NewGuy - The Bible is Invalid

[mattskramer]

Your original thread was not sublte. It was outrightly posted as "The Bible is Invalid".

You are the one that created the confusion by copying and pasting from one forum to another, and then you still continued to post to the General USA forum AFTER you created the same thread in Religion/Ethics.

YOU should have contacted a mod at the beginning and asked them to move the thread once you found out that the BIBLE discussion YOU started was in the wrong place.

Okay, Okay. Sheesh. Point taken. I can admit that I'm wrong when it is clear that I was wrong. I was wrong to begin such a thread as "The Bible is Invalid" where I had originally placed it.

I WAS WRONG!!!

Happy now?

 

[OCA]

You're worse than a two-year old. Trying to converse with you is futile; you won't hear.

I certainly do hear. I disagree with what I hear and a refute what I hear.

Can you give one good reason for society to legitimize a behavior that any sane person in all of recorded history would consider disgusting, perverted, and immoral - other than the fact that it's practicioners have managed to acquire some political clout?

Your question makes assumptions that have not been established as facts. It is as if I were to ask you "Have you quit beating up your wife"?

Matts these assumptions have been proved many, many times on here, you simply choose to ignore them. Tell me though how does one prove that banging your buddy in the can is perverted and immoral in a scientific test fashion? Would you like to be the case study? You can have sex with both genders and tell us how you feel afterwards?

 

[musicman]

matts:

You have refuted nothing. You've just made a bunch of noise.

Society can - and must - make certain assumptions. A quite safe one is that homosexuality is a perversion - a filthy, disgusting practice which sane human beings know, instinctively, to be wrong and unacceptable.

And, finally - for, like the twelfth time - slavery and the mistreatment of women are sins that the world found perfectly acceptable for 6,000 years. It is only because of a miraculous and moral nation called The United States that these evils have been wiped away. If we can be coerced and bullied into abandoning the morality upon which our nation was founded, the miracles are going to dry up very quickly.

What is it with you, matts? Were the founders of our country evil because they didn't change the world FAST enough?

 

[NewGuy]

What is it with you, matts? Were the founders of our country evil because they didn't change the world FAST enough?

No.

The problem is that they were Christian.

 

[dmp]

Matt - I'm thinking your view on marriage is very close to:

"An agreement to live with somebody, and only have sex with that person."

Accurate?

 

[dmp]

Still, if the government is going recognize heterosexual marriage, it should recognize homosexual marriage.

and incestual marriages...

 

[mattskramer]

Were the founders of our country evil because they didn't change the world FAST enough? - The problem is that they were Christian.

LOL - No. Even if they were Satanists, Atheists, or Agnostics, it would not change the facts of what they did and did not do. Our founding fathers were not evil - at least not in an absolute sense of the word. Neither were they perfectly good. They were people - human beings. They put their pants on one leg at a time. Just because I stick to the facts (giving recognition for what they did AND criticism for what they failed to do), you conclude that I think that they are evil. Such is not the case. They were ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances - founding fathers - with their own egocentric biases that they applied, to some extent, into our Constitution.

I am not complaining that the did not change the world fast enough. The USA is not the world. I have some specific criticisms of them. Here are a couple of them: I think that they should have, from the beginning, allowed women to vote. I think that they should have kept their word to the American Indians. They did some good things too.

 

[musicman]

No.

The problem is that they were Christian.

Thank you.

 

[musicman]

Were the founders of our country evil because they didn't change the world FAST enough? - The problem is that they were Christian.

LOL - No. Even if they were Satanists, Atheists, or Agnostics, it would not change the facts of what they did and did not do. Our founding fathers were not evil - at least not in an absolute sense of the word. Neither were they perfectly good. They were people - human beings. They put their pants on one leg at a time. Just because I stick to the facts (giving recognition for what they did AND criticism for what they failed to do), you conclude that I think that they are evil. Such is not the case. They were ordinary men in extraordinary circumstances - founding fathers - with their own egocentric biases that they applied, to some extent, into our Constitution.

I am not complaining that the did not change the world fast enough. The USA is not the world. I have some specific criticisms of them. Here are a couple of them: I think that they should have, from the beginning, allowed women to vote. I think that they should have kept their word to the American Indians. They did some good things too.

The USA may not BE the world, but it sure as hell changed the world, and, more than once, has been called upon to SAVE the world. Nobody's saying they weren't human beings, and, as such, imperfect. That's what makes the good America has done so miraculous. Will you admit that America is a special idea - a unique experiment in human history - and, overwhelmingly, a force for the good in this world?

The founding fathers should have allowed women to vote from the beginning? What the hell - while we're flogging our ancestors, why weren't they working on a cleaner-running internal combustion engine? Heartless bastards!

When you spoke of egocentric biases finding their way into the Constitution, were you, by chance, referring to the three-fifths rule?

 

[mattskramer]

and incestual marriages...

Sorry about the delay. I have a life outside the Internet. Yes, You have the general Idea. I support polygamy, incest relationships, and the like provided that the individuals directly involved are adults with an understanding of the risks and consequences.

 

[mattskramer]

The USA may not BE the world, but it sure as hell changed the world, and, more than once, has been called upon to SAVE the world. Nobody's saying they weren't human beings, and, as such, imperfect. That's what makes the good America has done so miraculous. Will you admit that America is a special idea - a unique experiment in human history - and, overwhelmingly, a force for the good in this world?

Yes. Yes. It did good things too.

The founding fathers should have allowed women to vote from the beginning? What the hell - while we're flogging our ancestors, why weren't they working on a cleaner-running internal combustion engine? Heartless bastards!

