pajarito 0 #301 June 18, 2004 QuoteAnd that is why officially, the mention of God should be taken out. Because that is the only way to include ALL Americans. If some subset wants to unofficially add under god to it, feel free. The Atheists are very much the small subset. If they want to unofficially add “under myself” to it, feel free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #302 June 18, 2004 QuoteBush has stated on many occasions that he has conferred with God and that God has told him that his way was the right way. It's a common trait among evangelical christians to speak to god about specific decisions and in almost all cases, "miraculously", the decision they had made before speaking with god gets endorsed by him. Must be "blessed" to be right about god's will so much. I catch your sarcasm in the end but that’s not always true. Whether a decision or action is “of God” or not has to be scrutinized on its merits Biblically. Sometimes by others. We can’t always tell ourselves if what we’ve done, even after praying about it, is what God really wants or what we really just want ourselves based on our innate preponderance toward selfishness. That’s where the accountability from other Christians comes in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #303 June 18, 2004 Quoteok i did put a double negative in my original post, but there is no frustration at all, should be "if you think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social/educational process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality" I knew you were one of the liberal "golden boys" in this forum and, therefore, you're granted more freedom to bend the rules. I didn't expect that yours would get deleted. Oh well...Asi es la vida! Quotedo you think peer pressure plays no part of the educational process? to do so is ignorant. Sure...maybe...irrelevant. You decide consitutionality or lawfulness based on what someone might get pressured into doing? Quotefact, not an attack. I think that's the moderator's job to determine if something fits the rules or not in this forum. Not you. Well, maybe you can. Nevermind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #304 June 18, 2004 Quote I’d be interested in hearing from a reputable source that knows what the hell he/she’s talking about on the subject. I don’t think you qualify having taken some undergraduate (elective?) courses at a “liberal arts” institution. I'd say formal study at most any undergraduate institution qualifies most people to talk about the subjects they’ve studied. I'm sorry if you don’t consider my education "reputable", a good portion of your Methodist faction holds it in high regard. With my undergraduate degree in Literature, a BFA in Fine Art and a significant portion of the courses required towards my masters in Literature, I’ve studied a good bit more than an 'elective' course. How much formal education do you have on the subject? Have you ever done any physiological study of writers and characters throughout literature? QuoteMy question still stands. Who are you to say to anyone how God speaks to them?? I think what I was trying to say in my “re-quote” was exactly what I’m trying to say to you now. I’m not saying I’m anyone who can say how God talks or communicates to people. I just said that he does so in different ways. I meant exactly what you said. Who’s to say? QuoteSociety has a lovely way of labeling those who don’t ‘fit’ insane, and lock them away to keep their ideas from spreading to its impressionable youth…your seem just as ready to label anyone who doesn’t think and feel God in the manner you perceive him to be insane as well.. I don’t believe I ever did that. If you can find that I did, please quote. you labeled "Son of Sam" as insane because of the source of his belief. What you may fail to realize is the test of his sanity is based on his actions, not his beliefs. He may certainly be a threat to others, but is he insane because he claims God spoke to him thru dogs or because he lacked the basic respect for the lives of others and their beliefs? There is a woman not far from where I live in Washington who believed God speaks to her thru the a Norwegian alien lizard that appears in her kitchen. I don’t get it any more than why you gather in churches and sing bad songs to your Lord, but neither of you are insane for believing so… She’s not trying to get us to acknowledge God in our country’s pledge either though, so perhaps she is ‘more sane’ than the Christians.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #304 June 18, 2004 Quote I’d be interested in hearing from a reputable source that knows what the hell he/she’s talking about on the subject. I don’t think you qualify having taken some undergraduate (elective?) courses at a “liberal arts” institution. I'd say formal study at most any undergraduate institution qualifies most people to talk about the subjects they’ve studied. I'm sorry if you don’t consider my education "reputable", a good portion of your Methodist faction holds it in high regard. With my undergraduate degree in Literature, a BFA in Fine Art and a significant portion of the courses required towards my masters in Literature, I’ve studied a good bit more than an 'elective' course. How much formal education do you have on the subject? Have you ever done any physiological study of writers and characters throughout literature? QuoteMy question still stands. Who are you to say to anyone how God speaks to them?? I think what I was trying to say in my “re-quote” was exactly what I’m trying to say to you now. I’m not saying I’m anyone who can say how God talks or