Zone1 Will this War Prepare the Way for the Rebuilding of the Temple?

[whutTHEYsay]

nfbw 241116 Vwtwpt00421

Maybe actually read what the founders said about duties and obligations.

NotfooledbyW cdxxi: It would be nice if Saint Ding did.

It’s fair to say that the first four presidents didn’t feel their constituents had any obligation or duty to pay to the Catholic Church or any other religious organization derived therefrom.

NotfooledbyW cmlxiv: I mean can anyone imagine a Catholic agreeing with;

CHRISTIANITY IS HARMFUL AND COERCIVE. ; that but a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, [Jesus of Nazareth] before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandising their oppressors in Church and State; that The purest system of morals ever before preached to man (the teachings of Jesus) has been adulterated and sophisticated by artificial constructions into a mere contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves; that rational men not being able to swallow their impious heresies, in order to force them down their throats, they raise the hue and cry of infidelity, while themselves are the greatest obstacles to the advancement of the real doctrines of Jesus, and do in fact constitute the real Anti-Christ. Jefferson letter to Samuel Kercheval, January 19, 1810


GOD IS NOT A TRINITY. “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one…. on, and they would catch no more flies.” – letter to John Adams, August 22, 1813

CATHOLIC RELIGION IS ARTIFICIALLY CONTRIVED But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies.” – letter to John Adams, August 22, 1813


CHRISTIANITY IS HOCUS POCUS. “The hocus-pocus phantasm of a god like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs.” – letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822.

nfbw 240824 Vsocas00964

nfbw 241116 Vwtwpt00421

 

[BULLDOG]

Maybe actually read what the founders said about duties and obligations. You do realize they made it so rights could be removed for certain acts, right?

That would countermand the claim of unalienable rights. They are either unalienable or not. Make up your mind. If the government can remove your rights, by definition, they are not unalienable.

 

[BULLDOG]

Correct. You most certainly can and do. It's a horrible look and a mistake but your mistake to make.

I am constantly amused by your portrayal of yourself as repository of answers to all life's questions. when you wouldn't recognize nuance if it bit your ass. Go figure out why turds are always tapered and then come back and share your great wisdom with the class.

 

[ding]

That too.

Blaise Pascal would disagree. He said the benefits of believing in God so outweighed the benefits of not believing in God that even if there were no God belief in God was still superior to not believing in God.

 

[ding]

No it isn't.

It's not what someone says that tells you what the believe, it's what they do that tells you what they believe. So when atheists follow dogma and attack rival religions, there's very little difference between them and say the Westboro Baptists.

 

[ding]

That would countermand the claim of unalienable rights. They are either unalienable or not. Make up your mind. If the government can remove your rights, by definition, they are not unalienable.

It doesn't. Try reading what they said. I gave you the link already and explained it.

 

[ding]

I am constantly amused by your portrayal of yourself as repository of answers to all life's questions. when you wouldn't recognize nuance if it bit your ass. Go figure out why turds are always tapered and then come back and share your great wisdom with the class.

That's nice. At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. Choose wisely. The proof will be in the pudding.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

CATHOLIC RELIGION IS ARTIFICIALLY CONTRIVED But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests. Sweep away their gossamer fabrics of factitious religion, and they would catch no more flies.” –,t Jefferson letter to John Adams, August 22, 1813

Saint ding is stuck. The founders did not believe mankind had of duty to the Catholic God of Abraham or his son or his Holy Ghost.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Blaise Pascal would disagree. He said the benefits of believing in God so outweighed the benefits of not believing in God that even if there were no God belief in God was still superior to not believing in God.

All l’m suggesting, plain and simple, is: atheism implies a recognition that God exists. If he didn’t, one couldn’t be an atheist.

 

[BULLDOG]

It doesn't. Try reading what they said. I gave you the link already and explained it.

Unless your link was the official redefinition of the word, you're wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

All l’m suggesting, plain and simple, is: atheism implies a recognition that God exists. If he didn’t, one couldn’t be an atheist.

Just to be clear. you think that not believing something exists requires that it exists? Let's try that with unicorns. I have no reason to believe unicorns exist. Does that mean unicorns have to exist?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Just to be clear. you think that not believing something exists requires that it exists? Let's try that with unicorns. I have no reason to believe unicorns exist. Does that mean unicorns have to exist?

