A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Prayer request



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old June 19th 20, 04:25 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Prayer request

On 6/19/2020 10:18 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 19.06.2020 um 15:51 schrieb :

Certainly, atheists are happy to say that because it isn't possible
in the length of time this universe has existed for the human genome
to develop that magic must have happened to speed it up. And they
object to most religions saying that God created the heaven and Earth
as a retreat to magic.


There were times when human scientists said "according to science,
Bumblebees can't fly"


No, sorry. That's a grossly distorted simplification of what was
actually said.

See
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bumblebees-cant-fly/
or many other references.

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #82  
Old June 19th 20, 05:43 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Prayer request

On 6/19/2020 9:48 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 7:18:50 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 19.06.2020 um 15:51 schrieb
:

Certainly, atheists are happy to say that because it isn't possible
in the length of time this universe has existed for the human genome
to develop that magic must have happened to speed it up. And they
object to most religions saying that God created the heaven and Earth
as a retreat to magic.


There were times when human scientists said "according to science,
Bumblebees can't fly" Obviously, bumblebees can fly, and they don't
need magic for it. Human scientists were just not sufficiently advanced
in understanding insect flight.

Similarly, "it isn't possible in the length of time of this universe" is
clearly not true. The human genome has developed in the time of this
universe, and if we're too stupid to understand how, that's only a sign
of our stupidity and not a sign the magic would be needed to create
human beings.


Not understanding aerodynamics is one thing. We have a complete understanding of the rates of mutation and change in DNA structures. Try as we might we have NEVER found a single example of a new species appearing from "evolution". Darwin's Finches are only an example of evolution improving a species to operate better inside its environment.

We can find NOWHERE in the fossil records ANY intermediate steps between species. You are doing nothing more than waving your hands and saying that it really isn't magic, we just can't see behind the curtain. Well we have looked behind the curtain and there's nothing there.



The bumblebee analysis was shown more clearly with high
speed photography. They don't flap like an orinthopter but
rather makes a scooping figure-8-ish wing movement.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #83  
Old June 19th 20, 06:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Prayer request

On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 8:22:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.



And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly
developed moral code than religious people.


On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most
"Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a
wonderful moral code.

On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid
people with no apparent moral standards at all.

So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of
uselessness.


Has the sentence been disqualified? I'm keeping score here. I think Ralph is just making the unassailable point that believing or not believing in god is not the sin qua non of ethical behavior. There were plenty of ethical pre-Christians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ethics


If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a
large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or
"believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group.
Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes,
which is a tough job in itself.

They just have to develop it
from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in
the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your
fellow man.


I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious
people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person
who literally believes in that cartoon figure.

So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument.



Some religious people are deserving of mockery: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0LEzejbgvLU/hqdefault.jpg And again, the point is just that some people derive an ethical code and others have it foisted upon them. That's obvious when the example is any religion with canon law.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #84  
Old June 19th 20, 08:31 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
AMuzi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,447
Default Prayer request

On 6/19/2020 12:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 8:22:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.



And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly
developed moral code than religious people.


On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most
"Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a
wonderful moral code.

On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid
people with no apparent moral standards at all.

So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of
uselessness.


Has the sentence been disqualified? I'm keeping score here. I think Ralph is just making the unassailable point that believing or not believing in god is not the sin qua non of ethical behavior. There were plenty of ethical pre-Christians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ethics


If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a
large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or
"believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group.
Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes,
which is a tough job in itself.

They just have to develop it
from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in
the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your
fellow man.


I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious
people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person
who literally believes in that cartoon figure.

So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument.



Some religious people are deserving of mockery: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0LEzejbgvLU/hqdefault.jpg And again, the point is just that some people derive an ethical code and others have it foisted upon them. That's obvious when the example is any religion with canon law.

-- Jay Beattie.


Tammy Faye Bakker? You skipped the easy one - your local
Oregon Bagwan!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


  #86  
Old June 19th 20, 10:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Prayer request

On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 12:31:25 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/19/2020 12:33 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 8:22:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.

  #87  
Old June 19th 20, 10:34 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Ralph Barone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 853
Default Prayer request

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.



And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly
developed moral code than religious people.


On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most
"Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a
wonderful moral code.

On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid
people with no apparent moral standards at all.



Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes.

So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of
uselessness.

If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a
large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or
"believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group.
Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes,
which is a tough job in itself.


Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count
going to church as one of them.

They just have to develop it
from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in
the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your
fellow man.


I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious
people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person
who literally believes in that cartoon figure.

So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument.


No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament
down to a single phrase. It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it
sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is
no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t
punish you if you don’t.”, would your moral compass point a different
direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral
behaviour.


  #88  
Old June 19th 20, 11:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Prayer request

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:18:47 +0200, Rolf Mantel
wrote:

Am 19.06.2020 um 15:51 schrieb :

Certainly, atheists are happy to say that because it isn't possible
in the length of time this universe has existed for the human genome
to develop that magic must have happened to speed it up. And they
object to most religions saying that God created the heaven and Earth
as a retreat to magic.


There were times when human scientists said "according to science,
Bumblebees can't fly" Obviously, bumblebees can fly, and they don't
need magic for it. Human scientists were just not sufficiently advanced
in understanding insect flight.


You are referring to a "theory" perhaps put forth by a collage student
that proved that a bumble bee couldn't fly. Unfortunately or perhaps
deliberately, the theory was based on a bumble bee being a fixed wing
device when in fact it is not.

A subsequent theory, that a bumble bee could fly, based on the bee
being a moving wing device was also expounded which proved to be
correct.

Rather like the fact that Dihydrogen monoxide is a dangerous
substance.


Similarly, "it isn't possible in the length of time of this universe" is
clearly not true. The human genome has developed in the time of this
universe, and if we're too stupid to understand how, that's only a sign
of our stupidity and not a sign the magic would be needed to create
human beings.

--
cheers,

John B.

  #89  
Old June 20th 20, 12:25 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Prayer request

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:32:09 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 5:34:46 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:05 PM,
wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 9:58:05 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, June 18, 2020 at 8:35:20 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 8:34 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

Yes, but that's not establishing religion or dictating how we worship -- or what we worship, at least not in the First Amendment sense. ... Most criminal laws fit with secular moral/ethical codes.

I think you're sidestepping the question. What's the source of the
secular moral/ethical codes?


--
- Frank Krygowski

Sidestepping even further, what's the source of religion -- and what is the source of religious prohibitions?

In large part, religion is just the executive branch -- the enforcement mechanism for a lot of social norms, or even worse, the whims of those in power. Do you think Yahweh really gave hygiene tips to Moses? Yahweh had a thing about bodily discharges:
http://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bi...till%20evening

You know, if I were Yahweh, I'd be more of a big picture guy and maybe delegate the whole hygiene thing to one of my subordinates.

Worshiping another god will get you the death penalty (Exodus/Deuteronomy). That, I think, would present a constitutional problem. Imagine getting pulled over and hauled off for worshiping another god. Sales for Black Sabbath t-shirts would go down the toilet.

Anyway, secular laws may track religious prohibitions, but that doesn't make them religious. They represent a consensus opinion that existed long before any modern religion.

According to the wonderful world of WIKI, "One of the oldest-known prohibitions against murder appears in the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu written sometime between 2100 and 2050 BC. The code states, "If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...e%20killed.%22

-- Jay Beattie.

I think that the Jews had something like 622 religious laws. Jesus reduced these to just two - Remember thy lord thy God and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That should be simple enough for even a lawyer to understand.



Loopholes. There are always loopholes.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971


I'm Catholic though perhaps lapsed, but MAN are there loopholes. I'm thinking that my wife is going to be doing God's dishes for at least half of an eternity in purgatory until she learns to clean something. In her Church of England style she thinks that all you have to do is say, "I'm sorry" and all is forgiven.


And a Catholic can go to confession, tell the Priest his/her/its
transgressions, say two Our Fathers and three Hail Mary's, make a good
Act of Contrition and you are free to sin for another week.
--
cheers,

John B.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Dog's Prayer Simon Jester UK 0 September 20th 19 09:58 PM
Nativity Prayer of St. Augustine Claire Towny UK 4 December 25th 09 09:25 PM
Chalkbot is as worthless as prayer. Anton Berlin Racing 3 July 8th 09 09:25 PM
A short prayer.... Callistus Valerius Racing 8 June 12th 07 02:46 PM
The Cyclists Prayer Mark Johnson UK 3 March 9th 05 08:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.