| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Timothy Sutter" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2004 04:10:12 PM |
| Object: |
is law a religious enterprise? |
while the law may not be everyone's
religion, Law -is- some people's religion.
"congress shall make no law establishing law"
and in certain respects, a "church"
is nothing but a congregation of people.
"separation of people and state"
it's all very funny.
.
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: is law a religious enterprise? |
16 Jan 2004 07:06:31 PM |
|
|
while the law may not be everyone's
religion, Law -is- some people's religion.
"congress shall make no law establishing law"
and in certain respects, a "church"
is nothing but a congregation of people.
"separation of people and state"
basically, you don't really even have to consult
the idea of "framer's intent" when you consider
the idea of "separation of Church and State"
it doesn't matter that "separation" isn't
written in the constitution anywhere.
what does matter is the difference between
a "Church" as an institutional body and
a group of people who happen to be religious.
and in America we say that we are
a "nation of laws and not of men"
that is, the "State" -is- the code of Law
which -binds- the people together, and is,
therefore, demonstrably a 'religious' enterprise.
where "religion" means "to tie"
no one wants a -particular- "Church" or
'institutional religious body' to interfere
directly in matters of State or the direct
implacement of a particular interpretation
or group preferrence over all other
interpretations encoded in to Law.
no one wants a "State" to interefere directly
in matters of "Church" where Law would be encoded
which would stand in direct contrast to a given
ethical interpretation of a set of people
who seek self governance.
but, there is simply no convenient way to construe
these sentiments to imply that a people, who happen
to be religious, are to be forbidden from participating
in their own governance or that a State need seek to
maintain the 'secular' nature of -itself- by ridding
-itself- of all -appearance- of 'religious' doctrine.
that is to say, no one may insist that a religious
people must be governed by an irreligious people.
this is false on the face of it.
but the simple fact that 'religion' and 'law'
are identical to some people precludes any notion
that a 'nation of Laws' can -not- be instituted
nor kept safe by a religious people.
in fact a religious people are likely to be
the more staunch protectors of properly
codified ethical behaviors.
with the allowance that variant
points of view shall be considered.
not and never;
"religion has no place in government"
religion does have a place in government,
and, for some, law -is- religion.
walking a tightrope is not to be confused
with cutting the ties that bind us
together as a people.
i'll stop here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: is law a religious enterprise? |
18 Jan 2004 11:51:03 AM |
|
|
I said:
<<while the law may not be everyone's religion, Law -is- some people's
religion. "congress shall make no law establishing law">>
someone says:
Don't confuse God's Law with man's laws.<<
I said:
<<i wrote nothing that was confused nor confusing.>>
someone says:
Congress shall make no law has absolutely
nothing to do with God's Law.
it doesn't have to, it does have to do with
"religion" and one may engage in legislation
-about- law and "God's Law" and be engaging
in a 'religious' enterprise.
Moses 'legislates' when he makes
his statements about divorce.
YHWH makes no statements of this sort;
"to get a divorce, do such
and such, thus says YHWH"
and subsequently we see Moses speaking
of divorce and writing bills of divorce
as if they are foregone conclusions.
Moses' statements in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 by
default passes new laws -allowing- divorce.
whether YHWH entirely approves of this de facto
legislation is irrelevant, Moses is still engaged
in a religious activity and he is passing 'new laws'.
Leviticus says that it is up to the people
to understand which animals are clean
and which are not,
and you can have people setting down further
legal strictures -based upon- the few passages
found in Leviticus so as to further delineate
exactly what is clean and what is not clean,
this is called "passing laws" or, "legislation"
---
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=legislate
legislate
To create or pass laws.
To create or bring about by or as if by legislation.
---
someone says:
Congress is charged with creating law, legislative law.
and when Talmudists "interpret the law"
-by- passing new laws, they legislate.
fact.
Moses legislates,
the Judges legislate
when they send down precedent.
the term "legislative law" is
redundant and meaninlgess.
legislation is passing laws.
whether these 'new laws' are based upon strict
adherence to "God's Law" or some outright abrogation
of "God's Law" is entirely irrelevant to this
being a "religious" activity.
and we do see Jesus chastizing the Talmudists
for setting up "Corban" which frees the
religious from duty to parents.
this is a legislation by the Talmudists and
this is a "religious activity" by the same
and whether God's law is strictly held by
legistlation or not does not remove it
from being a religious activity.
so, your statements here are simply unfounded.
someone says:
On the other hand, God's Law comes from a Covenant.
Therefore, God's Law is, in fact, covenant/contract law.
and when Congress legislates,
they are engage in contracts;
---
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contract
contract n.
An agreement between two or more parties, especially
one that is written and enforceable by law.
The writing or document containing such
an agreement. The branch of law dealing
with formal agreements between parties.
---
when two people agree not to kill
each other, they are engaged in
a contract.
when Congress votes on a budget they
are engaged in contract law.
contract law is a form of religious
activity by -your- own statements,
therefore, Congress engages in religious
activities when they legislate.
so, it is redundant to suggest that Congress
shall make no laws concerning religion when they
are engaged in a religious activity at all times.
and so, the banning of "religious activity"
in government is a meaningless exercise is
futilty aimed specifically at a -particular-
form of attitude towards God and should
therefore be banned outright as unconstitutional.
that is, to use the legal process to wipe away
a -particular- form of "religion" is unconstitutional
as it prefers one religious activity over another.
which is exactly what the
bill of rights says
-not- to do.
someone says:
God's Law comes in the form of a Covenant.<<
I said:
<<contract law is now a religious practice according to you.>>
someone says:
Yes, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all three built
around the Sinai Covenant. This means that all three
religions are built around contract law.
so, you agree, contract law is a religious activity.
therefore, Congressional legislation which
-is- contractual is also religious, by nature.
someone says:
Each of the three religion use their own adulterated
version of Sinai but, they all have their roots buried
deep in the Sinai Covenant.
this is not relevant to the problem as outlined by me,
accept inasmuch as using a -legal- process to wipe any
one of these from public view is unconstitutional.
even secular non-theist legislation designed to wipe
'religion' from public view is tainted by its being
an innately 'religious' activity.
whether or not "God" is involved at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: is law a religious enterprise? |
19 Jan 2004 12:33:17 PM |
|
|
i said:
<<it doesn't have to, it does have to do with "religion" and one may
engage in legislation
- about - law and "God's Law" and be engaging in a 'religious'
enterprise.>>
someone said:
I'm sorry but, I can't figure out your point?
i'm well aware of that.
simply put, "law" is some people's religion.
'religion' is -not- a matter
of 'worship for deity,' alone.
'religion' simply means "to tie"
and 'law' -is- a tie between man and man
and not simply between God and man.
the 'law' not only ties man and
God together, but man and man.
and ideas -about- God aside from or without
any sort of direct -tie- is -not- 'religion'
but something else.
and in this same maner, any institution which
-ties- man together is by nature 'religious'
whether you mention "God" or not.
and any reformulating of the word 'religion'
to mean exclusively "belief in God" is simply false.
'religion' means 'to tie'
the same root where we get
the word "ligature" from.
and all law -is- contractual by
the very nature of the thing itself.
all law is an agreement between people.
where 'scientific law' would best
be described in other terms.
so, "Congress shall not establish religion" is a goof.
Congress does, by it's very nature,
establish and promulgate religion.
whether or not, Congress ever mentions Deity.
otherwise you will have to scour thru "The Law"
that is "Torah" and piece out all the 'laws' which
you claim have nothing to do with "God" and say
that the law is not entirely 'religious' in nature.
which will be impossible inasmuch as the contract
makes -all- of these laws applicable to one's
societal relationship with YHWH.
and so, things of this nature;
---
Leviticus 19:36
You shall have honest scales, honest weights,
an honest ephah, and an honest hin: I am YHWH
your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
also, among others...
