Gr666mer Updates

[jamil]

This is his standard MO, period. Which is why I refuse to engage with him. AT ALL. EVERY LAST controversial thread that goes sideways like this is the same with him. Attack, deflect, and refuse to directly answer questions.
Not worth the time. Y'all apparently have much more patience for that crap than I do.

If there's an MO, I think it's more that it's ****ting on Christians in general, whenever arguing whatever point involving religious people. Here we have Christians talking about the evils of porn. So retort with examples from the bible that are immoral by today's standards, while ignoring that they themselves would have done the same things had they been alive at the time. The religious/secular **** is a conflict of worldviews and it's not gonna be solved because the sides think that the only solution is agreement with their side. In the case of atheists, they don't want a mutual understanding. They want religion to die.

I'm not religious, but I think religion has played an important part in developing moral standards that led to human societies being capable of scaling with a high degree of freedom, to an extent they couldn't have otherwise. Particularly Judaeo-Christian religions as they matured.

I'm not sure those beneficially moral precepts would have evolved apart from religion. Even from a secular worldview, I think such religions have led human's ability to handle freedom, at least for a time. But many secular people have a burr up their asses about religion, and so they have to **** on it whenever they have the chance.

 

[jamil]

PIA VPN, for example, let's you choose from servers around the country and around the world. I'll change mine periodically, and choose the one that currently shows the lowest latency.

Well. If everyone in Kansas are out...uh...with their sheep, I guess that might promote low latency.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

 

[DadSmith]

I'm familiar with the constitution. I'm familiar with the Bible. What I want you to do is establish the claims you're making with specifics. Like this statement in the constitution was derived from this verse in the Bible. And it would be helpful if you could show the evidence that the concept in the constitution came exclusively from the Bible.

But, if you're only saying that the constitution contains concepts you might also find in the Bible, okay then. But it's hardly a point worth making. One could pick out anything in the constitution and find something similar in the bible. You could do the same with many literary works. Rather, it seemed to me that you were drawing a significance with the Bible, that but for the Bible, we could not have the founding principles we have. I think to some extent that's true in that all the life experiences of all those involved, combined into an overall worldview that led to the constitution being what it was. But then the Bible's impact on it is of no more importance than the philosophies of Ancient Greeks.

I agree with you here. Our government took from all the best governments in history, and revamped it to what ended up being the Constitution. Biblical principles are all over our government. Just go visit Washington DC and start reading all the Biblical verses you find all over the government buildings. Our laws until they started changing in the late 1800's many were from the Torah.

When people say the founders only used secular ideals in the making of our country that is false. I believe that in certain areas our government used Biblical principles and other areas it did not. Otherwise we'd be like Iran.

To go through all the federalist papers, and letters again to point out what our founders believed, and wanted at this stage in my life would be time consuming.
It's in there and it's also in direct quotes, letters, and speeches given by our founders.
If one really wants to know the truth they need to dig in for themselves so nothing is taken out of context.
That doesn't mean reading professor x view on the subject, but reading it and finding it out for oneself.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I agree with you here. Our government took from all the best governments in history, and revamped it to what ended up being the Constitution. Biblical principles are all over our government. Just go visit Washington DC and start reading all the Biblical verses you find all over the government buildings. Our laws until they started changing in the late 1800's many were from the Torah.

When people say the founders only used secular ideals in the making of our country that is false. I believe that in certain areas our government used Biblical principles and other areas it did not. Otherwise we'd be like Iran.

To go through all the federalist papers, and letters again to point out what our founders believed, and wanted at this stage in my life would be time consuming.
It's in there and it's also in direct quotes, letters, and speeches given by our founders.
If one really wants to know the truth they need to dig in for themselves so nothing is taken out of context.
That doesn't mean reading professor x view on the subject, but reading it and finding it out for oneself.

The book I posted upthread does that for you.

And many of the religious references were added later. Like the whole "In god we trust" on money wasnt until the Civil War.

"Under God" wasnt added to the Pledge until the 50s.

