ianmdrennan 2 #26 August 4, 2012 Quotesquirm baby, squirm... Why would I squirm? Right now there's a discussion going on, and your POV hasn't been proved. If anyone should be squirming, it's you my friend. Your posts, their tone, and often their venom are a constant reminder of why I moved away from my faith. If anything, I'd argue that attitudes like yours do more damage than good to the faith you profess to love so much.Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #27 August 4, 2012 cre·a·tor (kr-tr) n. 1. One that creates: the creator of a new television series; a born creator of trouble. 2. Creator God. Used with the.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #28 August 4, 2012 Quote Quote http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html The only reference to god in this document is "Natures God". I wouldn't call that a Christian reference (although I could see how someone of Christian faith would take it that way). Ian I always looked at this part: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--" When I was in school, the term Creator had one meaning. For me it still does. I can definitely see why you'd interpret it that way. And for you, and your faith, that makes total sense. I think it's not unreasonable to argue that people of other faiths would draw the same conclusion about who the "creator" was based on their own belief structure. Most religions have a 'creator/god' and reference them as such. I don't think it's a Christian monopoly. edit: fwiw, this is the most enjoyable conversation I'd had with you Ron, even though we both feel differently about the topic. Blues, IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #29 August 4, 2012 Quote Quote Quote http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html The only reference to god in this document is "Natures God". I wouldn't call that a Christian reference (although I could see how someone of Christian faith would take it that way). Ian I always looked at this part: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--" When I was in school, the term Creator had one meaning. For me it still does. I can definitely see why you'd interpret it that way. And for you, and your faith, that makes total sense. I think it's not unreasonable to argue that people of other faiths would draw the same conclusion about who the "creator" was based on their own belief structure. Most religions have a 'creator/god' and reference them as such. I don't think it's a Christian monopoly. edit: fwiw, this is the most enjoyable conversation I'd had with you Ron, even though we both feel differently about the topic. Blues, Ian Thank you Ian. I am not used to having folks say favorable things about me in SC. God bless you and have a great day. Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #30 August 4, 2012 QuoteWhy would I squirm? I don't know, but you are in you words...that much is obvious. QuoteYour posts, their tone, and often their venom are a constant reminder of why I moved away from my faith. Don't blame me for your failed relationship with God...I have nothing to do with that. You sit here and blame everyone else almost as if you're easing your nagging conscience for rejecting your creator...take some responsibility for yourself... If you really cared, your faith didn't have to mimic those you despise and your half-baked judgements against them.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #31 August 4, 2012 I feel sorry for you, so much anger. I'm very, very happy without your faith in my life. More so than I ever was in Christianity - and evidently far more happy than you are with your life based on how angry you are most of the time (or at least your online persona) The point of my post was missed, as usual, by you - and ironically, proved at the same time. edit: The phrasing in my original statement was unclear/poor. It's not "my faith", but rather the "Christian faith". IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #32 August 4, 2012 (...and they say we're the judgmental self righteous ones.) Listen, I just tend to give what I get but throw it back with a little more force and it pisses people off and gets under their skin....is that "christian," probably not and I can certainly work on that one...it's a tuffy for me, but what would you know about that? "A lot of people poke fun and that's alright / But when I start pokin' back they get all uptight..." hate the game not the playa, playa...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #33 August 4, 2012 QuoteAs offensive as I find them, I would not want to see their right to free speech curbed. It's the price we pay to live in a free society. Surprise. I agree with all of this. In my opinion, having both practiced and taught Constitutional law for some time now, the new law - though I'm sympathetic with the feelings behind it - is unconstitutional. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #35 August 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteI thought our freedoms were granted in the Constitution? I do not remember reading about 'god' there.... Oh, he's mentioned in there. Perhaps reading the Constitution is in order before making such claims.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #36 August 4, 2012 QuoteNow what about the Declaration of Independence? Aren't these two documents to be examined jointly? Or, did I miss something in the old school? You missed something. The Declaration of Independence declared the colonies' independence from England. It did not establish a government. The Articles of Confederation established the USA as a country and established a national government. The Constitution replaced the Articles, establishing a new national government.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #37 August 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteNow what about the Declaration of Independence? Aren't these two documents to be examined jointly? Or, did I miss something in the old school? You missed something. The Declaration of Independence declared the colonies' independence from England. It did not establish a government. The Articles of Confederation established the USA as a country and established a national government. The Constitution replaced the Articles, establishing a new national government. Aren't these two documents to be examined jointly? I never said one replaced the other or that they were two chapters of the same book. My point is that when I was in school they were studied together, along with the Mayflower Compact.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #38 August 4, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteNow what about the Declaration of Independence? Aren't these two documents to be examined jointly? Or, did I miss something in the old school? You missed something. The Declaration of Independence declared the colonies' independence from England. It did not establish a government. The Articles of Confederation established the USA as a country and established a national government. The Constitution replaced the Articles, establishing a new national government. Aren't these two documents to be examined jointly? I never said one replaced the other or that they were two chapters of the same book. My point is that when I was in school they were studied together, along with the Mayflower Compact. Edit: See Andy9o8's comment below.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #39 August 4, 2012 QuoteQuote Edit: After some research it appears that god is not mentioned in any way in the Constitution. Now what about the Declaration of Independence? Aren't these two documents to be examined jointly? Or, did I miss something in the old school? In all fairness: On the one hand, the Declaration of Independence (DI) does not carry the force of law in and of itself as, for example, the US or state constitutions do. On the other hand, though the DI is not examined "jointly" with the Constitution by US state and federal courts, it is, sometimes expressly, given a certain amount of due deference - not just by scholars, but also by the courts - as a respected guiding treatise reflecting the US's national creed and principles, many of which later went on to be embodied in the Constitution and various statutes. I not infrequently lurk DZ.com while working. When I read your post, I was doing some legal research on Westlaw in another tab on my browser. So, I did a quick search to see how many separate reported cases in the federal courts (all levels) used the phrase "declaration of independence" in their text. I got over 1,100 hits, meaning over 1,100 separate cases expressly mentioned the DI for one reason or another. So yes, the DI is important - as a respected treatise sort of similar to, say, a respected law professor's body of scholarly work - but not with the force of actual law, and with less force than the Constitution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #40 August 4, 2012 Oh...he's mentioned in there...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chutem 0 #41 August 5, 2012 QuoteOh...he's mentioned in there... I'm curious, please quote the portion mentioning him. James Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #42 August 5, 2012 QuoteQuoteOh...he's mentioned in there... I'm curious, please quote the portion mentioning him. James It's already been disclosed in this thread.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #43 August 5, 2012 >So, will all of the people that were at Chick-fila on Wed. . . . . . . supporting the same cause as the Westboro Baptists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #44 August 5, 2012 Quote>So, will all of the people that were at Chick-fila on Wed. . . . . . . supporting the same cause as the Westboro Baptists. Now that would've been a more practical line for a boycott...I bet they would've been out of business in 3 days! Even sooner if you had to cross those scary ass Son's of bitches in the PGR! God bless their heart...I love you Ron...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CSpenceFLY 1 #45 August 5, 2012 Quote>So, will all of the people that were at Chick-fila on Wed. . . . . . . supporting the same cause as the Westboro Baptists. My post has nothing to do with their cause. It has to do with the people who "claim" they were at CF on Wed. supporting freedom of speech. I want to know if they support all freedom of speech. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #46 August 5, 2012 Quote Would be nice to see 2000 PGR's surround the dozen or so WBC's and watch them shit their pants..... do nothing but close in on them..... this is also called assault. Not sure any fan of the 1st should advocate it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #47 August 5, 2012 >My post has nothing to do with their cause. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that _your_ post supported their cause - just that the people at the "eat-in" share the same cause as these people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #48 August 5, 2012 Quote>My post has nothing to do with their cause. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that _your_ post supported their cause - just that the people at the "eat-in" share the same cause as these people. ...but they don't. We already disclosed that most of these people don't even understand the cause...if anything, they sheeple simply feeling that that are supporting christian values...I know, it's ridiculous.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #49 August 5, 2012 QuoteQuote Would be nice to see 2000 PGR's surround the dozen or so WBC's and watch them shit their pants..... do nothing but close in on them..... this is also called assault. Not sure any fan of the 1st should advocate it. Us christians judging those who call upon Christ are a law unto ourselves...we can handle our own business...separation of church and state, and all that. I was formerly an informant for the FBI who would infiltrate various religious organizations to protect us from extremism...it got too harry for me and my family so I had to leave...most of my tactics were unconstitutional.Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #50 August 5, 2012 I'm protected...it's time people know the truth about wtf is happening in this country. ...and I'm tired of being spit on by all you fuckin' heathen for whom I risked my life and family...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