Leviticus 25:36
Leviticus 25:37
Deuteronomy 15:1
---
can not be abstracted from the law
and called "non-religious' laws.
and yet, these laws may be instituted in
a 'secular' state without the 'appearance'
of establishment.
but the non 'appearance' does not remove
the reality of an establishment.
that is, YHWH 'commands' fair weights
and measures and if Congress demands
the same, they are establishing -a- religion,
whether you like it or not.
someone said:
'Legislative law' has nothing to do with God. 'Legislative law'
is society's way of punishing human behavior.
not that -your- understanding of
"legislative law" is at all correct,
but, -your- problem boils down to
whether or not YHWH "legislates".
so, ask yourself this;
does stoning a person for working on the
Sabbath exist before the Sabbath exists?
it can not have existed before the Sabbath,
and therefore YHWH has set down a "new law"
and is therefore "legislating" a punishment
of human behavior.
for that matter, all of "God's" laws which concern
human behavior are instituted -for- man and therefore,
could not have existed before man and thefore,
YHWH "legislates" or enacts news laws which just
happen to be drawn from God's own personal
provisions concerning God in God's self.
so, by your understanding of "legislation"
YHWH is a legislator.
where the 'contract' makes those
people members of YHWH's 'society'
which is what is written;
"you shall be my people...etc"
i said:
<<Moses 'legislates' when he makes his statements about divorce.>>
someone said:
No Sir, you're mistaken.
no, Moses legislates in the same way that YHWH legislates.
look at the midianites bit.
who said such and such about the 'captives'?
someone said:
God used Moses to present, and record, the Sinai Covenant.
this is not relevant, as enactment of 'new' laws
is not precluded from being an act -of- Deity.
someone said:
God laid the groundwork for that Covenant
with the commandments written on the tablets of stone. However, there
is more to the Covenant than the ten commandments. The
rest of that Covenant was written in the 'book of the law.' The
'book of the law' is as much a part of that Covenant as the
'tablets of
stone.' The law that comes from that Covenant is in no way
'legislative law' but, is 'covenant/contract law.'
not by tyour own terminology it is not.
when YHWH proscribes punishments for members
of God's society, then God is legislating
according to -your- termoinology.
not that your definition of legislation is correct.
but using it, YHWH legislates.
i said:
<<Moses' statements in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 by default passes new laws -
allowing - divorce. >>
someone said:
No, not at all!! Moses is simply recording what God instructed him to
record and it became a part of that same covenant.
this is not true, as Micah claims that YHWH
hates divorce and yet Moses seems to allow divorce.
so, either you relegate Micah to falsehood
or you agree that Moses allowed a thing
that was never specifically commanded by YHWH.
and the simple fact is that you will
find no place in Torah which says;
"to get a divorce, do this, thus says YHWH"
and so, Moses sets down a de facto
legislation which allows divorce.
where 'legislation' is -not- simply
a matter of 'punishment' as you
would have it.
i said:
<<whether YHWH entirely approves of this de facto legislation is
irrelevant, Moses is still engaged in a religious activity and he is
passing 'new laws'.>>
someone said:
Moses had no authority to 'legislate law.'
you say YHWH gave him the authority.
i said:
<<Leviticus says that it is up to the people to understand which animals
are clean and which are not, and you can have people
setting down further legal strictures - based upon - the few passages
found in Leviticus so as to further delineate exactly what is
clean and what is not clean, this is called "passing laws" or,
"legislation">>
someone said:
To get a picture of the whole Sinai Covenant, we have to look to the
books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Keep
in mind, what we call the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy makes up the 'writings of Moses.' The Sinai
Covenant is found sprinkled throughout the writings of Moses!!
you may call them what you like,
but Leviticus and Numbers begin;
"YHWH spoke to Moses and said..."
and Deuteronomy begins;
"these are the words of Moses"
and Moses is a legislator.
-you- seem to mistake the idea of proper
legislation which rightly interprest "Torah"
with 'bad' legislation which would abrogate
the contract, as being that the former is
-not- legislative- but the latter is or may be.
but neither is relevant to the idea that
legislation is in and of itself, a religious
process whether or not one addresses laws
which are -only- relevant to God, if such
may be properly identified.
as i have provided, we see 'laws' in Torah
which address what may be described as
'secular' activity, and that is one's
business dealings with his fellow human
beings, or fellows of his own society.
i said:
<<and when Talmudists "interpret the law" - by - passing new laws, they
legislate. fact.>>
someone said:
The problem is, the Covenant forbids any change being made to it.
this is not relevant to the consideration
of "the Covenant," in whatever form,
is 'religious' by nature.
and so, interpretting the law and enacting
'new' legislation which still abides in strict
adherence to "the Covenant" is just as religious
as enacting 'new' laws which are an outright
abrogation of the "the Covenant."
someone said:
The Covenant stands today just as it did at Sinai. Not one single
change is a valid change. And those who attempt to change it are
nothing more than 'Covenant breakers.'
not relevant to legislation as religious practice.
why is it neessay for Moses or the
Judges to decide cases for the people?
isn't the law self explanatory?
if not, then 'precedent' has a way of
becoming 'enacted' as 'new legislation'
which remains as a 'religious' process'
whether you seek guidance from "God" or not.
i said:
<<Moses legislates, the Judges legislate when they send down precedent.
the term "legislative law" is redundant and meaninlgess.
legislation is passing laws.>>
someone said:
That's true but, 'legislative law' has nothing to do with
'covenant law.'
-you- claim that 'legislative' law
is simply about punishment.
who agrees as to the severity or
non-severity of such punishments?
whoever comes to any sort of agreement about this
'legislation' is engaged in a 'contract' and
therefore, your insistence that the two
are disparate is nonsense.
when people agree to mete out punishments
for abrogated contracts they legislate
stipulations to contracts.
please -try- to stop making nonsense statements.
i said:
<<whether these 'new laws' are based upon strict adherence to "God's
Law" or some outright abrogation of "God's Law" is entirely
irrelevant to this being a "religious" activity. and we do see Jesus
chastizing the Talmudists for setting up "Corban" which frees the
religious from duty to parents.>>
someone said:
Jesus chastised the Pharisees, the teachers of the Sinai Covenant Law,
for they, like Judaism, Christianity and Islam today, taught
their own adulterated version of the Sinai Covenant Law. Keep in mind,
the adulteration of the Sinai Covenant is not a new thing, it
goes all the way back to the early days of the Covenant.
and no matter what you say now, this
"adulteration" is a "religious" process.
period.
so, it matters not whether one adheres
to "God's Law" to be considered "religious"
and in the self same manner, the legal process
itself, even when abstracted away from "God"
entirely -remains a "religious" process.
where "religion" simply means "to tie."
"religion" does -not- mean "belief in God"
i said:
<<this is a legislation by the Talmudists and this is a "religious
activity" by the same and whether God's law is strictly held by
legistlation or not does not remove it from being a religious activity.
so, your statements here are simply unfounded.>>
someone said:
Can you be more specific on this? Are you opposed to what the Talmudist
did to the Sinai Covenant or what?
for the purpose of -this- topic,
it's not at all relevant what i think of it,
they are writing and enacting 'new laws' and
are therefore legislating for themselves and
are also, engaged in a 'religious' endeavor.
i said:
<<and when Congress legislates, they are engage in contracts;
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contract contract n.>>
someone said:
No, not at all. Legislative law covers a particular area.
Covenant/contract covers only the parties involved in the
covenant/contract.
not if Congress -agrees- that the contracts
they set down be bound according to US
geographical constraints.
it's still a contract whether you set
a geographic limit on jurisdiction or not.
someone said:
IOW, The U.S. Congress has no authority to legislate law to affect
people who live in any other jurisdiction. OTOH, A
covenant/contract can cross judicial lines.
very slowly;
when you make laws which bind the contractual
agents you are legislating a contract.
to suggest that legislation and contract law
must be distinct is unsupportable by anything
but your own opinion.
when laws are enacted which mete out punishments
for the breaking of contracts you are legislating
terms pertinent to contracts.
this is legislating contract law,
by your own terminology.
i said:
<<when two people agree not to kill each other, they are engaged in a
contract.>>
someone said:
That's correct!! However, their contract is not binding on anyone but
those two people!!
the agreement is the contract.
the reason Israel cannot individually say
that they don't agree with the contract
is that they, as a people have agreed
to it thru their progenitors.
they would not exist -as- a people aside
from the arrangement of their progenitors.
and so, if they decide to 'disagree' with
the contract, they must annull their
identity as God's people by that contract.
