, reason and logic - in other words, what makes sense. I try to discern whether or not others are making assertions that make sense. You see, I'm into reality as opposed to relativism/ "what ever you want it to be- ism." Relativism is complete nonsense. If you prefer to see this as dissecting everyone, so be it. Keep in mind that others are also at liberty to dissect my points and assertions as well.
Good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
"You keep repeating that having no faith is the equivalent of having a faith. It is not. One is the opposite of the other."
I've never asserted or repeated any such thing. I have asserted that everyone incorporates faith into their particular world view irrespective of whether or not they claim a religious title.
You asserted just that many times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
By the way, the founders were not secular and never had any intention of creating a secular nation.
Untrue, and demonstrated to be so several times in this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If I want to watch TV and videos, I'll watch TV or go to youtube. Is there a point or assertion that you would like to make?
You want people to give examples, yet when they do, you respond like this. Hmm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I'm still looking for an answer to my final post during our last back and forth.
You had gotten one, just didn't like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
This is why I assert that the founders were not secular and were not trying to create a secular nation.
We all have a world view and that world view will impact our political view.
...democracy by necessity is the "imposition" of the majority viewpoint upon the minority. Any time you institute laws, whether secular or not, you create an imposition on the populace. If you take away all the religions in America there will still be (if democracy still exists) a majority of some sort with some sort of an idea of morality and values that they will "impose" on the minority - there is simply no escaping this.
And yet again: that is why we have a Constitution; to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Surely that must sound at least vaguely familiar by now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Post #38. I was still looking for you to attempt to make a rational argument - in between frothing of the mouth.
Done a bit of your own frothing from time to time.
Quote:
"The lack of a criminal prohibition of a thing and the existence of a criminal prohibition are not equal "impositions."
Sorry, no habla.
We can always count on you for some deep, thought provoking articulately spoken insight.
"Sorry, no habla"? More ignoring of arguments inconvenient to your premise. And you had to throw in the insult. Again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Could you provide examples of religion only legislation?
Do you have an example of a religious law that automatically excludes every person not of that religion?
Again with the double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
More mud slinging.
Point out my lack of facts and logic.
Had already been done. Perhaps your reading comprehension is poor, I don't know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I don't recall the flap over ******** - could you provide a different example?
Because you can't remember recent history, we should hold your hand?
Quote:
I don't care how many of the ten commandments are "against civil law." Believe it or not, I don't want a theocracy any more than you do. From the beginning of the thread I have only tried to assert/explain the false premise behind the modern commonly accepted definition of the so called "separation of church and state."
Yet another incarnation of whatever you wanted your premise to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Are you familiar with a document known as the Mayflower Compact?
Yet another double standard.
Quote:
The founders never intended America to be a theocracy - as I stated, they were going on Biblical principles in order to establish those functions belonging to the state and those functions belonging to the church.
Now, why is that so hard to comprehend? How many more ways do I need to explain this before YOU comprehend?
My use of of the term secular also translates to materialistic or worldly. Therefore, it is actually a very apt/valid example. Don't hide in semantics - it's unbecoming.
More insults, arrogance, and condescension. Don't hide behind semantics, indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
The Bible is a book. So what? You are able to illustrate that it's possible to take parts of any book out of context and imply false meanings.
Wow, how impressive! Did you have to go to college to learn that or did you figure that out all by yourself?
Insults, and arrogance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
"Bugger?" More wit and originality on proud display.
Insults and arrogance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Would you be kind enough to point out a few examples so that I might have some idea of what you're talking about? How about one example?
You fail to give examples of your own assertions, so I feel no compulsion to provide them for you.
Does this provide enough example for you? Your initial premise was flimsy, and the body of your argument and defense consisted of insults, arrogance, and diversion.
The Bible is a book. So what? You are able to illustrate that it's possible to take parts of any book out of context and imply false meanings.
Wow, how impressive! Did you have to go to college to learn that or did you figure that out all by yourself?
Statement by tigetmax24: I implied "false meanings."
Rationale for this accusation: none.
Hypocrisy: tiget constantly ignores peoples' refutations of the OP, asking for rationale when his own arguments provide none.
--
If you are referring to my use of the phrase "thought crimes," let me put the term in context. from wiki: "In George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labeling disapproved thoughts with the term thoughtcrime or, in Newspeak, "crimethink"." Thoughtcrime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now if that doesn't sound like Yahweh/Jesus... Controlling speech and actions, and sending people to hell for eternity for nothing more than the "disapproved thought" of disbelief.
Given the many examples of punishment for violating God's standards of approved speech, religion, and thought in the bible, it is clear that the literal bible is incompatible with these freedoms. We don't want the bible's totalitarian concepts to be enforced by our government, which is why separation of church and state is so important.
"Are you familiar with a document known as the Mayflower Compact? Yes. And it doesn't help you make a case."
Being a bit defensive and presumptive aren't we? All I did was ask if you were familiar with the Mayflower Compact.