communicates to people. I just said that he does so in different ways. I meant exactly what you said. Who’s to say? QuoteSociety has a lovely way of labeling those who don’t ‘fit’ insane, and lock them away to keep their ideas from spreading to its impressionable youth…your seem just as ready to label anyone who doesn’t think and feel God in the manner you perceive him to be insane as well.. I don’t believe I ever did that. If you can find that I did, please quote. you labeled "Son of Sam" as insane because of the source of his belief. What you may fail to realize is the test of his sanity is based on his actions, not his beliefs. He may certainly be a threat to others, but is he insane because he claims God spoke to him thru dogs or because he lacked the basic respect for the lives of others and their beliefs? There is a woman not far from where I live in Washington who believed God speaks to her thru the a Norwegian alien lizard that appears in her kitchen. I don’t get it any more than why you gather in churches and sing bad songs to your Lord, but neither of you are insane for believing so… She’s not trying to get us to acknowledge God in our country’s pledge either though, so perhaps she is ‘more sane’ than the Christians.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #305 June 18, 2004 QuoteWhy is it OK to make people who don't acknowledge a deity by the name of God do so in a national pledge? There’s “majority rule” in a democratic society. Like it or not. That’s not to say that the rights of the minority can be trampled on. However, in this case, they’re not. NOBODY is making them say, as you said, the pledge with “Under God” included in it. QuoteEspecially when there is a strong tradition of the government, as an entity, not endorsing a particular religion? “Under God” is not the endorsement of a particular religion. QuoteIt's naive to say that no one is forced to say the Pledge; children, in class, with all their peers, have to say it unless they're extremely strong-minded. Otherwise there are all the conversations and rumors afterwards. Adults, too. Especially when folks will say that anyone who doesn't toe the patriotic line is a traitor . This is not a “feel good” society where no one is allowed to be upset, offended, or embarrassed. Just because someone might feel pressured into doing something that’s not required of them does not justify making it illegal or unconstitutional. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #306 June 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteok i did put a double negative in my original post, but there is no frustration at all, should be "if you think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social/educational process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality" I knew you were one of the liberal "golden boys" in this forum and, therefore, you're granted more freedom to bend the rules. I didn't expect that yours would get deleted. Oh well...Asi es la vida! Lose an argumentive point and so you scream favoritism? how childish, I did expect better from anyone who chooses to participate in open discussion in the Speakers Forum, if you cant handle being called on an ignorant belief then maybe you shouldn’t debate? QuoteYou decide consitutionality or lawfulness based on what someone might get pressured into doing? when that clear social pressure results in a de facto endorsement of religion? absolutely.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #307 June 18, 2004 Quote QuoteEspecially when there is a strong tradition of the government, as an entity, not endorsing a particular religion? “Under God” is not the endorsement of a particular religion. As government could never be expected to endorse all religions equally, it should not endorse any at all. ' the purpose of the pledge is to unite, why do christians insist on wording (in this and many many other places throughout their literature) that divides?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #308 June 18, 2004 QuoteThere’s “majority rule” in a democratic society. Like it or not. That’s not to say that the rights of the minority can be trampled on. However, in this case, they’re not. NOBODY is making them say, as you said, the pledge with “Under God” included in it. Yes, they are. Since as you stated, it is OFFICIAL. If I want to officially pledge my allegiance i have to do so with the words under god in it. That's wrong. QuoteThis is not a “feel good” society where no one is allowed to be upset, offended, or embarrassed. Just because someone might feel pressured into doing something that’s not required of them does not justify making it illegal or unconstitutional. The words under god were added to make people like you feel good. And you want to keep them there so that you are not offended. Seems like a double standard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,587 #309 June 18, 2004 Quote“Under God” is not the endorsement of a particular religion. It is an endorsement of Christianity. While some Christians may consider that not to be a religion (where methodist, baptist, or lutheran would be), non-Christians do. Do you see a significant difference between Shiites and Sunnis? Probably not. So we don't trample on the rights of the minority; we don't force them to say the pledge, but it's perfectly OK to make them really uncomfortable. That does not make America the land of the free, it makes America the land of the mainstream -- become like us or fuck off. It's one thing for groups to do this -- that's well within their rights. It's another for the country to do it. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #310 June 18, 2004 QuoteI'd say formal study at most any undergraduate institution qualifies most people to talk about the subjects they’ve studied. I'm sorry if you don’t consider my education "reputable", a good portion of your Methodist faction holds it in high regard. With my undergraduate degree in Literature, a BFA in Fine Art and a significant portion of the courses required towards my masters in Literature, I’ve studied a good bit more than an 'elective' course. How much formal education do you have on the subject? Have you ever done any physiological study of writers and characters throughout literature? I don’t belong to a Methodist “faction.” As for higher education, I went to Auburn University and The University of Alabama at Birmingham……not LaGrange College (which is Methodist). You can talk about it all day long just like I can. You, however, were talking about expert Phychologist/Phychiatrist opinion. I don’t qualify you as being able to prove someone insane or not based on your undergraduate work. Except for a few core courses, I have no further studies in the area. My degree is Management Information Systems. I still don’t consider your opinion “expert” in the field. I don’t think anyone else would either. Again, however, feel free to babble. Quoteyou labeled "Son of Sam" as insane because of the source of his belief. What you may fail to realize is the test of his sanity is based on his actions, not his beliefs. I didn’t bring up “Son of Sam.” That was a quote from someone else. I believe PhillyKev. QuoteHe may certainly be a threat to others, but is he insane because he claims God spoke to him thru dogs or because he lacked the basic respect for the lives of others and their beliefs? There is a woman not far from where I live in Washington who believed God speaks to her thru the a Norwegian alien lizard that appears in her kitchen. I don’t get it any more than why you gather in churches and sing bad songs to your Lord, but neither of you are insane for believing so… You’re credibility is plummeting. That woman may not, in fact, be “all there”, however, you’re comparing her and all churchgoers to the insanity of “Son of Sam?” Sounds crazy to me, however again, I’m not expert. QuoteShe’s not trying to get us to acknowledge God in our country’s pledge either though, so perhaps she is ‘more sane’ than the Christians. Again, in your “expert” medical opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #311 June 18, 2004 Lose an argumentive point and so you scream favoritism? how childish, I did expect better from anyone who chooses to participate in open discussion in the Speakers Forum, if you cant handle being called on an ignorant belief then maybe you shouldn’t debate? My calling you out on breaking the rules of debate "here" is not "loosing and argumentive point." If you can't handle the rules "here", then maybe you shouldn't debate (here). There are other places to go. I thought the idea was to attack the idea and not the person. Quotewhen that clear social pressure results in a de facto endorsement of religion? absolutely. That's weak... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #312 June 18, 2004 QuoteAs government could never be expected to endorse all religions equally, it should not endorse any at all. And it doesn't. Quotethe purpose of the pledge is to unite, why do christians insist on wording (in this and many many other places throughout their literature) that divides? Pertaining to the Pledge...it doesn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #313 June 18, 2004 QuoteIt is an endorsement of Christianity. While some Christians may consider that not to be a religion (where methodist, baptist, or lutheran would be), non-Christians do. “Under Jesus” would be the endorsement of Christianity. “Under God” could be any god including the Christian one. QuoteDo you see a significant difference between Shiites and Sunnis? Probably not. So we don't trample on the rights of the minority; we don't force them to say the pledge, but it's perfectly OK to make them really uncomfortable. That does not make America the land of the free, it makes America the land of the mainstream -- become like us or fuck off. When I was in Afghanistan, an Afghani who worked for us was murdered. He was also a good friend. Most of my team was invited inside the Mosque in the middle of town for a memorial service. We later also attended the burial on the other side of town. We went to the Mosque out of respect for our friend and followed their traditions to the letter. Except, when they prayed to Allah, those of us who were Christians remained silent. I personally don’t believe in praying for the dead so I didn’t (I’m not Catholic). I just sat there quietly and participated in everything that didn’t involve me praying to Allah. I wasn’t offended and I didn’t feel uncomfortable even though I was one of the very few white people in the whole town. I was also not pressured in the slightest to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #314 June 18, 2004 your Christian, Methodist is one of your factions. I am talking about evaluation of mental states and character evaluations of writers thru their written work, and it is my reasonably well educated opinion on Literature and its writers as viewed thru well recognized psychological analysis techniques applied in modern literary criticism. There are a number of sources for the technique, if you take the time to learn, but you wont find it on many Christian reading lists, and you while don’t get (or need for study) a degree in psychology, you do learn quite a lot about the field and its standards and practices. i'm also not the one making claims about anyone's sanity or their communication method with the divine.. you are. ps. "ex" is a has been and i believe "pert" is a drip under pressure...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #315 June 18, 2004 QuoteLose an argumentive point and so you scream favoritism? how childish, I did expect better from anyone who chooses to participate in open discussion in the Speakers Forum, if you cant handle being called on an ignorant belief then maybe you shouldn’t debate? My calling you out on breaking the rules of debate "here" is not "loosing and argumentive point." If you can't handle the rules "here", then maybe you shouldn't debate (here). There are other places to go. I thought the idea was to attack the idea and not the person. please show we where i attacked you and not the belief (in fact it was a question, "IF you believe...") that peer pressure is not a significant factor in the social/educational process. That belief is ignorant. If I believed it, I would be ignorant, but calling the belief so is not the same as calling me so. At any rate this sub discussion is pointless. I’m through with it. Of course I wasn’t offended in the first place, nor do I become offended in an open debate forum.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #316 June 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteAs government could never be expected to endorse all religions equally, it should not endorse any at all. And it doesn't. Quotethe purpose of the pledge is to unite, why do christians insist on wording (in this and many many other places throughout their literature) that divides? Pertaining to the Pledge...it doesn't. unless your an atheist, or don’t recognize the concept of God in quite the same manner as the large monotheistic religions... pretty much the phrase is only meaningful to the religion that lobbied to have it changed in 1954. Christians.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #317 June 18, 2004 Quoteyour Christian, Methodist is one of your factions. Catholics are also Christian. I’m not Catholic. There’s a LOT of difference. QuoteI am talking about evaluation of mental states and character evaluations of writers thru their written work, and it is my reasonably well educated opinion on Literature and its writers as viewed thru well recognized psychological analysis techniques applied in modern literary criticism. There are a number of sources for the technique, if you take the time to learn, but you wont find it on many Christian reading lists, and you while don’t get (or need for study) a degree in psychology, you do learn quite a lot about the field and its standards and practices. Ok. So you can prove through your studies that the writers of the Biblical text were insane? That might be an interesting read. I’d like to see some of your work on the subject. Quotei'm also not the one making claims about anyone's sanity or their communication method with the divine.. you are. I made reference to communication methods but I didn’t bring up the topic of insanity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #318 June 18, 2004 Quoteplease show we where i attacked you and not the belief (in fact it was a question, "IF you believe...") that peer pressure is not a significant factor in the social/educational process. That belief is ignorant. If I believed it, I would be ignorant, but calling the belief so is not the same as calling me so. At any rate this sub discussion is pointless. I’m through with it. Of course I wasn’t offended in the first place, nor do I become offended in an open debate forum. FIRST: Quotethey absolutely are. If you dont think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality. SECOND: (Correction) Quoteok i did put a double negative in my original post, but there is no frustration at all, should be "if you think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social/educational process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality" I think you directed that at me by using the wording “you.” Not “belief.” I could be wrong, though. At any rate….”bu-buy.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #319 June 18, 2004 Please lock this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #320 June 18, 2004 QuotePlease lock this thread. I agree. Stop the maddness!..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #321 June 18, 2004 Catholic is a Christian faction as well, your the differences in your internal dogma are largely irrelevant for any non-Christian. You use the same source material for your belief and all claim to be following the "divinely inspired word of God" QuoteOk. So you can prove through your studies that the writers of the Biblical text were insane? That might be an interesting read. I’d like to see some of your work on the subject. no. first off none is ever 'proven' insane, even by degreed specialists. People exhibit, 'abnormal behavior' that is categorized and classified next to a defined norm. If someone talks to their sock puppet and believe it answers by the predefined norm they going to be classified (and possibly locked away based on financial and threat level concerns) as insane. does that mean their sock puppet doesn’t speak to them? prove it. you can show patterns of expression, behavior by character and plot structure elements exhibited by all authors (and by proxy intentionally or not depending on the skills of the author their characters) that have what we would ‘now’ classify as psychotic tendencies. The last actual paper I did on a biblical source was Daniel, quite a while ago, but I’ll see if I can find it for you if your really interested. Might have to mail it to you though i dont think i have it softcopy anywhere... you'd actually have to have a living person in front of a psychiatric panel to have them ‘declared’ insane. but to stray farther afield, would you call someone who consistently exhibited a different perception of reality from your own "insane"? if so, why?