Total posts: 706
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I didn't think your response to my statement towards mopac made any sense. It's not a deep message
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Towards Mopac it was just to point out that you weren't speaking for me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
As a child I was 'fearful' of the pledge of allegience. I like the message, but not that people end up casually reciting it. My school started it in 6th grade.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I was actually just going for a relatable and valid phrase, not the pledge, but now that this has been brought up, what do you think about a conditional pledge being explicitly subject to God?A Deistic being does not require any sort of "pledge".And "The YHWH" explicitly tells its followers not to make oaths. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
You are claiming revelation with your characterization, and also happen to be misconstruing what I intend to say to Mopac.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I was actually just going for a relatable and valid phrase, not the pledge of allegience, but now that this has been brought up, what do you think about a conditional pledge being explicitly subject to God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you personally imagine our relationship with natural law? That may be helpful
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The pledge itself is not legally binding. It is however, constitutional, not irrelevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This opens a can of worms for me. Using the United States as an example requires quite a bit of depth that I might not have time to go into with you for awhile, but it's a discussion I look forward to.This appears to be an appeal to ignorance.I only need one example of a natural law that requires human enforcement.Do you have time for one example?
I think it will help me remember to come back. That's not exactly how I would frame the ramifications of "under God"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Edited, and I don't have a point. I have a question that hasn't been answered.
Mopac said, "This legalistic attitude you are expressing is very unorthodox"
You said, "Religion practically invented legalistic"
The source of my curiosity follows the assumption that you understood what you were saying or you couldn't tell us what "religion" invented.
Mopac: This legalistic attitude you are expressing here is very alien to Orthodox thinking.Religion practically invented "legalistic".This is a western thing. The excommunicated Roman Church thinks like this.Thinks like what? [...]Plisken: Why do you seem to understand in the first line of reply and then ask what it is in the second?
Your answer doesn't make sense, because it's evident that it was not unclear and moot when you replied.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Plisken: Why do you seem to understand in the first line of reply and then ask what it is in the second?
Your use of the term "legalistic" is as unclear as it is moot.I don't understand why you would assert that one type of church is "legalistic" and some other is less so.I also don't understand how any of this relates to the OP.Deism is not "legalistic".Deism is not "anti-legalistic".Deism is not "orthodox".Deism is not "unorthodox".
Mopac said, "This legalistic attitude you are expressing is very unorthodox"
You said, "Religion practically invented legalistic"
The source of my curiosity follows the assumption that you understood what you were saying or you couldn't tell us what "religion" invented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Mopac: This legalistic attitude you are expressing here is very alien to Orthodox thinking.Religion practically invented "legalistic".This is a western thing. The excommunicated Roman Church thinks like this.Thinks like what? [...]
Why do you seem to understand in the first line of reply and then ask what it is in the second?
Plisken: Because developments are to go through consideration with respect to our relationship subject to natural lawThere is no reason to codify "natural law".Nobody can violate gravity.We don't need any form of government or law enforcement to enforce "natural law".
This opens a can of worms for me. Using the United States as an example requires quite a bit of depth that I might not have time to go into with you for awhile, but it's a discussion I look forward to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I think that non-interference should be taken as an inferior definition, should be noted only for connotative purpose or just held as a subset of deism.
Created:
Posted in:
Another thought, I would think you would want the forums to set the tone for much of the incoming user base, right? Don't we want forums to be constructive, a place where people can be exposed to ideas, and form something to set up in debates? I wouldn't really care about winning personally, but after a debate, then I like to read the criticisms.
Created:
Posted in:
Is it practical to give users permission to delete their own content upon it being reported by someone else?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I don't mean this to be construed as the destruction of antics. Certain thread content should be deleted ASAP, so that other members don't even have to deal with it, not as a personal offense that necessarily needs moderation but for the purpose of engaging in meaningful conversation, it's not practical for everyone to be dragged down by what one member thinks of another member or whatever ever it is. Why should the user base have to waste time with unwarranted banter? Report, delete, done. If people aren't confident that their time is worth the investment, they will be less inclined to contribute quality content.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Bump stocks are a tax on our country. They reduce functionality of the rifle and waste our ammunition. Selectfire rifles should be legalized for production before bumpstocks
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The main thing is that kids are getting full meals, especially under financial assistance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Live your own life. Swearing sounds trashy, generally. Listen to shit coming out of your mouth. Why would any respectible person want to hear your shit? Assuming you've got the intelligence, you will do well to take on something more colorful and descriptive, and your words habitually carry more weight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because developments are to go through consideration with respect to our relationship subject to natural law
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The social construct of the United States is predicated on deity, the consequence being the respect of truth.