"The very reason the pilgrims left for America was because religion had become a governing body, preventing them to practice their own religion."
Yes. However, they primarily were looking to practice their religion without being persecuted.
"Sure, we're talking about Christianity versus Christianity but that actually helps makes a case against your ideas that we live in a much more complex society."
...OK, and what would be my ideas about living in a more complex society. What are you referring to?
"When people within a religion couldn't get along, I can't imagine the idea being extended across the board when one religion is given the power to rule all. But then, I don't have to imagine, just see what it gets down to in a set up that you profess, like in Iran."
Sorry. If you could attempt to better articulate your point here. I'm not trying to be picky...I would truly like to better understand what you are trying to assert here.
"You have maintained your confusion between "government" and "individual". You're mixing and matching per your whim. The government is NOT an individual and is not designed to enforce a rule on religion, but to be the defense of the nation and accountable to the welfare of every individual within the boundaries."
No confusion here whatsoever. Ever heard of Government of, by and for the people? The people are supposed to be the government via the democratic process.
The statement "promote the general welfare" has been taken totally out of the original context intended by the founders. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. Read the Federalist Papers.
"If I have a world view that differs from yours, if I become a part of the government, explain to me why you would be fine me enforcing my world view on you."
I've never asserted that anyone should "be fine" with having a world view "enforced" on them. No one likes to lose and winning never gets old. Take the recent example of California Prop. 8. One side or the other is going to get their way through the majority vote - the minority gets to have the others view "enforced" on them. Now, I suspect that the courts will probably overturn prop. 8. However, it would be overturned by judges appointed by politicians that were elected through the democratic process.
"You're right but your assumption that they actually wanted America to be governed by Christian laws for all is where you're contradicting yourself (essentially professing theocracy)."
No, no and no. I'm not professing a theocracy and neither did they. Just check out what history teaches. The laws they enacted were based on judeo-christian ethics and naturally so.
"They didn't design the system to take away the individual's religion out of picture while being a part of the government. However they did ensure that that person didn't design laws to respect the establishment he belongs to (the religion that is)."
You seem to be asserting that they (the founders) intended for everyone to be free to practice their religion and not establish a mandated state religion. If that is your assertion, I fully agree.
"Wrong. Your professing of the constitution endorsing Christianity as a guiding religion to making laws is simply a self-made prophecy by those who want to turn America into a theocratic nation. My world view differs greatly from yours. Would you like to take a guess why?"
I never asserted the constitution as a religion endorsing document. I stated that the constitution is based on Biblical examples of functions belonging to church and state.
If I believe in God and the Bible and you don't, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why our world views would be very different. If you believe in God and the Bible, I would say that our differences are quite probably hermeneutical.
"And therein lies the problem. You're leaving logic aside and using emotion to drive your views. And the idea that "my way or highway" is a dangerous one, especially if spoken at the top level."
Where have I asserted a "my way or (the) highway" approach? I'm pointing out historical fact and providing an open and honest assessment of the way our government operates. I have done all this quite free of passion and emotion.
"But it is a democracy where individual rights are not to be suppressed. This is fundamental to our differences."
Simply another way of asserting that we are a nation of laws. I agree. However, judges are appointed through the democratic process and their judgments tend to reflect the society and world view from which they ascend.
"That's fine and it is your right to believe in whatever you do. The problem is, you're not entitled to force it on everybody else."
Both of us are entitled to join in the debates and actions in the public square concerning the various issues of the day. Both of us (I presume) are entitled to vote, give support to various causes and speak freely concerning these issues. When things finally come down to a vote, one side or the other will end up having the others views "forced" on them. You may not like it, but that's just plain old reality.
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12)"
...and your point of application here would be...what?
Statement by tigetmax24: I implied "false meanings."
Rationale for this accusation: none.
Hypocrisy: tiget constantly ignores peoples' refutations of the OP, asking for rationale when his own arguments provide none.
--
If you are referring to my use of the phrase "thought crimes," let me put the term in context. from wiki: "In George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the thoughts of its subjects, labeling disapproved thoughts with the term thoughtcrime or, in Newspeak, "
Now if that doesn't sound like Yahweh/Jesus... Controlling speech and actions, and sending people to hell for eternity for nothing more than the "disapproved thought" of disbelief.
Given the many examples of punishment for violating God's standards of approved speech, religion, and thought in the bible, it is clear that the literal bible is incompatible with these freedoms. We don't want the bible's totalitarian concepts to be enforced by our government, which is why separation of church and state is so important.
If there is a God and God is all powerful, how hard would it be for this God to control all thoughts and all actions if it were so desired?
The fact that there are so many people running around with the notion that there is no God and all thoughts and actions are free, says something about God's desire to control - does it not?
The God I believe in is not restricted to using a book in order to initiate thought control. How totally inept would that be?
Obviously, those denying God's existence would simply assert that all is based on chance and an individual human's exercise of free choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