 

[DadSmith]

The book I posted upthread does that for you.

It doesn't show up. Can you give the name of it.

 

[Cameramonkey]

It doesn't show up. Can you give the name of it.

The 5000 year leap. You can find it on Amazon

EDIT: your ad blocker must have filtered it. I changed it to a regular link so it would show up for all.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[jamil]

If it's to say that the bible was one of the sources that inhabited the worldview contributing to the constitution I have no disagreement there. It's obvious that many of the founders' religious beliefs influenced them. But what is gained from that?

 

[DadSmith]

The 5000 year leap. You can find it on Amazon

Found it have it saved in cart for my next order.

 

[DadSmith]

If it's to say that the bible was one of the sources that inhabited the worldview contributing to the constitution I have no disagreement there. It's obvious that many of the founders' religious beliefs influenced them. But what is gained from that?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. -George Washington

They understood that without religious principle the country would fall. They were right. As religious belief drops in this country the more immorality springs to life.

 

[jamil]

I agree with you here. Our government took from all the best governments in history, and revamped it to what ended up being the Constitution. Biblical principles are all over our government. Just go visit Washington DC and start reading all the Biblical verses you find all over the government buildings. Our laws until they started changing in the late 1800's many were from the Torah.

When people say the founders only used secular ideals in the making of our country that is false. I believe that in certain areas our government used Biblical principles and other areas it did not. Otherwise we'd be like Iran.

To go through all the federalist papers, and letters again to point out what our founders believed, and wanted at this stage in my life would be time consuming.
It's in there and it's also in direct quotes, letters, and speeches given by our founders.
If one really wants to know the truth they need to dig in for themselves so nothing is taken out of context.
That doesn't mean reading professor x view on the subject, but reading it and finding it out for oneself.

I didn't ask for something exhaustive. I think the claim, or at least the motivation behind the claim, has more to do with justifying a more prominent role of Christianity than there was. Citing scriptural references doesn't really established that. It seemed more like that before, in service of the point about porn, you were saying the nation was founded on biblical principles. And now, it seems like you're saying that biblical principles were merely used. I disagree with the former, but the latter I think is true. The influences of Christianity on the forming of our government are obvious. But anyway, if you always meant the latter, how does that serve the point you were making about porn and what you think government should do about it?

 

[Creedmoor]

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion other than interpreting his statements from the rules within your worldview. I don't recall him openly advocating FOR pornography. What I heard was him defending 1st amendment rights, which courts have upheld. The sexualization of children is sketchy though. He did say that he thinks it's okay for juniors/seniors to have access to it in high school libraries. To me that's not a progression of morals that is beneficial to society.

I posted Seniors Thank you.

What do some here think, kids dont have easy access to nudies and so on?

Many many many nudies in that yellow monthly National Geographic thats been mailed well over a 100 years. With 50% of the print being pictures.
Porn to some here.

 

[Cameramonkey]

And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. -George Washington

They understood that without religious principle the country would fall. They were right. As religious belief drops in this country the more immorality springs to life.

I would argue its just harder to do without God.

I have several friends who are either not religious, atheist, or agnostic and they are all what I would call moral people.

 

[Creedmoor]

This is his standard MO, period. Which is why I refuse to engage with him. AT ALL. EVERY LAST controversial thread that goes sideways like this is the same with him. Attack, deflect, and refuse to directly answer questions.
Not worth the time. Y'all apparently have much more patience for that crap than I do.

But yet you still post your feelings and opinions of me.
How Christian of you. LOL

 

[jamil]

I posted Seniors Thank you.

What do some here think, kids dont have easy access to nudies and so on?

Many many many nudies in that yellow monthly National Geographic thats been mailed well over a 100 years. With 50% of the print being pictures.
Porn to some here.

What value does porn have in a school's library?