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zenister 0 #322 June 18, 2004 if is a qualifier. read for content, not for offense.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #323 June 18, 2004 QuoteCatholic is a Christian faction as well, your the differences in your internal dogma are largely irrelevant for any non-Christian. Maybe so…but you’re the one that brought up Methodism as if that would somehow boost your credibility in my opinion in reference to your level or quality of higher education. QuoteYou use the same source material for your belief and all claim to be following the "divinely inspired word of God" Catholics include more books in their Bible. They accept more source material than Protestants. Also, there are both liberal and more conservative denominations and denominational splits which may or may not believe completely in the “divinely inspired word of God. You can’t lump sum us all together. No need to send a copy of your paper to me…really. You’d have to go a long way to convince me, and I think most people, that the writers of the Bible were insane or displayed psychotic tendencies. I don’t believe the evidence shows that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #324 June 18, 2004 Quoteif is a qualifier. read for content, not for offense. I think it would be easier just to be clear and attack the idea and not the person. That's just me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrunkMonkey 0 #325 June 18, 2004 "Hi- I'm a Runaway Thread. Please lock me!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next Page 13 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
PhillyKev 0 #308 June 18, 2004 QuoteThere’s “majority rule” in a democratic society. Like it or not. That’s not to say that the rights of the minority can be trampled on. However, in this case, they’re not. NOBODY is making them say, as you said, the pledge with “Under God” included in it. Yes, they are. Since as you stated, it is OFFICIAL. If I want to officially pledge my allegiance i have to do so with the words under god in it. That's wrong. QuoteThis is not a “feel good” society where no one is allowed to be upset, offended, or embarrassed. Just because someone might feel pressured into doing something that’s not required of them does not justify making it illegal or unconstitutional. The words under god were added to make people like you feel good. And you want to keep them there so that you are not offended. Seems like a double standard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #309 June 18, 2004 Quote“Under God” is not the endorsement of a particular religion. It is an endorsement of Christianity. While some Christians may consider that not to be a religion (where methodist, baptist, or lutheran would be), non-Christians do. Do you see a significant difference between Shiites and Sunnis? Probably not. So we don't trample on the rights of the minority; we don't force them to say the pledge, but it's perfectly OK to make them really uncomfortable. That does not make America the land of the free, it makes America the land of the mainstream -- become like us or fuck off. It's one thing for groups to do this -- that's well within their rights. It's another for the country to do it. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #310 June 18, 2004 QuoteI'd say formal study at most any undergraduate institution qualifies most people to talk about the subjects they’ve studied. I'm sorry if you don’t consider my education "reputable", a good portion of your Methodist faction holds it in high regard. With my undergraduate degree in Literature, a BFA in Fine Art and a significant portion of the courses required towards my masters in Literature, I’ve studied a good bit more than an 'elective' course. How much formal education do you have on the subject? Have you ever done any physiological study of writers and characters throughout literature? I don’t belong to a Methodist “faction.” As for higher education, I went to Auburn University and The University of Alabama at Birmingham……not LaGrange College (which is Methodist). You can talk about it all day long just like I can. You, however, were talking about expert Phychologist/Phychiatrist opinion. I don’t qualify you as being able to prove someone insane or not based on your undergraduate work. Except for a few core courses, I have no further studies in the area. My degree is Management Information Systems. I still don’t consider your opinion “expert” in the field. I don’t think anyone else would either. Again, however, feel free to babble. Quoteyou labeled "Son of Sam" as insane because of the source of his belief. What you may fail to realize is the test of his sanity is based on his actions, not his beliefs. I didn’t bring up “Son of Sam.” That was a quote from someone else. I believe PhillyKev. QuoteHe may certainly be a threat to others, but is he insane because he claims God spoke to him thru dogs or because he lacked the basic respect for the lives of others and their beliefs? There is a woman not far from where I live in Washington who believed God speaks to her thru the a Norwegian alien lizard that appears in her kitchen. I don’t get it any more than why you gather in