It did not have the modern technology and know how, at that time, to create such a thing. Yet it does not take a big stretch of the imagination and of reasoning to understand that Indians, Blacks, and women are human being too and, as such, should be allowed the same rights as White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men (male WASPS).

When you spoke of egocentric biases finding their way into the Constitution, were you, by chance, referring to the three-fifths rule?

Yes. That is one such example.

 

[NewGuy]

Yet it does not take a big stretch of the imagination and of reasoning to understand that Indians, Blacks, and women are human being too and, as such, should be allowed the same rights as White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Men (male WASPS).

When you spoke of egocentric biases finding their way into the Constitution, were you, by chance, referring to the three-fifths rule?

Yes. That is one such example.

Glad you could bless us with your infinite ignorance on the topic of our founding mat.


I was waiting for you to show how little you knew of the subject.

Here now is the more than balanced and INFORMED rebuttal:

This from the Federalist # 54 BY JAMES MADISON:

All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side.

"We subscribe to the doctrine," might one of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation more immediately to property, and we join in the application of this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of the case is, that they partake of both these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master; in being vendible by one master to another master; and in being subject at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another -- the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected, on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others -- the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property. The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied, that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.

"This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation were to be calculated, and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of contributions was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would concur in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as men, when burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same light, when advantages were to be conferred? Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their human brethren, should themselves contend, that the government to which all the States are to be parties, ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of property, than the very laws of which they complain?

"It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They neither vote themselves nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon what principle, then, ought they to be taken into the federal estimate of representation? In rejecting them altogether, the Constitution would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been appealed to as the proper guide.

"This objection is repelled by a single abservation. It is a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution, that as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be determined by a federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself may designate. The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not, perhaps, the same in any two States. In some of the States the difference is very material. In every State, a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives. In this point of view the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard should be had to the policy of particular States towards their own inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous adherence, however, to this principle, is waived by those who would be gainers by it. All that they ask is that equal moderation be shown on the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants, which regards the slave as divested of two fifths of the man.

Now that you have the history to prove the reality, you can go back to mat's book since you are wrong again.

 

[OCA]

Sorry about the delay. I have a life outside the Internet. Yes, You have the general Idea. I support polygamy, incest relationships, and the like provided that the individuals directly involved are adults with an understanding of the risks and consequences.

You just said volumes about yourself Matts, absolute volumes. I am absolutely thrilled that me or any member of my family has no personal contact with you, you're a pervert and a psycho.

 

[NewGuy]

You just said volumes about yourself Matts, absolute volumes. I am absolutely thrilled that me or any member of my family has no personal contact with you, you're a pervert and a psycho.

Remember, OCA, when mat first joined and people were commenting on his pic, I said I saw a resemblence to Rosie O'Donnel?

(you could find it with a search)

Maybe there was something to that.

 

[musicman]

America has righted the wrongs of 6,000 years of human history. They just didn't do it FAST enough for you.

The majority of our founding fathers were abolitionists, which, as we have discussed in exhaustive detail, was a novel viewpoint in the eighteenth century (was that fact their fault, too?).They knew that it was hypocritical to, on one hand, say, "All men are created equal",and, on the other,to accept the institution of slavery. Whether or not to allow slavery in this new nation was a bitterly contested point, and the abolitionists were prepared to fight it all the way. It was a "deal-breaker" for them, in other words.

There was just one small problem. That small problem was sailing over here just as fast as the wind could carry it. It was the world's reigning superpower, coming to stomp their asses. They had to reach some kind of compromise quickly, or the whole issue would have been moot - all the arguing parties swinging from yardarms, and thus unable to fight the good fight. That compromise was the three-fifths rule.

States derive their power - in the forms of representation in Congress, electoral votes, etc., according to their respective populations. Higher population=more representation=more power. Slave states would have been only too glad to count black slaves on a 1:1 ratio with the rest of their population. Using a segment of their head count which enjoyed no rights, no recourse, and no representation, they would have strengthened themselves, and, by logical extension, the institution of slavery itself. The abolitionists refused to allow this. Due to the lateness of the hour, and the rapidly nearing British, the three-fifths compromise was struck. The abolitionists knew that, once the question of U.S. independence was settled (one way or the other), the slavery issue would come to a head very soon after. It did, in fewer than a hundred years - the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye.

It galls me that, thanks to our educational system, and a lot of racial hucksters with an axe to grind, this explanation of the three-fifths rule is not widely known. People who should know better are saying that it was an indication that white European males considered themselves innately superior to people of color. The plain truth is that the opposite was true. In the war to abolish slavery, the three-fifths rule was the opening shot.

 

[OCA]

Remember, OCA, when mat first joined and people were commenting on his pic, I said I saw a resemblence to Rosie O'Donnel?

(you could find it with a search)

Maybe there was something to that.

I'm on record a couple of times as saying and I still believe that Matts is queer, but this incest and polygamy and "the like"(in his words) is just way too out there. This guy is off his proverbial rocker!

 

[musicman]

Thanks, NewGuy. James Madison said it much better than I.

 

[NewGuy]

Thanks, NewGuy. James Madison said it much better than I.

No problem.

He says it better than MOST of us.

 

[musicman]

No problem.

He says it better than MOST of us.

 

[NewGuy]

And mat, while we are off topic, let's bring it full circle.

That rusty old thing called the Bible?

--yeah, well, take a look at Federalist # 37.....ALSO BY MADISON:

Would it be wonderful if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure and regular symmetry which an abstract view of the subject might lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a Constitution planned in his closet or in his imagination? The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.

The BIble WAS relevant.