3RU7AL

Why do you think the Union allowed those statues to be erected in the first place after Sherman bulldozed southern culture in his march to Atlanta?

All I am saying is that society should proceed with caution when bulldozing history, lest history repeats. Do you want to witness a cultural Civil war in this country where one culture wipes out another culture in your lifetime?

How about the ones doing the disenfranchising? I mean take a look at the current crop of authoritarian socialists coming out of the DNC today. You would have thought they had learned their lesson by now about using the state to disenfranchise productive people by now...guess removing history is a sure way to repeat it.

God forbid that we have statues as a reminder what happens when we blindly believe what people in power tell you to believe.

I would say that I like to preserve history of a civil war in our country, and many of the Generals were still respected after the war was over for their valor, and ability to command a respected army.  Just like Napoleon, who is controversial, but his face is everywhere.

I believe the big difference in the North and the South was not so much slavery as it was the difference in climate and environment, which is vast, hence the need for it at plantations, which produced product and made money....

Some slaves were actually treated better than many blacks that were in the North, and many companies in the North definitely had a role in the continuation of slaves and the slave trade. 

The north still treated blacks as if they were below them, it just was how it was back then.  It was a societal thing that people thought was normal in those days.  I don't think they are evil people, it was just evil times, I just think they were the product of their environment and trying to protect their own livelihood.  

Brothers fought with Fathers and neighbors joined, not so much for a cause all the time, but to stay alive and keep their businesses going, and protect their loved ones.   Just like you may not always agree with whatever war we are in at any given moment, but you can be forced in by extenuating circumstances, especially if the war is on your own soil.

As far as the monuments go and the comparison to the Berlin Wall, I am speaking in terms of physicality, and the ability to see it in person, has a huge impact. 

I do lean toward a republican world view, but I am pro-choice. I am for individuality, not for grouping people into categories.

The Messiah has not arrived by Numbers 31:17-18, and this is claimed to be a decree by God.  Before Christ, God hands what may be considered exceptions in our perspective. Take that as you may.  Christians do not necessarily have an expectation of heaven on earth either.  Hopefully I can fill more on that later.

 Is killing everyone over conservatism a Jewish thing?  I don't think so 

Maybe, you tell me.

The Jews are maintaining their traditions until they recognize the Messiah.

To relate, think of your father.  Does your love of family cause you to act with bigotry?  No.

Following the greatest commandment, the second is to love your neighbor as yourself.

17 “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 “But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. [LINK]

It doesn't make sense to speak as if God is a contingent being, which would be disrespectful.  Its necessary for you to be able to differentiate what the Jews call God, from claims of revelation.  God, with a capital G denotes the highest reverence or utmost significance, in monotheism, the only reverence worthy of worship.

You sound ignorant when you put "the" in front of a reference to a historical name once known by the Jews.

I propose that the purpose of this thread is to discuss whether or not the Yahweh (if such a being even exists) supports traditionally conservative politics and since the only measuring stick we have to determine the answer to that question are the commands attributed to the Yahweh I would further propose that these commands are central to the discussion.

Actually, I don't know the actual purpose of the thread.

If I am to take that as wanting to return to the conversation at hand I then ask if you intend to respond to 34 or if you would like to return to the original point of contention (That the commands of the Yahweh are not directly equatable to conservative politics).

Democrats also spread around falsehoods to people who believe their BS,

On another note, this is also the party that erected all of the statues and monuments back in the days of Jim Crow and after the civil war, that they now want to destroy.    

I'm not presently schooled on the full history going back, but for us Americans, what are considered rights is conceptually based in some sort of deistic [unknown unknowable creator] natural law [law of the jungle] theory, thought to be derived [who what when where why] from what the Jews and Christians call, God, not necessarily their teachings, which Americans may agree to disagree.

...one could call it a backwards way of going about things...

Put another way, maybe one could call it a backwards way of going about things, assuming that we may ascertain our relationship in the world we live in accordance with natural law.

This is the reason a lot of people don't like Trump, because ignorant people hear things like the above and spread it around to other ignorant people,

While my primary interest in this website is in the debate section, I simply do not have the time to involve myself in the commitment, although I still enjoy reading it.  The forums can certainly prove useful to that end through thoughtful contribution, and that coincides with my general mentality in this setting.

What is an ad hominem in your view?

You may be equating God, with attributed commandments or teachings that draw from biblical context.  I can't conceive a thought process leading to the quoted statement in post 25 from post 22.

Precisely my point. You don't know but you exclude the biblical God as making sense of it. How do you know?

This is not any attempt to demonstrate intent. Saying a rock lacks intention is something I agree with you on, then describing your take on evolution and the big bang is just dodging the question. Can you or can you not DEMONSTRATE INTENT in the universe as it is? If the answer is no, just say no.

Christianity has reduced its core beliefs to worshipping a dead Jewish corpse named Jesus who died for their sins 2000 years ago. The creation and evolution theories are immaterial to Christians because the path to salvation is not how we got here but who can get us out of the mess we are in. So while scientists argue, the dead Jewish corpse remains the only viable solution.

What do you mean by commandments? 

I did not claim this.

The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God.  [POST#22]

Please rank A, B, and C. If you don't care about B or C, just come up with some ranking arbitrarily.

OUR RIGHTS.

Read the first sentence, rather than throwing out the term "ad hominem" and then proceeding to slide in "speak clearly". 

You know what was said to you, and I know you are still being an ass.

By making up rights for a political stunt,

people may argue you are reducing rights

as something that bandied about like candy from politicians taking advantage of desperation, ignorance, etc... 

Basically, you are just being an ass, but also surrendering something of vital importance to your country.

The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God.

So you do have independently verifiable observable evidence of consciousness?

Human Rights make senseImmigrant rights do not make senseMinority rights do not make senseHomosexual rights do not make senseWhy?There may be multiple approaches to this.Approach 1Immigrants are humanMinorities are humanPeople with homoerotic tendencies are human

I believe that I can achieve all of the things that you say logic cannot achieve if it is used correctly, what do you think? 

I'll shortly explain the source through an analogy i've heard, but ask me if you have further questions. So, everything is this source. It's like if you imagine everything was infinite sand. Everything exists in this sand. What we are is correlative to a sandcastle. But once that sandcastle collapses, it becomes one with the infinite sand again. It doesn't mean it's gone, it's just becomes everything again. So the source "god" is everything. It is no one thing, or person... it's like an infinite unbound incorporeal mind. It knows all stories, endings, people, universes, everything basically. It gets more complicated once i add in who we are to this source, but that's the sum of what i think the source platform is.

So the claim "there is no [objectively] observable evidence of meaning" is true?

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "observable evidence." Can you provide a definition?

Okay, so "observable evidence" is so loosely defined so that even though we can't observe meaning we can still consider there to be observable evidence of meaning?

You have no observable evidence of meaning.

A belief is more rational than not when there's sufficient evidence for that belief.

In philosophy 'Phenomenon' is usually almost synonymous with 'perception' and 'noumena' is the underlying reality.