churches and sing bad songs to your Lord, but neither of you are insane for believing so… You’re credibility is plummeting. That woman may not, in fact, be “all there”, however, you’re comparing her and all churchgoers to the insanity of “Son of Sam?” Sounds crazy to me, however again, I’m not expert. QuoteShe’s not trying to get us to acknowledge God in our country’s pledge either though, so perhaps she is ‘more sane’ than the Christians. Again, in your “expert” medical opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #311 June 18, 2004 Lose an argumentive point and so you scream favoritism? how childish, I did expect better from anyone who chooses to participate in open discussion in the Speakers Forum, if you cant handle being called on an ignorant belief then maybe you shouldn’t debate? My calling you out on breaking the rules of debate "here" is not "loosing and argumentive point." If you can't handle the rules "here", then maybe you shouldn't debate (here). There are other places to go. I thought the idea was to attack the idea and not the person. Quotewhen that clear social pressure results in a de facto endorsement of religion? absolutely. That's weak... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #312 June 18, 2004 QuoteAs government could never be expected to endorse all religions equally, it should not endorse any at all. And it doesn't. Quotethe purpose of the pledge is to unite, why do christians insist on wording (in this and many many other places throughout their literature) that divides? Pertaining to the Pledge...it doesn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #313 June 18, 2004 QuoteIt is an endorsement of Christianity. While some Christians may consider that not to be a religion (where methodist, baptist, or lutheran would be), non-Christians do. “Under Jesus” would be the endorsement of Christianity. “Under God” could be any god including the Christian one. QuoteDo you see a significant difference between Shiites and Sunnis? Probably not. So we don't trample on the rights of the minority; we don't force them to say the pledge, but it's perfectly OK to make them really uncomfortable. That does not make America the land of the free, it makes America the land of the mainstream -- become like us or fuck off. When I was in Afghanistan, an Afghani who worked for us was murdered. He was also a good friend. Most of my team was invited inside the Mosque in the middle of town for a memorial service. We later also attended the burial on the other side of town. We went to the Mosque out of respect for our friend and followed their traditions to the letter. Except, when they prayed to Allah, those of us who were Christians remained silent. I personally don’t believe in praying for the dead so I didn’t (I’m not Catholic). I just sat there quietly and participated in everything that didn’t involve me praying to Allah. I wasn’t offended and I didn’t feel uncomfortable even though I was one of the very few white people in the whole town. I was also not pressured in the slightest to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #314 June 18, 2004 your Christian, Methodist is one of your factions. I am talking about evaluation of mental states and character evaluations of writers thru their written work, and it is my reasonably well educated opinion on Literature and its writers as viewed thru well recognized psychological analysis techniques applied in modern literary criticism. There are a number of sources for the technique, if you take the time to learn, but you wont find it on many Christian reading lists, and you while don’t get (or need for study) a degree in psychology, you do learn quite a lot about the field and its standards and practices. i'm also not the one making claims about anyone's sanity or their communication method with the divine.. you are. ps. "ex" is a has been and i believe "pert" is a drip under pressure...____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #315 June 18, 2004 QuoteLose an argumentive point and so you scream favoritism? how childish, I did expect better from anyone who chooses to participate in open discussion in the Speakers Forum, if you cant handle being called on an ignorant belief then maybe you shouldn’t debate? My calling you out on breaking the rules of debate "here" is not "loosing and argumentive point." If you can't handle the rules "here", then maybe you shouldn't debate (here). There are other places to go. I thought the idea was to attack the idea and not the person. please show we where i attacked you and not the belief (in fact it was a question, "IF you believe...") that peer pressure is not a significant factor in the social/educational process. That belief is ignorant. If I believed it, I would be ignorant, but calling the belief so is not the same as calling me so. At any rate this sub discussion is pointless. I’m through with it. Of course I wasn’t offended in the first place, nor do I become offended in an open debate forum.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #316 June 18, 2004 QuoteQuoteAs government could never be expected to endorse all religions equally, it should not endorse any at all. And it doesn't. Quotethe purpose of the pledge is to unite, why do christians insist on wording (in this and many many other places throughout their literature) that divides? Pertaining to the Pledge...it doesn't. unless your an atheist, or don’t recognize the concept of God in quite the same manner as the large monotheistic religions... pretty much the phrase is only meaningful to the religion that lobbied to have it changed in 1954. Christians.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #317 June 18, 2004 Quoteyour Christian, Methodist is one of your factions. Catholics are also Christian. I’m not Catholic. There’s a LOT of difference. QuoteI am talking about evaluation of mental states and character evaluations of writers thru their written work, and it is my reasonably well educated opinion on Literature and its writers as viewed thru well recognized psychological analysis techniques applied in modern literary criticism. There are a number of sources for the technique, if you take the time to learn, but you wont find it on many Christian reading lists, and you while don’t get (or need for study) a degree in psychology, you do learn quite a lot about the field and its standards and practices. Ok. So you can prove through your studies that the writers of the Biblical text were insane? That might be an interesting read. I’d like to see some of your work on the subject. Quotei'm also not the one making claims about anyone's sanity or their communication method with the divine.. you are. I made reference to communication methods but I didn’t bring up the topic of insanity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #318 June 18, 2004 Quoteplease show we where i attacked you and not the belief (in fact it was a question, "IF you believe...") that peer pressure is not a significant factor in the social/educational process. That belief is ignorant. If I believed it, I would be ignorant, but calling the belief so is not the same as calling me so. At any rate this sub discussion is pointless. I’m through with it. Of course I wasn’t offended in the first place, nor do I become offended in an open debate forum. FIRST: Quotethey absolutely are. If you dont think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality. SECOND: (Correction) Quoteok i did put a double negative in my original post, but there is no frustration at all, should be "if you think peer pressure is not a significant part of the social/educational process, particularly for young children, your simply ignorant of reality" I think you directed that at me by using the wording “you.” Not “belief.” I could be wrong, though. At any rate….”bu-buy.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #319 June 18, 2004 Please lock this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #320 June 18, 2004 QuotePlease lock this thread. I agree. Stop the maddness!..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #321 June 18, 2004 Catholic is a Christian faction as well, your the differences in your internal dogma are largely irrelevant for any non-Christian. You use the same source material for your belief and all claim to be following the "divinely inspired word of God" QuoteOk. So you can prove through your studies that the writers of the Biblical text were insane? That might be an interesting read. I’d like to see some of your work on the subject. no. first off none is ever 'proven' insane, even by degreed specialists. People exhibit, 'abnormal behavior' that is categorized and classified next to a defined norm. If someone talks to their sock puppet and believe it answers by the predefined norm they going to be classified (and possibly locked away based on financial and threat level concerns) as insane. does that mean their sock puppet doesn’t speak to them? prove it. you can show patterns of expression, behavior by character and plot structure elements exhibited by all authors (and by proxy intentionally or not depending on the skills of the author their characters) that have what we would ‘now’ classify as psychotic tendencies. The last actual paper I did on a biblical source was Daniel, quite a while ago, but I’ll see if I can find it for you if your really interested. Might have to mail it to you though i dont think i have it softcopy anywhere... you'd actually have to have a living person in front of a psychiatric panel to have them ‘declared’ insane. but to stray farther afield, would you call someone who consistently exhibited a different perception of reality from your own "insane"? if so, why?____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #322 June 18, 2004 if is a qualifier. read for content, not for offense.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #323 June 18, 2004 QuoteCatholic is a Christian faction as well, your the differences in your internal dogma are largely irrelevant for any non-Christian. Maybe so…but you’re the one that brought up Methodism as if that would somehow boost your credibility in my opinion in reference to your level or quality of higher education. QuoteYou use the same source material for your belief and all claim to be following the "divinely inspired word of God" Catholics include more books in their Bible. They accept more source material than Protestants. Also, there are both liberal and more conservative denominations and denominational splits which may or may not believe completely in the “divinely inspired word of God. You can’t lump sum us all together. No need to send a copy of your paper to me…really. You’d have to go a long way to convince me, and I think most people, that the writers of the Bible were insane or displayed psychotic tendencies. I don’t believe the evidence shows that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #324 June 18, 2004 Quoteif is a qualifier. read for content, not for offense. I think it would be easier just to be clear and attack the idea and not the person. That's just me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #325 June 18, 2004 "Hi- I'm a Runaway Thread. Please lock me!!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
