Zguy28 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Yeah.. the Resurrection, that's original.Hey, you asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 By their nature, values and beliefs held by one person will always be considered to be superior to those of another person. Yeah unless someone has an open mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Hey, you asked. Is yours the only real resurrection or are the other resurrections true too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 No, sir, it doesn't.Why not?Just like the right to vote gives you the right to not vote. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Yeah unless someone has an open mind.Not open, irrational. You wouldn't hold them if you didn't consider them superior or "more right" so to speak. Example: you believe your non-believers views to be superior to my Christian views. If it wasn't that way, you'd become a Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Yeah unless someone has an open mind. If you didn't think your ideas and values were the best they could possibly be, wouldn't you change them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Why not? "...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Is yours the only real resurrection or are the other resurrections true too?Like Yogi Bera said "its like deja vu all over again". You already know the answers to those questions, but in case anybody else is lurking, I will post this link: Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 If you didn't think your ideas and values were the best they could possibly be, wouldn't you change them? Not really, I value money way too much but I don't plan on changing anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Example: you believe your non-believers views to be superior to my Christian views. If it wasn't that way, you'd become a Christian. No way, I think the Amish's view of forgiveness is far superior to my own view of forgiveness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 "...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."That's why not. Yes, what is it Larry always says? "Your freedom to swing your fist ends right before it touches my nose."So unless someone is literally cramming an actual bible down your throat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 No way, I think the Amish's view of forgiveness is far superior to my own view of forgiveness.Exactly why I used the word "irrational". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 "...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."That's why not. That doesn't answer the question. Free exercise by citizens or groups of citizens is one thing. "Exercise" by some citizens that takes the form of using the power of government to promote their own religion is another thing. It necessarily turns the question back to whether the first part of the clause is being violated. In my humble opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 "...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."That's why not. Only problem is, at least as far as I'm aware, no one has ever attempted to prohibit the free exercise. (Well, OK, maybe Nedow(?) has come pretty close with some of his goofball lawsuits.) Near as I can tell, every time somebody points at that phrase, it's because he just got told that he can't impose (or at least promote) his religion. To use the classic example, no one has ever tried to prohibit public school students from praying in school. (Not only does the government lack the authority, it lacks the ability to do so.) They've prohibited attempts to encourage other students to pray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Exactly why I used the word "irrational". I don't find their view of forgiveness at all irrational. Who are you to judge? The problem with your statement that people think they always hold the best belief is because you do not factor in skepticism. I wouldn't doubt that you lack that little diddy though, believing in fairy tales and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 The problem with your statement that people think they always hold the best belief is because you do not factor in skepticism. I wouldn't doubt that you lack that little diddy though, believing in fairy tales and all. Just perusing this sub-thread. And all I can think of is "Those of you who think you know it all . . . " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 That doesn't answer the question. Free exercise by citizens or groups of citizens is one thing."Exercise" by some citizens that takes the form of using the power of government to promote their own religion is another thing. It necessarily turns the question back to whether the first part of the clause is being violated. In my humble opinion of course. You're the lawyer, P, so where Constitutional interpretation is concerned, I should defer. (But you know me better than that.) I think the beauty of what our Founders did was to write our guiding document in language that a community college graduate can understand. "Congress shall make no law with respect to the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If they had intended to say municipal governments, county school boards, or cub scout troops, why didn't they say so? I realize I'm out of my league when discussing these issues, and the Supreme Court has done that...maybe deliberately. I don't know. But if you can read, you can interpret the statement above. Unfortunately, if you don't have a J.D., you probably can't figure out what it's been turned into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Not really, I value money way too much but I don't plan on changing anytime soon. You can't force the rest of the country to change. It's apples to oranges. You have absolute control over your belief system. And I still assert that if you don't think your beliefs are the best they can be, you'd change them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 If they had intended to say municipal governments, county school boards, or cub scout troops, why didn't they say so? Because they believed that saying that the Constitution was "the supreme law of the land" was sufficient? Because they believed that the 9th and 10th, combined, would be sufficient to prevent people from attempting to get around Constitutional prohibitions by trying to find loopholes in the prohibitions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Don't you believe in fairy tales? Zeitgeist doesn't even rise to the level of a fairy tale. Some fairy tales have at least a grain of truth in them. Zeitgeist is so full of holes that to call it Swiss cheese is denigrating Swiss cheese. I'd point out the errors, but there are so many it's probably faster to talk about what it got right. Seriously, I hope you don't believe that crap, leaving any disagreement we might have about the rationality of Christianity. Zeitgeist is a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Because they believed that saying that the Constitution was "the supreme law of the land" was sufficient? Because they believed that the 9th and 10th, combined, would be sufficient to prevent people from attempting to get around Constitutional prohibitions by trying to find loopholes in the prohibitions? In that case, they were pretty stupid. The entire profession of practicing law is built on people trying to find loopholes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 "...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."That's why not. Atheists don't all want to prohibit. People have a right to not worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Atheists don't all want to prohibit. People have a right to not worship. Without a doubt. I know we all get labeled. Christians make presumptions about atheists. Atheists make presumptions about Christians. Everybody makes presumptions about Muslims. Look. I don't evanglelize. If you're in my church, I'll come up to you and introduce myself. If you ask a question, I'll answer it as best I can. If we're on the street, forget it. I'll respect your beliefs and ask the same of you. I know there are those Christians who will tell an atheist they're doomed to hell; and truly, I feel for those Christians. I hope their God is less judgemental than they are. I'm a live and let live'r when it comes to religion. I support your right to believe and display whatever you want, as well as your right not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Zeitgeist is a joke. and believing in magic isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 In that case, they were pretty stupid. The entire profession of practicing law is built on people trying to find loopholes. Hey, these are the same Framers who thought that the guy who came in second in the POTUS election should be the winner's Veep, successor, and part of his Cabinet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.