National Geographic is not porn. Porn is not merely "nudies". I think you're kinda doing the same to their argument as they're doing to yours. You're arguing against points they didn't make. If your argument is primarily on 1st amendment grounds, okay. Fine. But they're talking about real ass porn, not pictures of some villager's titties in an anthropology/nature magazine. They're saying graphic depictions of people having sex serves no legitimate educational purpose in K-12 and should not be allowed. And since you've put a limit yourself on "Seniors", obviously you don't think the 1st amendment is absolute either. They put that line in a different place than you do.

So you don't disagree that there's a line. You disagree on where it is. So you guys should stick to arguing that and both leave the straw monsters that you've concocted about the other, out of it.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

So you don't disagree that there's a line. You disagree on where it is. So you guys should stick to arguing that and both leave the straw monsters that you've concocted about the other, out of it.

Can you show me a single place where @Creedmoor explained his position in between all the snide comments about how we hate the First Amendment and what hypocrites Christians are? Even you are left only inferring and guessing at what his position actually is.

I'm not against someone having a different opinion; even one that I find morally abhorrent. Heck, some accounts on here that have gone on to be banned (I'm thinking of Epicenity as one example) at least in the threads that I interacted with them in, to be honest, seemed to have more interest in expounding a position and debating it on logical grounds. I didn't (and wouldn't) accuse them of trolling; at least they told you what they think, instead of just trying to goad you into thinking they are defending something, while always refusing to tell you whether they actually are or aren't.

But when someone keeps on posting vague attacks against anyone expressing a certain position, and then gets all up in arms when they assume that this means that he believes the opposite position, all while consistently refusing to expound his actual beliefs, or answer any questions about them; that, to me, is just trolling.

 

[jamil]

And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. -George Washington

They understood that without religious principle the country would fall. They were right. As religious belief drops in this country the more immorality springs to life.

That's a tricky question. From a secular/evolution standpoint, morality has been primarily formed by religion until recently in human history. So I think the morals serve an evolutionary advantage. For example, in some religions you don't wipe your ass with your right hand. That's sacrilege. You eat with your right hand. Did that belief form because people who wipe their ass and then eat with the same hand got sick? And then that was interpreted as defying the gods' will? Seems likely.

Point is, morals that help societies thrive are the morals that last. We figured out that you can wipe with whatever hand you want. Just wash your hands afterwards and you won't get sick. That really wasn't a lasting moral. The question is, can humans override religion and derive morals from something else, and have those morals help societies thrive? That remains to be seen.

We don't need religion to have morals. We may not need religion to create lasting morals. Don't know yet. Maybe religion is what was needed before people could figure out what works without it. Or maybe we can't predict soon enough what bad might come of harmful moral standards. Like the moral standards of woke people. I don't think that a society based on that could last very long.

 

[jamil]

I would argue its just harder to do without God.

I have several friends who are either not religious, atheist, or agnostic and they are all what I would call moral people.

Playing devil's advocate here. Is their morality developed without religion or is it that the culture, derived from primarily religious morality, persistent enough that they've adopted those standards?

 

[Creedmoor]

What value does porn have in a school's library?

National Geographic is not porn. Porn is not merely "nudies". I think you're kinda doing the same to their argument as they're doing to yours. You're arguing against points they didn't make. If your argument is primarily on 1st amendment grounds, okay. Fine. But they're talking about real ass porn, not pictures of some villager's titties in an anthropology/nature magazine. They're saying graphic depictions of people having sex serves no legitimate educational purpose in K-12 and should not be allowed. And since you've put a limit yourself on "Seniors", obviously you don't think the 1st amendment is absolute either. They put that line in a different place than you do.

So you don't disagree that there's a line. You disagree on where it is. So you guys should stick to arguing that and both leave the straw monsters that you've concocted about the other, out of it.

So a pencil drawing of two people laying in a bed is porn? But a color picture of nude women and men in the jungle is not.

Do not both have redeming value to some?
Cannot both be used as porn with some?

My personal opinions of any of the Constitution and its Amendments are irrelevant. They hold no water to what is printed.
I run my household as I see fit, I raised my sons as I saw fit.
My neighbors run there homes as they see fit.

I understand the Freedom is and can be Uncomfortable, more so for some than others.