Attempt to override the constitutional amendment process

[digitalwanderer]

tend to digress, on that I'll agree...but you missed my point entirely again Vince. You're claiming to know just what inspired those people to write the Constitution and that it's based on religion, and I'm claiming that no one knows what inspired 'em.

I'm claiming that they stated it themselves. You've stated (after I posted the list) that they did state that, but they were wrong. You're argument has mutated uncontrollably from:

It's questionable if the were inspired by God to they were and were wrong just as they believed in slavery and now back to this pseduo-argument of "Nobody knows what inspired them" to which I respond they most certainly did and they most certainly wrote about it.

Dude, take a deep breath and remember we're just typing at each other here for a second...now contemplate VERY carefully:

You claimed they were inspired by God, which is unknown. The fact that they believe they were inspired by God does not necessarily mean that God did indeed inspire them, it just means that they later stated that.

First you'd have to prove the existance of God, then that he was capable and did indeed inspire them, THEN you'd be making an ounce of sense with your insults.

You're missing a subtle, yet important, distinction. 8)

It does NOT mean they were right Vince, something you seem entirely unable to grasp.

I grasped it, move on to what I'm saying which is that what you stated and the argument you made before I posted (ff is an opinion) was fallicious and wrong as you can look to see what they stated themselves and it contradicts that which you put forth.

Nope, you just missed my point...again. And here I thought you thought you were the bright guy in this.

It's like me saying, "The Sky is Hot Pink" and then when questioned to my position on the color of the sky, you say, "it's just an opinion of what he thought" and when someone digs up my quotes and proves you wrong you say, "Well, he was wrong.. the sky is blue". God, you really are acting like a village idiot.

A better analogy would be if you stated that the founding fathers were inspired by God and I said that they only THOUGHT they were inspired by God and then you were to bend over backwards trying to make me look like an ass by misinterpreting what I said to just end up looking all foolish for your simple inability to understand a rather simple point I was trying to make.

 

[Vince]

You claimed they were inspired by God, which is unknown. The fact that they believe they were inspired by God does not necessarily mean that God did indeed inspire them, it just means that they later stated that.

First you'd have to prove the existance of God, then that he was capable and did indeed inspire them, THEN you'd be making an ounce of sense with your insults.

You're missing a subtle, yet important, distinction. 8)

What a joke, such a cop-out. I do believe Joe stated "Something greater than Man" which doesn't necessitate a God exists, but just the belief of a superior system of morals and values - which the founders all subscribed to... there is no question about this.

Youe argument is pretty crazy, if you believe something exists and hold yourself upto a standard due to that belief... it really doesn't matter if that entity exists aslong as your actions are manifestly different.

You know, a "God" is an ambigous word as it is, and he didn't even use that.

It's like me saying, "The Sky is Hot Pink" and then when questioned to my position on the color of the sky, you say, "it's just an opinion of what he thought" and when someone digs up my quotes and proves you wrong you say, "Well, he was wrong.. the sky is blue". God, you really are acting like a village idiot.

A better analogy would be if you stated that the founding fathers were inspired by God and I said that they only THOUGHT they were inspired by God and then you were to bend over backwards trying to make me look like an ass by misinterpreting what I said to just end up looking all foolish for your simple inability to understand a rather simple point I was trying to make.

Or, maybe I actually read what you were debating Here

They were both inspired by "something greater than man".

Nope, that's an opinion and not a fact Joe.

So, if I claim that my inspiration for arguing against you was because I felt an obligation that's "greater than Man" - can you tell me my statement is an opinion?

No, it's a fact that I stated that was my thinking and belief. The Position itself is an opinion, but that's not being debated here, just as me saying the Sky is Hot Pink isn't valid in that context.

Analogously, the Founding Fathers stated they had a deep belief in a system of morals and values which they deemed to be "bigger than man" as an influence in their lives and work with the Constitution. That they stated this is beyond dispute, it's not an opinion - they believed that their valued and belief in God shaped the US Founding... end of story.

 

[pax]

Except the scholarly consensus is that who wrote the ten commandments didnt write the rest of the Tanak or OT. Its not surprising that politically motivated or otherwise priests or leaders then made efforts to give new meaning for ratsak.

I scoured BR online but you need to subs and I dropped mine couple years ago...

But maybe being jewish you can give me the hebrew word for murder...

Edit: found something...

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/commandments.html#ratsach

Murder is 'nakah'... And its also used profusely to describe murder in the bible...

 

[Natoma]

The Bible can't. In the book of Revelations it says that anyone who changes the bible will be cast into the lake of fire because it is god's immutable word, good from beginning to end, set in stone. That's why you can't have a society based on the bible or other immutable religious morality. The society would never progress.

Chrstianity hasn't progressed or changed? I could've sworn that almost every day brings a "new Christian religion" claiming to to be based on the Bible, each with differing moralities, and all claiming to be "true".

Over the course of a few thousand years? Sure. But I doubt you'll find the christian religion has changed much, in say, the past 227 years, that would have allowed our society to evolve as quickly as it has. Imo, one only need look to the middle east to see the stagnation that occurs in theocracies. Have their societies changed since Muhammed's time in any meaningful social way? Not really imo.

[sarcasm]Hell, has christianity really changed much since the protestant schism in the 1500s? AFAIK, that was the last major break in christianity as all the denominations of protestantism share the same faith basically, i.e. anti-catholicism. [/sarcasm]