-but- if they have become unaware of God's
institutions of 'new' contracts, they simply
operate under a contract that has already been
renewed and any alteration of that contract
to suit -them- better is simply futile.
i said:
<<when Congress votes on a budget they are engaged in contract law.>>
someone said:
No, not at all.
these budgets are sent to the people's
administrator for signature.
this is a signed contract between the legislators
of the people and the administrator for the people.
when Congress passes out -contracts- to general dynamics
to make aeroplanes, they are dealing in ....contract law.
and these contracts are by their very
nature a binding tie and therefore "religious"
without ever mentioning the word "God"
albeit, as we all know, God -is- mentioned
on the money that passes hands from taxable
people to payable accounts.
i said:
<<contract law is a form of religious activity by - your - own
statements,>>
someone said:
No, not that either!! I have a contract with Visa credit card company.
This contract has nothing to do with religion.
well, actually it does,
you are tied to Visa by your agreement to pay.
they pay for your purchases and
then you pay them later.
this is a "tie" and this is "religion" whether
or not "God" is ever mentioned in the contract.
albeit, if they sue you for non payment
and you are taken to court and people
testify against you, chances are, some
witness will take some sort of oath to
"God" as regards truthfulness.
but the ideas of "God" is not what makes "religion"
-but- Torah has statements about charging
usurious interest or even -any- interest at all,
and so, when your Visa card either does
or does not charge your interest be it
usurious or otherwise, there are applicable
"religious laws" which may be construed
as 'secular laws"
but as we now understand, "religion"
is just a -tie- between parties and
-not- "belief in God"
if your Visa becomes perceived as a loan shark,
someone in Congress may begin looking carefully
over their shoulder so as to prevent overly
usurious interest rates.
and -this- may be -construed- as an institution of Torah.
whether it is or not is entirely irrelvant.
-someone soemwhere- may see it as
an establishment of someone's own
personal religion.
and the simple fact of the mater is,
that it -is- just this, an establishment
of someone's religion.
is this necessarily wrong?
no.
what is wrong is some insistence that a
particular form of religion is the only
form of religion and that it is these
which must bve stamped out from
'public' processes.
simply because the process itself has
a very definite 'religious' aspect
which vcan -not- be denied.
i said:
<<so, it is redundant to suggest that Congress shall make no laws
concerning religion when they are engaged in a religious activity
at all times. and so, the banning of "religious activity" in government
is a meaningless exercise is futilty aimed specifically at a -
particular - form of attitude towards God and should therefore be banned
outright as unconstitutional.>>
someone said:
I think your basic understanding of covenants/contracts is sorely
flawed.
this is not an argument which supports your opinion.
and inasmuch as you agree with me that two people
agreeing not to murder each other constitutes
a contract, you don't agree with your self here.
i said:
<<that is, to use the legal process to wipe away a - particular - form
of "religion" is unconstitutional as it prefers one religious activity
over another.>>
someone said:
I agree!! Our legislative law must be impartial
in its view of religions.
'our' "legislative law" -is- religious by its very nature
and so some insistence that "belief in God" is the thing
that constitutes "religion" is destructive -to- the
legislative process in itself.
someone said:
Under the U.S. Constitution Islam is as valid
and protected as Christianity.
you will begin to understand that the contention
that 'religion" be kept -out- of 'law' is simple
a futile sentiment.
the two are very nearly identical.
synonymous even.
i said:
<<so, you agree, contract law is a religious activity.>>
someone said:
NOT necessarily!! Contract law has nothing
specifically to do with religions.
yes it does, contracts tie people together and
the way people are tied together is just as much
"religious" as the way God and man is tied together.
see, i can show you a thing -using- your own problemic
termionology as i have with "legislation", but you
intentionally seek to bypass my statements about
religiion meaning "to tie" and instead seek obfuscation
by the implication that "religion" means "belief in God"
which it does not.
i said:
<<therefore, Congressional legislation which -is- contractual is also
religious, by nature.>>
someone said:
'Legislative law' has nothing specific to do with
'covenant/contract law.' As I said, legislative law affects a
certain area. 'Covenant/contract law,' affects certain individuals.
and 'as you say' is a patent falsehood and
does not distinguish legislation from contract.
geographic distinctions does not make legally
enforceable contracts into non-legislative conracts.
and when a system sets out punishments for failure
to abide in contracts, they legislate contracts
by your own termoinology.
i said:
<<this is not relevant to the problem as outlined by me, accept inasmuch
as using a - legal - process to wipe any one of these from
public view is unconstitutional.>>
someone said:
Yes, you're correct, legislative law in this country,
the U.S., must be blind to all religions.
and yet it -can not- be blind,
inasmuch as laws are instiututed by this government
which are some people's "religion" inasmuch as they
do have a correlation to their perceived tie with God.
that is, the us government must be institutuing
laws governiong mans relationship to man which
-must- be abstractable from someone else's
understandings of their relationship with God,
inasmuch as some people's "God Religion" has
direct correlation to ties among fellow human beings.
by default, when a government is instituting
law which governs man's interpersonal relationships,
they are in -some- manner interposing their
statutes amid some people's "God tie"
blind in -cannot- be, it -must-
have its eyes WIDE open.
that's what someone meant by
being 'eternally vigilant'
it is the "price of your american freedom"
i said:
<< even secular non-theist legislation designed to wipe 'religion' from
public view is tainted by its being an innately 'religious' activity.
whether or not "God" is involved at all.>>
someone said:
Legislative law must be blind even to God!!
and yet, God seems to be legislating
inasmuch as the Sabbath and it's legal
construction was created for man.
the law for man to observe
a Sabbath cannot have preceded man.
therefore, YHWH instituted law,
and in so doing, YHWH "legislates"
someone said:
For even the atheist cannot be legislated
against according to the U.S. Constitution.
it was never my suggestion that an
atheist has no right ot hold
public office.
albeit, it would be -nice- if that atheist
would say that he was an atheist in public
and not crouch behind concealments.
someone said:
An atheist has just as much rights
under our Constitution as a theist.
and, inasmuch as an atheist -may- be in
favor of enacting some sort of legal structure
that would govern interpersonal relationships
and the manner in which human beings are tied
together, he engages in a religious process
whether or not he has any tie with God.
this is simply the truth.
religion is -not- "belief in God"
religion means "to tie" and
human beings are tied together
and therefore legal structures
are "religious" be -their- very nature
and -not- the nature of one's belief
or disbelief in Deity.
and so, when Congress does -not- establish 'religion'
is when Congress seeks to dissolve the Union.
and this they -may- do by overriding people's
concerns in favor of some minority opinion.
which doesn't mean that the majority is
always correct but it is wrong to use
subterfuge to override the majority's designs.
it's all very funny why this
thing hasn't fallen apart long ago.
like it was designed to fall apart.
but we hold it together by strength
of will when we can find it if we
can find it, or else, it will fall apart.
etc.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: is law a religious enterprise? |
18 Jan 2004 09:27:19 PM |
|
|
now, just look at these and see oif you
can see how fair business practices are
some people's "religion"
and so, business practices in general
are also points of religious activity.
---
Leviticus 19:36
You shall have honest scales, honest weights,
an honest ephah, and an honest hin: I am YHWH
your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
Leviticus 25:36
Take no usury or interest from him;
but fear your God, that your brother
may live with you.
Leviticus 25:37
You shall not lend him your money for
usury, nor lend him your food at a profit.
Deuteronomy 15:1
"At the end of every seven years
you shall grant a release of debts.
Proverbs 11:1
Dishonest scales are an abomination to YHWH,
But a just weight is His delight.
Proverbs 16:11
Honest weights and scales are YHWH's;
All the weights in the bag are His work.
Proverbs 20:23
Diverse weights are an abomination to YHWH,
And dishonest scales are not good.
