What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

LynahFan said:
Apparently the new standard for acceptability is no longer the Constitution, but whether that practice had been in place for centuries before Lincoln? I mean, what could possibly be wrong with slavery, denying women's suffrage or property rights, etc. They're tradition! And goodness knows nothing should ever change.
Click to expand...

Property rights were in the Constitution...and the Constitution needed to be amended to include slavery and women's suffrage. Per the Supreme Court, ceremonial American icons such as In God We Trust are not against the Constitution. They won't hear the topic anymore.

You saying the SCOTUS doesn't know what its talking about regarding the Constitution? You want a Constitutional amendment on icons? I have no idea what you're advocating.
 
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

5mn_Major said:
Property rights were in the Constitution...and the Constitution needed to be amended to include slavery and women's suffrage. Per the Supreme Court, ceremonial American icons such as In God We Trust are not against the Constitution. They won't hear the topic anymore.

You saying the SCOTUS doesn't know what its talking about regarding the Constitution? You want a Constitutional amendment on icons? I have no idea what you're advocating.
Click to expand...

Oh, 5. You should have stuck with me -- at least I suffer fools gladly. You have no idea of the can of whupa-- you just opened.... :eek:
 
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Kepler said:
Oh, 5. You should have stuck with me -- at least I suffer fools gladly. You have no idea of the can of whupa-- you just opened.... :eek:
Click to expand...

There's so much I could say. But I was just reminded of priorities by the thread title... :)
 
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

5mn_Major said:
Actually it was started during Lincoln's administration and has been on US currency as one of the country's most iconic statements ever since. At the time, there was general acceptance that Christianity was a defining characteristic of the US. In the end, Christianity, Judaism and Islam in their many iterations believe in God (with Buddhism being philosophy based) which means the vast majority of religions align with the idea anyways.

The courts have ruled time and again that like the flag 'In God We Trust' is both ceremonial and tied to the American tradition. It does not require a Constitutional amendment. Pretty much those upset are not the average non believers nor folks of differing religions (who get the ceremonial nature of the phrase)...but rather those at the extreme who have a proactive distain for religion all together.
Click to expand...
Anytime that phrase has been forcibly included it has always been with the explicit intention to put another xtian stamp on the country. To reaffirm just how religious you nutbars NEED the country to be. Any suggestion of it being inclusive is absolute garbage and as usual with you, is just putting your scapegoat worshiping glasses on to view history.

From what is considered the first appeal.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation?
Click to expand...

Making that the national motto is one of the most clear examples of a violation of the first amendment you could ever come up with.
 
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

5mn_Major said:
I have no idea what you're advocating.
Click to expand...
I'm advocating that governmental activity ought to be constrained by the Constitution - not by tradition, and not by tyranny of the majority. If something is wrong, it doesn't matter if it's "always been done that way" or if it's supported by 51% (or 99.9%) of the population. Government endorsement of a particular religion is on the wrong side of the line, as are imposition of religious morals in law without a compelling state interest. "We have to enforce religious views in law so the country stays more religious" is not a compelling interest.
 
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

LynahFan said:
Thought it was going to be this one:

https://youtu.be/gRdfX7ut8gw

But I should have known that Jewish traditions don't count - totally unAmerican.
Click to expand...

I wish I could find a version with this verse because I want a god with a short skirt and a long jacket:

When the Wild Hunt fills the evening,
With a howling and a screaming,
Diana's eyes are a gleaming,
And that's where I wanna be.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

LynahFan said:
I'm advocating that governmental activity ought to be constrained by the Constitution - not by tradition, and not by tyranny of the majority. If something is wrong, it doesn't matter if it's "always been done that way" or if it's supported by 51% (or 99.9%) of the population. Government endorsement of a particular religion is on the wrong side of the line, as are imposition of religious morals in law without a compelling state interest. "We have to enforce religious views in law so the country stays more religious" is not a compelling interest.
Click to expand...

I got your basic idea the first time. So who are you angry at? The SCOTUS for deciding that IGWT is an American tradition? The states for not making icons illegal? Me? Bob? All Christians? Perhaps all of the above.

joecct said:
I'm just smitten with this thread.
Click to expand...

So on this thread...a couple Christian haters continuously take out their frustrations. Us Christians have two choices. We take what is often invalid criticism or we try to have a logic based discussion. Unfortunately the latter often results in others going into tirades. Its kind of a losing proposition as long as continuously upset unbelievers aren't here for a constructive fact finding dialog. You have a solution?
 
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

5mn_Major said:
I got your basic idea the first time.
Click to expand...
Really? You sure have a strange way of showing it. "I have no idea what you're advocating" is all kinds of whoosh.

5mn_Major said:
So who are you angry at? The SCOTUS for deciding that IGWT is an American tradition? The states for not making icons illegal? Me? Bob? All Christians? Perhaps all of the above.
Click to expand...
Just entitled Christians who feel a sense of entitlement about being the only true Americans.


So on this thread...a couple Christian haters continuously take out their frustrations. Us Christians have two choices. We take what is often invalid criticism or we try to have a logic based discussion. Unfortunately the latter often results in others going into tirades. Its kind of a losing proposition as long as continuously upset unbelievers aren't here for a constructive fact finding dialog. You have a solution?
Click to expand...
Freaking hilarious. I'm an atheist. What am I going to be using in an argument besides logic? You're the one who thinks we ought to give deference to extra-logical considerations as inspired by a supernatural being: history, tradition, tyranny of the majority. Those things are ridiculous, insignificant trivialities compared with the principle of separation of church and state as established in the Constitution.

Be gone.
 
5mn_Major said:
we try to have a logic based discussion. Unfortunately the latter often results in others going into tirades.
Click to expand...

Logic? From the biggest offender of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy on this board? I don't think that means what you think it means.
 
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

LynahFan said:
Freaking hilarious. I'm an atheist. What am I going to be using in an argument besides logic? You're the one who thinks we ought to give deference to extra-logical considerations as inspired by a supernatural being: history, tradition, tyranny of the majority. Those things are ridiculous, insignificant trivialities compared with the principle of separation of church and state as established in the Constitution.

Be gone.
Click to expand...

Hey, I tried to warn him.

If I'm Hitchens, LynahFan is Sam Harris. At least with me the mooks have a chance because I don't mind mudslinging with them, which gives them a back door to run away crying foul. ("I'm obnoxious and disliked did you know that?") LF doesn't fall into that trap -- him eviscerating 5 is like watching a battlebot take out a garden slug.

Chestertonian apologetics was always the emperor's new clothes, and for about 20 years now it's been exposed for the fraud it is. The demogogues didn't get the memo, and obviously it still impresses in the public square when the audience are the kind of people for whom "The Screwtape Letters" seems profound, but the front lines have moved now.

There's still hope for apologetics if you read legitimately deep thinkers like Charles Taylor or the incomparably beautiful Alasdair MacIntyre. But this Father Coughlin crap is a dead letter. Please, kittens. Up your game.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Kepler said:
Hey, I tried to warn him.

If I'm Hitchens, LynahFan is Sam Harris. At least with me the mooks have a chance because I don't mind mudslinging with them, which gives them a back door to run away crying foul. ("I'm obnoxious and disliked did you know that?") LF doesn't fall into that trap -- him eviscerating 5 is like watching a battlebot take out a garden slug.

Chestertonian apologetics was always the emperor's new clothes, and for about 20 years now it's been exposed for the fraud it is. The demogogues didn't get the memo, and obviously it still impresses in the public square when the audience are the kind of people for whom "The Screwtape Letters" seems profound, but the front lines have moved now.

There's still hope for apologetics if you read legitimately deep thinkers like Charles Taylor or the incomparably beautiful Alasdair MacIntyre. But this Father Coughlin crap is a dead letter. Please, kittens. Up your game.
Click to expand...
I was going to quote Churchill but it seems that my recollection that it was him was erroneous.
 
Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Lynah, you're blaming Christians for the SCOTUS deciding that IGWT is slam dunk Constitutional...and that's logical? But your ideology must. make. you. blame. Christians. anyways. And Kepler, feel free to let that impress you.

unofan said:
Logic? From the biggest offender of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy on this board? I don't think that means what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Notice the fallacy uses Scotsman and not countless other labels. Because the fallacy instantly falls apart for any group where there is nuance. Marx was German. Regardless of what he did, he was German. Scotsman work.

What if Marx insisted that he was a Nazi? Nothing about Marx showed he was a Nazi...including the fact he wrote the Communist Manifesto. But you would claim under Scotsman that Marx is a Nazi only because he said so. What if a person claims they are a 'good person' but continuously hoses people over. You would demand a bad person must be good because they claim to be. Scotsman doesn't apply here, never has, never will. Your ideological bent will mean this point will continue to be ignored.

joecct said:
For 5mn_major -- that's a pun son, a pun.
Click to expand...

But your post applies. These guys think they're so enlightened. Atheists or whoever love logic ploys and try to stretch them to destroy facts wherever ideology demands it. But their 'enlightened' positions means they've been heaping ideological blanket Christian hatred on this thread ever since its started. As a result, few Christians even post in here any more.

The thread is just anti Christian bigotry on parade. Trying to discuss it only makes it worse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top