Stop complicating things. I don’t have the energy for semantic twists and turns.

 

[BULLDOG]

Stop complicating things. I don’t have the energy for semantic twists and turns.

Sure. From now on, I won't confuse you with facts. I'll just point out that you are wrong and leave it at that.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Sure. From now on, I won't confuse you with facts. I'll just point out that you are wrong and leave it at that.

Yes indeed. Leave it at that.

 

[ding]

All l’m suggesting, plain and simple, is: atheism implies a recognition that God exists. If he didn’t, one couldn’t be an atheist.

I don't think atheists would agree with you. But I understand your logic. It would seem your point becomes more valid the more vigorously they argue God doesn't exist. Like they are trying to convince themselves more than they are trying to convince others.

 

[ding]

Unless your link was the official redefinition of the word, you're wrong.

You won't know until you read it for yourself. Or do you need for me to paste it in here for you? Because I'd be happy to do that for you.

 

[BULLDOG]

You won't know until you read it for yourself. Or do you need for me to paste it in here for you? Because I'd be happy to do that for you.

I read the first several pages which proclaimed, and reproclaimed our rights were bestowed on us by God, and no government, and no law could preclude those rights. That is the point of my remarks. According to Jefferson, and many others, those rights were not subject to any law. Absolute, unquestionable, and unalienable. Full stop. There were no exceptions. My current point is not whether we rightfully can make laws requiring execution of heinous criminals. Obviously, we can. My point is our right to impose execution is diametrically opposed to the claim that the right to life is unalienable. If a crime is horrendous enough that the culprit forfeits his right to life, then that right isn't absolute. All the "Given by God" rhetoric is immaterial in relation to that one point. I'm not concerned with where the right supposedly came from. Just how it is recognized today.

 

[Meriweather]

I read the first several pages which proclaimed, and reproclaimed our rights were bestowed on us by God, and no government, and no law could preclude those rights. That is the point of my remarks. According to Jefferson, and many others, those rights were not subject to any law. Absolute, unquestionable, and unalienable. Full stop. There were no exceptions. My current point is not whether we rightfully can make laws requiring execution of heinous criminals. Obviously, we can. My point is our right to impose execution is diametrically opposed to the claim that the right to life is unalienable. If a crime is horrendous enough that the culprit forfeits his right to life, then that right isn't absolute. All the "Given by God" rhetoric is immaterial in relation to that one point. I'm not concerned with where the right supposedly came from. Just how it is recognized today.

The Catholic faith notes that God bestows authority on members of society. The most basic authority is the family, where authority is bestowed on parents over their children. Next we have towns and businesses were officials and employers have authority over others. The Catechism teaches:

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom.

If a member of the community is terrorizing citizens through murder, rape, robbery, he is performing duties expected of all insuring truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. Authorities then must take steps to remove or discipline those who have turned against the community. A right to life does not provide the right to take the life or possessions of others. Abuse the right to life, and there will be--and should be--consequences.

 

[BULLDOG]

The Catholic faith notes that God bestows authority on members of society. The most basic authority is the family, where authority is bestowed on parents over their children. Next we have towns and businesses were officials and employers have authority over others. The Catechism teaches:

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom.

If a member of the community is terrorizing citizens through murder, rape, robbery, he is performing duties expected of all insuring truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. Authorities then must take steps to remove or discipline those who have turned against the community. A right to life does not provide the right to take the life or possessions of others. Abuse the right to life, and there will be--and should be--consequences.

And consequences there should be. Again, I'm not questioning the right of government to exact execution. I'm just saying the act of execution precludes any claim to any unalienable right to life. If it were truly an unalienable right, there would be no right to take his life, no matter what he might have done.

 

[Meriweather]

And consequences there should be. Again, I'm not questioning the right of government to exact execution. I'm just saying the act of execution precludes any claim to any unalienable right to life. If it were truly an unalienable right, there would be no right to take his life, no matter what he might have done.

Remember the rest: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Founding Fathers weren't suggesting the nation do away with jails, or arresting thieves who were only engaged in pursuit of their happiness. The Founding Fathers were also thinking broader terms. A nation has a right to life, to liberty, to pursuit of happiness. Whether addressing rights of individuals or rights of nations, there remain responsibilities when one is given life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is not an anything goes proposition with any of the three.