Proverbs 22:26
Do not be one of those who shakes hands
in a pledge, One of those who is surety
for debts;
Isaiah 24:2
And it shall be: As with the people,
so with the priest; As with the servant,
so with his master; As with the maid,
so with her mistress; As with the buyer,
so with the seller; As with the lender,
so with the borrower; As with the creditor,
so with the debtor.
---
and so this would be funny in that you can see
how Congress shall make no laws establishing
business nor inhibitting the free exercise thereof.
-that- you can see very clearly.
Congress isn't supposed to be in the biusiness
of making business because Congress could be
subsumed and stack the deck in someone's favor.
and we seek after "Justice"
Congress is supposed to see to it that business
is freely carried out but not to establish a
business of it's own.
and for some people, the activity of engaging
in contracts and deals and commerce -is- a
'religious' activity.
the problem arises when "Justice"
is perverted in this endeavor.
the problem arises when people worship
the -benefits- of business practices
over and above the God who makes
all things possible.
the problme arises when one uses governement
to inhibit the free trade of someone else
in favor of their own free trade.
that is our old friend "Cynical Pragmatism"
rearing its ugly head again,,,and again.
and these are 'religious' practices.
and you never -have- to mention "God"
even if "God" appears on all the money.
and now you begin to see the tricky tightrope
of the establishment clause.
it is -not- just about saying "God" in public.
it is -not- just about the free exercise of
going to a Church building on the weekends.
"religion" does -not- consist entirely of
"worship" in a Church building or thereabouts.
"religion" encompasses nearly all
of one's day to day practices.
are -you- a person of your word?
that is, when -you- enter into contract
with soneone, can they trust you to
stand behind your word?
-this- is a "religious" quality.
the so-called 'major religions'
are quite concerned with the
bond of your word.
and so, your 'religion' shows itself
in your business practices and in
your legal practices and in your
interpersonal relationships.
now tell me how much you want "Congress"
involved these aspects of your life.
but they are.
so, don't go on about separation of church and state
as if it pertains -only- to 'worship' of "God"
what exactly is "worship" anyway?
-acting- in manners befitting your call?
etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: is law a religious enterprise? |
19 Jan 2004 06:14:45 AM |
|
|
so, i guess what some of this comes down to
is that corruption and dissatisfaction breeds
corruption and dissatisfaction.
if your dealings are corrupted, you invite
legalities into your life which seek out
some sort of correction to justice
and when your legal structures get corrupted
they still get all in your business and you
want them off your back, but you still want
to behave in a corrupt manner yourself, and,
are unwilling to seek out corrections so,
you get stuck with a legal gorilla on your
back even if that legal gorilla is more
corrupt than you are, or less.
meaning, the legal structures that get on your
back are just coming in response to your already
corrupted dealings, so, you can't really blame
that thing if it becomes as corrupted as you are.
but that's its nature.
no matter what, corrupt dealings
-invite- legal structures into
your life.
if you -really- want the
government off your back,
be fair your self.
otherwise, it has every right
to camp out on your doorstep.
and then, you can accuse each other
of encouraging bad dealings -just- so
the 'authorities' can get and remain
all up in your business.
as opposed to encouraging good and fair
dealings, so you can get and remain free.
cuz you -like- the gorilla on your back.
it gives you something to complain about.
and then our eyes glaze over.
and now, for the uplifting finish?
yeah....right.
it's always -been- in your power to be free.
like you needed -me- to tell you that.
but you have to shed your corruption
and walk in a manner befitting free people.
guess this means you have to help each other out.
or not, and then you can go right along
complaining about that beam in your eye
and how it obstructs your view of the hanging.
even if it's your own,
beam -and- hanging.
hurray for Jesus.
make me free in deed indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: is law a religious enterprise? |
19 Jan 2004 05:11:12 PM |
|
|
---
Jeremiah 31:30-34
But every one shall die for his own iniquity;
every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth
shall be set on edge. "Behold, the days are coming,
says YHWH, when I will make a new covenant with
the House of Israel and with the House of Judah-
not according to the covenant that I made with
their fathers in the day that I took them by the
hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,
My covenant which they broke, though I was
a husband to them, says YHWH
But this is the covenant that I will make with
the house of Israel after those days, says YHWH:
I will put My law in their minds, and write it on
their hearts; and I will be their God, and they
shall be My people. No more shall every man
teach his neighbor, and every man his brother,
saying, "Know YHWH,' for they all shall know Me,
from the least of them to the greatest of them,
says YHWH. For I will forgive their iniquity,
and their sin I will remember no more."
---
but anyway, as far as "christianity"
is concerned, christianity isn't
legal process driven.
that is, the inscription of God's Faith
isn't based on a legal structure.
we are the fulfillment of a contract.
so, one could -try- to blot it out thru
legal machinations, and fail utterly.
we aren't driven by symbology,
so, attacking our symbols won't
denigrate our Faith.
we aren't driven by supreme wealth
so attacking our monetary status
will never wipe us out.
we are driven by God and God cannot be shaken.
-but- none of -this- removes the fact that
some people's 'religion' -is- the law and
that law is a religious practice in and of itself.
and, one -could- use legal machinations
to make -our- lives more difficult,
but no legal machinery will ever
wipe God from Living Reality.
and inasmuch as we -are- following after
God's own Faith, we will never be abolished
by any human mechanism.
so, why engage in exercises in futility?
i won't quote charlie here, but he has
a funny statement that would fit here.
---
Isaiah 1:18
"Come now, let us reason together," says YHWH.
"Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be
as white as snow; though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: how many 'religions'? |
20 Jan 2004 04:57:52 AM |
|
|
considering the -number- of possible
different human "religions" and given
a -potential- for 6 billion different
-names-, how many different human -attitudes-
towards "God" will we actually find?
---
earning from "God"
appeasement of "God"
indifference to "God"
personal life changing
revelation of God from God.
---
that's basically all there is.
and for all practical purposes,
the first two may be collapsed
into a single attitude;
--
appease and earn from "God"
--
so, you can see quite easily, that
even if you can show an indication
of 6 billion different -names- for;
--
appease and earn from "God"
--
you don't have 6 billion different
"religious practices" based on this,
but just the one.
and that is this notion that one
may appease and earn from "God"
and in this world, "indifference to God"
in actual practice, usually is anything
-but- an actual indifference to "religion"
just remember, the Athenians paid an homage
to an attribute called "wisdom" and sought
this thing out and this was called "religion"
and yet, there was no actual "deity"
aside from man's own psyche.
we only suggest to you that the "wisdom"
they found, if any at all, was earthbound.
which leaves the personal life changing
revelation of God from God as the only
distinguishably different form of "religion"
at any rate, the thing you should become
clear on, is that while people can spin your
head and say "lookie at all the different
religions of the world"
when it comes down to it, you won't be able
to demonstrate more than a small handfull
of actual, different human attitudes and
practices -aimed- _at_ "God"
and just the one where God
takes -aim- _at_ -you-.
don't get bogged down in all the red tape.
God has already satisfied God,
and offers -you- a special Gift
which no human being may ever earn,
take it and keep it, it will never
grow old, nor fail from overuse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
20 Jan 2004 05:44:13 AM |
|
|
---
earning from "God"
appeasement of "God"
indifference to "God"
personal life changing
revelation of God from God.
---
and this sort of sets up two
different uses of "law" in general.
where one use is as a sort of a voodoo
of actions one may take to ward off
"God's" stern retributions, and
earn some sort of favor,
and the other would be a peering
through the veil into aspects
of the Mind of Christ.
inasmuch as most human beings will hold
the "earn and appease" attitude until
and unless they actually ever meet God,
they will tend to pervert the idea of "law"
into this first characteristic and in so doing,
seek alterations in "law" to fit their own
personality structures, and invent sub-categorical
standard whereby they may apply such 'laws' in
an uneven manner so as to get what they want
when they want it and also, provide themselves
with an edge which would prevent anyone else
from getting the same things in the same manner.
and then, we meet Christ.
and realize that God's Holy One sees no corruption.
we accept our personal identification with Christ
and walk with God as God leads us in to that Holiness
which was meant for us from before we were born.
we don't make changes to the 'law'
we are lead by The Spirit of God into a newness
of Life which we had not found of our own device.
in this new place, we would know Love by nature
and not fall way short of it in personal justifications.
there is a water in the desert.
this water Lives.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
20 Jan 2004 04:19:40 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter <a202010@dcemail.com> wrote:
considering the -number- of possible
different human "religions" and given
a -potential- for 6 billion different
-names-, how many different human -attitudes-
towards "God" will we actually find?
That's assuming that only humans can have a concept of god or
religion. Cats, for instance, display an advanced propensity for
rituals to and worship of the God of the Can Opener.
Anthropomorphism? Perhaps, but whether they have the concept or not,
I feel other animals do have the capacity for it (think apes,
dolphins, elephants...).
earning from "God"
appeasement of "God"
indifference to "God"
personal life changing
revelation of God from God.
that's basically all there is.
Forgive me, but that's kinda sad if all you see your life as is a
horse chasing your god's carrot and shying from his whip.
As for me, I learn from my god. I enjoy watching him in action. I
interact with him on an equal level. He plays tricks on me. And
sometimes I sit and have a drink with him.
None of these things seem to fit in your categories. Perhaps a
class in comparitive religions would improve your worldview.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
20 Jan 2004 06:01:49 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
considering the -number- of possible
different human "religions" and given
a -potential- for 6 billion different
-names-, how many different human -attitudes-
towards "God" will we actually find?
chris wrote:
That's assuming that only humans can have
a concept of god or religion.
well, it says right there;
"possible number of 'human' religions."
not possible number of cat or dog religions.
i made no assumptions, you simply cannot
read what is set before your properly.
in fact, as the psalmist suggests;
"let everything with breath praise YHWH"
chris wrote:
Cats, for instance, display an advanced propensity for
rituals to and worship of the God of the Can Opener.
so, for you, eating and conditioned
response constitute religion.
this may be of some importance later.
chris wrote:
Anthropomorphism?
no, but your cat can see you.
so, you suggest that "religion" does
not necessitate a "supernatural being"
and therefore, you are in agreement with
my suggestion that the law among human beings
is "religion" whether or not any
"supernatural being" is invoked.
and therefore, the establishment clause
of the constitution seems precarious
in that it suggests that Congress shall
make no laws establishing law.
or, "Congress shall not establish law"
chris wrote:
Perhaps, but whether they have the concept or not,
I feel other animals do have the capacity for it
(think apes, dolphins, elephants...).
what you 'feel' and what you
can prove is non-identical.
-but- i never addressed the concept of
animal religion, only human religion,
so, your statements are entirely irrelevant.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
earning from "God"
appeasement of "God"
indifference to "God"
personal life changing
revelation of God from God.
that's basically all there is.
chris wrote:
Forgive me, but that's kinda sad if all you see your
life as is a horse chasing your god's carrot and
shying from his whip.
well, again, i'd suggest that
you cannot read very well,
as, the category;
"personal life changing revelation from God"
has no relation whatsoever to you and
your horse and your whip and all that.
chris wrote:
As for me, I learn from my god.
that's very nice for you, i'm glad
for you, but i'd suggest to you that;
"personal life changing revelation from God"
is learning from God.
chris wrote:
I enjoy watching him in action. I
interact with him on an equal level.
again, is your "God" a 'supernatural being'
or something else? are you willing or able
to describe your "God"?
Jesus, the living Christ, is my brother.
Jesus is many other things to me,
but we have a very close personal
relationship and at times, we are
as close as freinds.
chris wrote:
He plays tricks on me. And sometimes
I sit and have a drink with him.
does "God" drink what you are having
at the same time that you are having
your drink?
chris wrote:
None of these things seem to fit in your categories.
well, Jesus doesn't play tricks on me,
but that's not at all relevant to
the categorization.
I do, in fact, learn from my God to
the purpose of rising to God's levels
of purity and perfection.
you claim to learn from your God
by 'watching him in action'
and this falls under catergory;
"personal life changing revelation from God"
whether your life is actually changed or not
inasmuch as you may simply be a poor student.
chris wrote:
Perhaps a class in comparitive religions
would improve your worldview.
on the contrary, a more careful study
in reading comprehension would do
-you- a world of good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
20 Jan 2004 09:55:45 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter <a202010@dcemail.com> wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
earning from "God"
appeasement of "God"
indifference to "God"
personal life changing
revelation of God from God.
that's basically all there is.
chris wrote:
Forgive me, but that's kinda sad if all you see your
life as is a horse chasing your god's carrot and
shying from his whip.
As for me, I learn from my god.
that's very nice for you, i'm glad
for you, but i'd suggest to you that;
"personal life changing revelation from God"
is learning from God.
But the converse does not follow. Learning from god is not
necessarily a "personal life changing revelation"
chris wrote:
I enjoy watching him in action. I
interact with him on an equal level.
is your "God" a 'supernatural being'
or something else? are you willing or able
to describe your "God"?
Yes, my god is Loki.
chris wrote:
He plays tricks on me. And sometimes
I sit and have a drink with him.
does "God" drink what you are having
at the same time that you are having
your drink?
Yep.
chris wrote:
None of these things seem to fit in your categories.
well, Jesus doesn't play tricks on me,
That's debatable.
but that's not at all relevant to
the categorization.
I do, in fact, learn from my God to
the purpose of rising to God's levels
of purity and perfection.
you claim to learn from your God
by 'watching him in action'
No, I claim enjoyment from watching him. Sometimes that leads to
learning, sometimes not.
and this falls under catergory;
"personal life changing revelation from God"
No, it is neither life-changing nor a revelation.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
20 Jan 2004 11:30:32 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
earning from "God"
appeasement of "God"
indifference to "God"
personal life changing
revelation of God from God.
that's basically all there is.
chris wrote:
I enjoy watching him in action. I
interact with him on an equal level.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
is your "God" a 'supernatural being'
or something else? are you willing or able
to describe your "God"?
chris wrote:
Yes, my god is Loki.
that is not a description, that is a name.
so far, all we have is that your 'god' plays
tricks on you, appears to drink with you,
and you find this entertaining.
chris wrote:
He plays tricks on me. And sometimes
I sit and have a drink with him.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
does "God" drink what you are having
at the same time that you are having
your drink?
chris wrote:
Yep.
how would you know?
your god plays tricks on you.
maybe your god only pretends
to drink what you drink.
maybe your god only pretends to be
there and really isn't there at all.
maybe your god is you playing tricks on yourself.
in fact, that is what seems to be
the likeliest explanation of your 'god'
your own mind playing tricks on itself.
by the way, do you -see- this 'god' drink?
chris wrote:
None of these things seem to fit in your categories.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
well, Jesus doesn't play tricks on me,
chris wrote:
That's debatable.
you comment, however, is not a refutation
nor support for some opposing view.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
but that's not at all relevant to
the categorization.
I do, in fact, learn from my God to
the purpose of rising to God's levels
of purity and perfection.
you claim to learn from your God
by 'watching him in action'
chris wrote:
No, I claim enjoyment from watching him. Sometimes
that leads to learning, sometimes not.
you claim you learn from your god,
and that you watch your god in action.
whether or not you always learn when you
watch is irrelevant, when you do learn if
your do learn, you learn by watching
your god in action.
if you now will claim that you learn from
your god when you are not watching your
god in action, then we will collapse this
all to your mind playing tricks on you,
and no god named "Loki" at all ever being present.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
and this falls under catergory;
"personal life changing revelation from God"
chris wrote:
No, it is neither life-changing nor a revelation.
actually, if you learn from your god by watching
your god in action you are being revealed things
during this watching, and these learned things
change something about you even if it is only
some form of personal knowledge about this
god of yours or your tendency to be
tricked by your own senses.
when you look at the sun in action,
it is revealing things about itself to you.
when you watch a buttercup rise from the ground,
it is revealing things about itself, whether
that thing has a conscious will to do so or not.
so, this learning by watching is a revelation,
but your own personal ability to actually learn
has already been drawn into question, and so
you seem to be unable to properly recognize what
has or has not changed about your life thru your
dealings with your 'god' who plays tricks on you
who may, in fact, be simply your own mind
playing tricks on you.
whether any of this may be rightly
described as "religion" is still
another matter.
chris wrote:
As for me, I learn from my god.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
that's very nice for you, i'm glad
for you, but i'd suggest to you that;
"personal life changing revelation from God"
is learning from God.
chris wrote:
But the converse does not follow. Learning from god is not
necessarily a "personal life changing revelation"
if you fail to put your new found knowledge
and or understanding to use in some manner
that would bear a fruitful change in your life,
that is simply a slack hand on your part.
if this 'god' of yours does you harm,
that is life changing harm.
your 'god' is not trustworthy.
if you only learn that you cannot learn anything
from your 'god' then, i suggest to you, that in time,
you will turn away from this 'god' who only entertains.
but, as yet, you seem to indicate that conditioned response
in cats and your drinking and being entertained constitute
'religion' which offers no problems with my assertion that
law among human beings is in itself a religious practice
and need not invoke any deity to be considered as such.
and so,
"Congress shall not establish law"
remains a problem.
neither does any of your statement support any contention
that there are more than a small handfull of 'religious'
-attitudes- in mankind regardless of the various names
which appeasement, earning favors and/or relating
with some 'god', real or imagined, may be expressed.
many -names-, very -few- actual practices and attitudes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
21 Jan 2004 11:25:22 AM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter <a202010@dcemail.com> wrote:
maybe your god only pretends to be
there and really isn't there at all.
maybe your god is you playing tricks on yourself.
in fact, that is what seems to be
the likeliest explanation of your 'god'
and of yours too.
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
21 Jan 2004 12:16:57 PM |
|
|
chris wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
maybe your god only pretends to be
there and really isn't there at all.
maybe your god is you playing tricks on yourself.
in fact, that is what seems to be
the likeliest explanation of your 'god'
and of yours too.
you may speak for you and your 'god' alone.
speaking for me and my God is beyond
your knowledgeable experience.
but we have satisfied by -your- own
words that your 'god' is fictitious.
such words about my God you shall never
hear from my mouth nor read at my hand.
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
trouble is, -you- dismiss your own 'god'
and therefore, i need not do so.
in fact, i asked you to decribe your 'god'
and, you have now described your 'god' as a fiction.
so, your statements are self defeating.
as far as speaking of my God, you may not do
so based on your present level of understanding.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
21 Jan 2004 07:19:35 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter <a202010@dcemail.com> wrote:
chris wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
maybe your god only pretends to be
there and really isn't there at all.
maybe your god is you playing tricks on yourself.
in fact, that is what seems to be
the likeliest explanation of your 'god'
and of yours too.
you may speak for you and your 'god' alone.
speaking for me and my God is beyond
your knowledgeable experience.
such words about my God you shall never
hear from my mouth nor read at my hand.
Who lit the fuse on your tampon?!?
You can dish it out but you can't take it, eh? You spoke for my god
in the line immediately above mine.
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
trouble is, -you- dismiss your own 'god'
and therefore, i need not do so.
Indeed I did not. The name you snipped from below the lines in
quotation marks was the person to whom the quote is attributed.
The point of the quote seems to have evaded you.
as far as speaking of my God, you may not do
so based on your present level of understanding.
On the contrary, I have experienced your god and was unimpressed.
Now that I know Loki, I know why your god is jealous.
(Hint: One is not generally jealous of one's inferiors.)
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
21 Jan 2004 09:35:37 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
maybe your god only pretends to be
there and really isn't there at all.
maybe your god is you playing tricks on yourself.
in fact, that is what seems to be
the likeliest explanation of your 'god'
chris wrote:
and of yours too.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
you may speak for you and your 'god' alone.
speaking for me and my God is beyond
your knowledgeable experience.
such words about my God you shall never
hear from my mouth nor read at my hand.
chris wrote:
You spoke for my god in the line immediately above mine.
when you say;
"and of yours too."
in response to;
#maybe your god is you playing tricks on yourself.
#in fact, that is what seems to be
#the likeliest explanation of your 'god'
you call your 'god' a fiction.
i gave you possible explanations for your
'god' based on your own descriptions and
you say that your 'god' is a fiction.
but, your statement;
"and of yours too."
presumes to speak for me and my God and
i am giving you assurance that you may
not credibly do so.
none of this, however, supports any idea that
there are actually thousands of human 'religions'.
the fact lays uncontested that there are
actually only two three human attitudes
of this nature and simply many names
for the same sorts of attitudes.
you have abandoned any attempt to support
that 'argument' and instead are wandering
off into useless hand waving gestures.
chris wrote:
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Timothy Sutter wrote:
trouble is, -you- dismiss your own 'god'
and therefore, i need not do so.
chris wrote:
Indeed I did not. The name you snipped from below the lines in
quotation marks was the person to whom the quote is attributed.
no, when you say;
"and of yours too."
in response to;
#maybe your god is you playing tricks on yourself.
#in fact, that is what seems to be
#the likeliest explanation of your 'god'
you are saying that your 'god' is a fiction,
and trying to suggest that because your 'god'
is a fiction, that mine must therefore
also be a fiction.
the quote you provide only serves
to support your attitude.
if you don't mean it as support for
your attitude, you may say so now.
in any event, you present a 'god' who
plays tricks on you and then you call
that 'god' a fiction.
and still, you do not support any sort of
idea that there are thousands of religions
as opposed to the small handful with
many possible names as i have outlined.
chris wrote:
The point of the quote seems to have evaded you.
the quotation you provided is not
where you call your 'god' a fiction.
when you say;
"and of yours too."
in response to;
#maybe your god is you playing tricks on yourself.
#in fact, that is what seems to be
#the likeliest explanation of your 'god'
you call your 'god' a fiction.
the quote only serves as a supporting statement
for the attitude described by; "and yours too"
apparently, -i- have to be the one to show you
how to present some sort of lucid argument in
favor of any position, as your 'god' not only
plays tricks on you but has left your mind in
an addled state which is unawares of the import
of the statements it makes about itself.
as far as speaking of my God, you may not do
so based on your present level of understanding.
chris wrote:
On the contrary, I have experienced your god and was unimpressed.
based on your personal assessement of your 'god,
it is more likely that you 'experienced' -your-
'god' playing tricks on you.
and, as you stated above, you agree that -your-
'god' is simply your mind playing tricks on you.
be that as it may, you may not conclude
that my God is the same as yours.
chris wrote:
Now that I know Loki,
according to your own self assessment,
you know nothing but a fiction of
your own creation.
chris wrote:
I know why your god is jealous.
you don't know my God, my God is Zealous.
chris wrote:
(Hint: One is not generally jealous of one's inferiors.)
but one is Zealous in one's own august nature,
an august nature YHWH is and you have not known.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
22 Jan 2004 07:51:11 PM |
|
|
when you say; "and of yours too." in response to;
#maybe your god is you playing tricks on yourself.
#in fact, that is what seems to be
#the likeliest explanation of your 'god'
you call your 'god' a fiction.
You are bearing false witness, Timmy. I did no such thing.
'Likeliest' does not mean 'correct'.
your statement; "and of yours too." presumes to speak
for me and my God
just as your statement above presumes to speak for me and my god.
i am giving you assurance that
you may not credibly do so.
Are you judging me? or simply presuming to know that
which only gods may know?
the fact lays uncontested that there are
actually only two three human attitudes
of this nature and simply many names
for the same sorts of attitudes.
I feel no need to appease my god, nor earn anything from
him. I don't share your 'slave' worldview. I simply enjoy my god.
This is a fourth attitude.
If I learn something from him, or observe him, yes it does
indeed change my life in that my life is different than it
was before (the definition of change). But it is often a very
minor point that I learn or observe, just as a mosquito
bite is usually a minor occurrence that also changes our
lives. However, this is hardly what you meant by a
"personal life-changing revelation." Therefore learning and
observing are a fifth and a sixth attitude.
I'm sure someone that knows his god as well as you do can
come up with many more. Familiarity with a subject leads to
an advanced jargon like the colloquial example of the
hundreds of Inuit words for snow. However I feel no need to
come up with a thousand other examples since *one* proves
you wrong.
chris wrote:
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the
other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The point of the quote seems to have evaded you.
<snip much redundant babbling>
The point evaded you again so I'll elucidate.
Any logic you use to refute the existence of my god can be used
equally to refute the existence of your god.
Unless you're willing to admit that your god does not exist, then
you must admit that mine does exist.
Even in your mythology, other gods have existed from the beginning,
apparently. In the earliest parts of the Bible, starting with Genesis
1:1, the Hebrew word for 'God' is 'Elohim', which is actually the
plural form of the word and would normally be translated as 'gods'.
Even the Big Guy Himself weighs in on the issue, but he doesn't claim
there are no other gods. He merely demands in Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt
have no other gods before me."
as far as speaking of my God, you may not do
so based on your present level of understanding.
chris wrote:
On the contrary, I have experienced your god and was unimpressed.
you agree that -your- 'god' is simply your mind playing tricks on you.
You are bearing false witness again. There'll be some heavy repenting
in the Sutter house tonight!
I was ordained eleven years ago. I 'got my orders' to do Christ's
bidding and did so. Yahweh revealed Himself in all his mediocrity.
Further study of the Bible revealed that it is not the work of a
creator god, but of men, men that also believed other gods exist.
you may not conclude that my God is the same as yours.
Who would anyone want to claim that?!? My god is merely mischievous.
Yours is a bloodthirsty schizophrenic.
chris wrote:
Now that I know Loki,
I know why your god is jealous.
you don't know my God, my God is Zealous.
Not up on your own mythology, eh? If there were just one God,
surely he would not be jealous of this, but he is: Exodus 34:14
says "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose
name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
Did you read that?
He's so jealous, his *name* is Jealous!
chris wrote:
(Hint: One is not generally jealous of one's inferiors.)
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
22 Jan 2004 10:47:48 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
when you say; "and of yours too." in response to;
#maybe your god is you playing tricks on yourself.
#in fact, that is what seems to be
#the likeliest explanation of your 'god'
you call your 'god' a fiction.
chris wrote:
You are bearing false witness, Timmy. I did no such thing.
'Likeliest' does not mean 'correct'.
no, i am simply recalling what you say about your 'god'
and in my estimation, when you make such statements as
"and yours too" in response to "maybe your god is you
playing tricks on yourself" you are calling
your 'god' a fiction.
if you don't like this appraisal, you
will have to retract your statements
that you make about your 'god' because
as they stand they speak of your
'god' as a fiction.
after all, it is your words which
make your 'god' a fiction.
i don't know you.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
your statement; "and of yours too." presumes to speak
for me and my God
chris wrote:
just as your statement above presumes
to speak for me and my god.
this is you speaking for your 'god'
---
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=uf9r00di819v4j9n1tkcu388e4u1j7va2p%404ax.com&output
'chris' writes:
As for me, I learn from my god. [...] He plays tricks on me.
---
now, i asked you if you see your 'god' with
the naked eye when i asked if you saw your
'god' drink. you would not answer that, you
may do so now if you like.
you claim you learn from your god,
and that you watch your god in action.
whether or not you always learn when you
watch is irrelevant, when you do learn if
your do learn, you learn by watching
your god in action.
if you now will claim that you learn from
your god when you are not watching your
god in action, then we will collapse this
all to your mind playing tricks on you,
and no god named "Loki" at all ever being present.
if you will now respond to this,
we'll have more information so as
to differentiate between this thing
that is playing tricks on you being
some sort of supernatural being or
just you mind.
as far as what you have yet offered up
you don't reply to this and you
simply said "and yours too"
and so, the only conclusion that may be
drawn based on your words is that your
'god' is your mind playing tricks on you.
if you will reply to this now, we may find
that there actually is some sort of
supernatural being playing tricks on you.
i never even suggested that was no possibility
that some supernatural being was playing tricks on your.
only that it was likely that the tricker was
your own mind, and you seemed to agree with
that assessment.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
i am giving you assurance that
you may not credibly do so.
chris wrote:
Are you judging me?
i'm analyzing your owrds and those words
say that your 'god' is a fiction.
i am telling you that you may not
credibly assume the same thing
for my God.
chris wrote:
or simply presuming to know that
which only gods may know?
your words speak of a fiction.
my words do not speak of a fiction.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
the fact lays uncontested that there are
actually only two three human attitudes
of this nature and simply many names
for the same sorts of attitudes.
chris wrote:
I feel no need to appease my god, nor earn anything from him.
theses are common human attitudes towards
'religion' and they can be collapsed into
a single attitude, as i said before.
whether you hold this attitude or not is not
relevant to many 'world religions' falling
under this category regardless of how
they are named.
chris wrote:
I don't share your 'slave' worldview.
you have not demonstrated that i hold such an attitude.
chris wrote:
I simply enjoy my god. This is a fourth attitude.
no, it may be a third attitude but this attitude
will collapse to one of those that i have
already spoken of.
chris wrote:
If I learn something from him, or observe him, yes it does
indeed change my life in that my life is different than it
was before (the definition of change).
personal life changing revelation
from a 'god' who plays tricks on you.
you still have failed to establish that your
'god' is anything more than your own mind
playing tricks on you.
i asked you if you see your 'god' drinking
with you and you failed to respond.
now you are just speaking of
dimensions and not attitudes.
that is, your attitude falls under personal life
changing revelation and you simply suggest that
if that change is not drastic or wide ranging,
that it must be another category.
this is false.
if, as you say, your life is changed by
something that you have learned from your 'god'
it falls under that category regardless
of how much change you see in actual practice.
chris wrote:
But it is often a very
minor point that I learn or observe, just as a mosquito
bite is usually a minor occurrence that also changes our
lives.
this is merely a matter of scale and
does not change the categorization.
chris wrote:
However, this is hardly what you meant by a
"personal life-changing revelation."
avoid using clairvoyant powers in your 'argument'
chris wrote:
Therefore learning and
observing are a fifth and a sixth attitude.
still falls under the category of
'personal life changing revelation'
no new category here.
learning and observing reveal
things about the subjects.
chris wrote:
I'm sure someone that knows his god as well as
you do can come up with many more.
well then go get all the help you need
and come back when you have a credible
argument to make.
chris wrote:
Familiarity with a subject leads to
an advanced jargon like the colloquial example of the
hundreds of Inuit words for snow. However I feel no need to
come up with a thousand other examples since *one* proves
you wrong.
you have not come up with any examples
that show any more than a small handfull
of possible religions.
in fact, your example here of many words
for snow only serves to support my statement
that there may indeed be a myriad of different
names for identical 'religions'
identical in that they have the
same view towards god and world.
you have yet to describe a single example
of a religion that is different from the
few i described.
mind you, it 'religion' implies some
formal interaction with deity.
chris wrote:
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the
other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
The point of the quote seems to have evaded you.
chris wrote:
The point evaded you again so I'll elucidate.
Any logic you use to refute the existence of my god
can be used equally to refute the existence of your god.
no it cannot because i said quite plainly
that Jesus does not play tricks on me.
only -you- have said that your
'god' plays tricks on your.
-you- have supplied the factual datum
that would indicate a negative reality
to your 'god'
i have not done this nor will i ever.
you simply dodged replying to the
statements that would have served
to further assist in figuring out whether
your 'god' was a supernatural being or
just your mind playing tricks and the
reply you did offer up indicated that
your 'god' was a fiction.
i have never offered up any statements
that could be construed in this manner.
chris wrote:
Unless you're willing to admit that your god does
not exist, then you must admit that mine does exist.
-you- cannot know whether or not your 'god'
is serving you up trustworthy data.
now answer, do you see your 'god' drink?
is your god visible to the naked eye?
i did not say that your 'god' -could- not exist,
i said that based on your statements,
-you- call your 'god' a fiction.
and this you did.
chris wrote:
Even in your mythology, other gods have existed
from the beginning, apparently.
as i say, i never said that your
'god' -could not- exist.
but you say that your 'god' plays tricks on you.
i didn't say that your 'god' plays
tricks on you, you said that.
you claim you learn from your god,
and that you watch your god in action.
whether or not you always learn when you
watch is irrelevant, when you do learn if
your do learn, you learn by watching
your god in action.
if you now will claim that you learn from
your god when you are not watching your
god in action, then we will collapse this
all to your mind playing tricks on you,
and no god named "Loki" at all ever being present.
and when i suggested that your 'god'
was your own mind playing tricks on you,
you simply replied, [paraphrasing] "so is yours"
you did -not- say,
"my god is real and here is
how i know my 'god' is real'
-you- said, [paraphrasing] "so is yours"
chris wrote:
In the earliest parts of the Bible, starting with Genesis
1:1, the Hebrew word for 'God' is 'Elohim', which is actually the
plural form of the word and would normally be translated as 'gods'.
you never heard me suggest that there is
no other 'supernatural being' in the universe.
not all 'supernatural beings'
are the Creator God.
what you heard me suggest is that your 'god'
may be your own mind playing tricks on you
and you showed agreement to this statement.
the only possible conclusion to draw based
on that statement of yours is that -your-
'god' is a fiction.
-not- that no other 'supernatural beings' -may- exist.
chris wrote:
Even the Big Guy Himself weighs in on the issue, but he doesn't claim
there are no other gods. He merely demands in Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt
have no other gods before me."
this does not change the fact that you
claim that your 'god' plays tricks on you.
is your god visible to the naked eye?
Timothy Sutter wrote:
as far as speaking of my God, you may not do
so based on your present level of understanding.
chris wrote:
On the contrary, I have experienced your god and was unimpressed.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
you agree that -your- 'god' is simply your mind playing tricks on you.
chris wrote:
You are bearing false witness again. There'll be some
heavy repenting in the Sutter house tonight!
i have no intentions of turning back
any statement i have made.
it will be you that must continue to alter
your story to support your faltering 'argument'
chris wrote:
I was ordained eleven years ago.
ordained by whom? a human being?
did a human being 'ordain' you
to speak for Jesus Christ?
chris wrote:
I 'got my orders' to do Christ's bidding and did so.
'orders' from whom?
what 'bidding'?
Yahweh revealed Himself in all his mediocrity.
in what manner did YHWH appear to you?
and, how can you be sure that your 'god' "Loki"
wasn't responsible for this 'appearance'
and this 'appearance' happened -after-
you were 'ordained and sent to do bidding'?
chris wrote:
Further study of the Bible revealed that it is not the work of a
creator god, but of men, men that also believed other gods exist.
your 'orders' were the work of men?
you may not conclude that my God is the same as yours.
chris wrote:
Who would anyone want to claim that?!?
you claim to have met a 'god'
who plays tricks on you.
you also claim that you know YHWH
it should be clear that -you- cannot know for
sure that your impressions of YHWH are not
the work of "Loki" or your addled mind.
chris wrote:
My god is merely mischievous.
no, -your- 'god' 'plays tricks' on you.
this calls in to question all 'factual'
data that you -seem- to experience.
based on your assessement of -your- 'god',
we cannot call -you- a trustworthy
witness of anything factual.
chris wrote:
Yours is a bloodthirsty schizophrenic.
this is unsupportable opinion and that
of a person who claims to know a 'god'
that plays tricks.
chris wrote:
Now that I know Loki,
I know why your god is jealous.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
you don't know my God, my God is Zealous.
chris wrote:
Not up on your own mythology, eh? If there were just one God,
surely he would not be jealous of this, but he is: Exodus 34:14
says "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose
name is Jealous, is a jealous God."
no, the word is "Zealous" -you- are not competently
versed in the original of the hebrew language from
which that word is culled.
i will show you why you err in a moment.
chris wrote:
Did you read that?
He's so jealous, his *name* is Jealous!
no, the name is "Zealous"
"qanna" is only used of God and stems from
the root "qana" which can mean 'to be zealous for'
now look here where "qana" is used to mean
'jealousy' it refers to a human being who
is jealous for his wife.
---
Numbers 5:14
if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and
he becomes jealous of his wife, who has defiled
herself; or if the spirit of jealousy comes
upon him and he becomes jealous of his wife,
although she has not defiled herself--
---
but in the next verse, 'qana' is translated
as 'zeal' and in reference to a priest who
is consumed with a passion from YHWH;
---
Numbers 25:11
"Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest,
has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel,
because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that
I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal.
---
see, YHWH has "zeal"
there was even a group of people in Jesus'
day who called themselves "zealots"
because -they- knew that YHWH was "Zealous"
and then in Isaiah we see an
even more compelling view;
---
Isaiah 9:7
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end, Upon the throne of David
and over His kingdom, To order it and establish
it with judgment and justice From that time
forward, even forever. The zeal of YHWH
of hosts will perform this.
---
see, it is YHWH's 'zeal' that is forceful and
active and not any sort of jealousy as a human
being would know in that he may be envious
of some thing that another has.
it is the Zeal of YHWH that performs
this, not some sort of envy.
and here;
---
Psalm 69:9
Because zeal for Your house has eaten me up,
And the reproaches of those who reproach
You have fallen on me.
Psalm 119:139
My zeal has consumed me, Because my
enemies have forgotten Your words.
---
it is -you- who claim that YHWH is 'envious'.
but 'Qanna' is a particularly special word
used -only- of YHWH and never used to mean
'envious' but only consuming like a Fire.
as Moses says,
---
Deuteronomy 4:24
For YHWH your God is
a consuming fire,
a zealous God.
---
look at some more of these;
---
Isaiah 42:13
YHWH shall go forth like a mighty man; He shall
stir up His zeal like a man of war. He shall cry out,
yes, shout aloud; He shall prevail against His enemies.
Isaiah 59:17
For He put on righteousness as a breastplate, And a helmet
of salvation on His head; He put on the garments of vengeance
for clothing, And was clad with zeal as a cloak.
Isaiah 63:15
Look down from heaven, And see from Your habitation,
holy and glorious. Where are Your zeal and Your strength,
The yearning of Your heart and Your mercies toward me?
Are they restrained?
Joel 2:18
Then YHWH will be zealous for
His land, And pity His people.
Zechariah 1:14
So the angel who spoke with me said to me,
"Proclaim, saying, "Thus says YHWH of hosts:
"I am zealous for Jerusalem And for
Zion with great zeal.
Zechariah 8:2
"Thus says YHWH of hosts: "I am zealous
for Zion with great zeal; With great fervor
I am zealous for her.'
Luke 6:15
Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus,
and Simon called the Zealot;
---
see, YHWH has great Zeal.
that you would liken this to 'envy'
only proves that your viewpoint is
shallow and you know nothing of my God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
09 Feb 2004 09:14:53 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter <a202010@dcemail.com> wrote:
Timothy Sutter wrote:
when you say; "and of yours too." in response to;
#maybe your god is you playing tricks on yourself.
#in fact, that is what seems to be
#the likeliest explanation of your 'god'
you call your 'god' a fiction.
chris wrote:
You are bearing false witness, Timmy. I did no such thing.
'Likeliest' does not mean 'correct'.
no, i am simply recalling what you say about your 'god'
and in my estimation...
'Likeliest' does not mean 'correct'.
Your entire lengthy babble is based on something I did not say. This
is not the first time you have put words in my mouth. And since you
twist whatever I say, you really do not need me to carry on this end
of the conversation. This is evidenced by your three (3!) replies to
my last post.
The fact that you are estimating (your word) reveals you are no
authority on the matter, so until you demonstrate true comprehension
of the words you spout I will offer no more words for you to twist.
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timothy Sutter" |
|
| Title: Re: how many 'religions'? |
22 Jan 2004 11:03:33 PM |
|
|
Timothy Sutter wrote:
you have yet to describe a single example
of a religion that is different from the
few i described.
mind you, it 'religion' implies some
formal interaction with deity.
-
"mind you, -if- 'religion' implies some
formal interaction with deity."
-
inasmuch as 'religion' may be taken
to imply a method of tieing things together,
there are probably quite a number
of knots one may put in rope.
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