Created:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Slipping good in the same sentence with lawyer, hmm
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I know a fine lady who voted for President Trump, who claims that as she went to cast the ballot, the thought was so disgusting to her that she felt compelled to cover her nose before finally going through with it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I don't think so. The Internet gives some people a disproportionate voice.
Created:
-->
@Grugore
It's not an income tax, and I would wager the idea is to establish a covenant with equal rights, the tax being an exchange for protection.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I think you might be missing something, because Islam provides a means, at least for people of the book, to coexist once they conquer you. Christians from what I understand are allowed to have their own way and may not be subject to the bulk of shariah, but they must still submit. Under Shariah law, they had to pay a tax and theoretically have relative autonomy as long as they respect those revered in Islam, and don't pose a political threat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
What are your thoughts, philosophically, on Nuclear proliferation and the validity of justification for such weapons of mass destruction in foreign policy, in peace and times of war?
Created:
-->
@Vader
Where does it say that?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
- "it must take place in a slaughterhouse (abattoir) approved by the Food Standards Agency (FSA)"
Yeah, this is unAmerican on multiple levels. I think the best way to slaughter animals will always be to hunt them in line with a management program honestly. For animal abuse I think of legal grounds for the sake of intervention, but for killing them anything short of a spear through the lungs should be legal, but the slaughter houses should be regulated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I would assume, that the site Keith provided is an intuitive guide for ordinary people to navigate a general religious boundary/exemption, not necessarily a privilege for Jewish people and Muslims. That's how it would be done here in the states. The UK law is different in general though.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
The people must be able to justify the state, and the state should be forced to justify itself for continued respect by the people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
That's certainly a fine response, though what I am referring to is the ability of cultures to adapt, and perhaps change the map, but mainly to the end of having enough autonomy to form a more relevant legal system within the country. Equal recognition of rights, and potentially (likely) more legal clout than self segregation which of course would be even more so than apartheid.
Created:
-->
@keithprosser
People of the transitional states without dignity should be demanding the necessary protections and a full recognition of humanity.
Created:
-->
@Grugore
Genocide, of all things, is not immoral? Really?????? Genocide, is not worth defending. What have you got, that's worth living for? It's certainly not the current state of your culture
Created:
-->
@Grugore
What is the point as a Christian for waging Jihad against Islam?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you always a con when you debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
"I do not have an opinion"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you want me to be your master? If so, I want a sandwich. If not, tell me what you think, not the other way around please. That satisfies your basic needs, does it not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you want me to literally order your opinions or not?
Do you think a country should have multicultural zones with their own laws?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Your goal is to place dogs over humans as a superior species and literally feed them on the next generation of humans to save the environment. This literally your goal, in real life.
Two different cultures, one that wants to pet dogs more like family, and one that likes to eat them more like livestock, existing in the same country. Do you think there should be multicultural zones with their own laws?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How do you determine what "our" goal is?
What does "our" constitute?
Why is there a goal?
Do you have an opinion yet?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not asking you for my opinion. Two different cultures, one that wants to pet dogs more like family, and one that likes to eat them more like livestock, existing in the same country. Do you think there should be multicultural zones with their own laws?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am asking for your opinion, obviously. That's really up to you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you think a country should have multicultural zones with their own laws?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you think a country should have multicultural zones with their own laws?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why is this in the religion forum?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
The Quran is claimed to be a challange and a revelation directly from Allah, written by one man, without error, literally perfect. It is theologically vital to the Islamic faith, like the resurection is to christianity. Many Muslims believe Muhammad was illiterate.
Created: