does this sound constitutional?

anybody weight lift?

also google the tesla motors new car the "tesla" thats the baddest ass car I have seen if I have ever seen a bad ass car...and I have seen plenty around here.
 
dzolcali said:
anybody weight lift?
Click to expand...

"Self-improvement is masturbation." ~ Tyler Durden


I love Fight Club :D.
flightcard_big.jpg
 
Last edited:
in a previous post you referred to atheists and agnostics as "morons" i believe it was; now you're all itchy in the crotch, and nigh indignant, by the wording put forth in a preamble by "god lovers" and "their jesus loving laws"? cripes man........
 
Tangent maybe, but perhaps the word God is used to try to label the unexplainable and religion is the methode used trying to explain it. We may use the word God, for lack of a better noun.
Someone trying to explain the unexplainable, with insufficient vocabulary, may be the reason for the differences in most religion. People get hung up on absolutes and are constantly trying to dissect the process. As an example, people are still trying to dissect the atom and label it's smallest parts, everytime someone cries success, somebody else finds a smaller partical. Almost the same with finding and cataloging all the parts of the universe.
Trying to legislate it's non existance, ignore it, deny it or in other ways trying to ostrich the whole thing, seems like the dumbest answer to the conundrom.
IMO, accepting it as a part of existance and concurrently trying to live a moral life, may be one answer to accepting it as an absolute (which it can't be to most people, other than phrophets) and living the ethic (maybe what the legislators in SC where hinting at) if not the substance may be the simpilist answer. I've always thought it really arrogant to ignore tradition and make judgements about it's relavance, which seems to be a sure way to make the same old mistakes, in the same old ways.
Somebody mentioned Anglo Saxon law as being the forerunner for most of the current law.
Read the law of Moses, specifically the "Judgements". Amazing how much of it is logical and still pertanant.
 
Last edited:
8Mud said:
Trying to legislate it's non existance, ignore it, deny it or in other ways trying to ostrich the whole thing, seems like the dumbest answer to the conundrom.
Click to expand...

Mud,

I agree with the rest of your post but the above statement and the part about accepting it is curious. I in no way want you to feel that I don't respect your right to believe in anything you feel is true, I do want you to clarify this concept for me though.

If God is just the wrong noun to indicate something which we do not understand, then what sense does it make to try to appease and appeal to something which we do not understand, which we do not know what it wants, which we cannot even really know exists. Why can we not be moral, ethical, and good because it feels right, and is driven by something within us, without the added burden of trying to placate something that we made up to explain the things we couldn't?.
 
dzolcali said:
when the war ends...


but for the other stuff, I believe correct me if this is wrong, but in a nutshell the puritans founded the 13 colonies, who each had their own seperate governments all to get away from the crown rule in England. However more over the founding fathers of "America" the land were actually from South America on up, christopher columbus was much later on the scene than many of the spanish inquisitioners, and the spanish inquisition well..they plundered and raped and murdered tons of the indiginous populations of south america before migrating upwards into the US formerly native american soil.
So anyways, the 13 colonies tried to fight the crown one by one, the crown was too powerful, originally they wanted religious freedom from the crown granted at that time it basically meant they didn't want to go to the kings church or be prosecuted. So they finally banded together to make the "united states" wow isn't that novel they defeated the kings army and won their freedom and decided since things were good they would establish a more perfect union. Enter the founding forefathers of our Federal government. And in regards to that, any state or local law that is not in conformity with the federal laws are rendered powerless...any federal law that is not inline with the constitution is dubbed unconstitutional and therefore has to be changed to be concurrent with the constitution.

Also beej, yes we are our own species, but we are like 2 what chromosome (not sure but I know it's super close) different than apes. apes, leemurs, gorilllas, baboons and a jungle of other species monkeys are all grouped into the same class thus my argument that we are in essence monkeys just smart monkeys.
Click to expand...


i guess i miss read the supremacy thing, i appologize for that, but your still wrong, you said the puritains founded the 13 colonies, and later that they founded america. those were your words, i am not the idiot, you are.
i do not use google for that reason, people out there think they are right, and make webpages...
 
dzolcali said:
it's called the supremacy clause look it up moron...
Click to expand...

WELCOME TO OUR NEW TV SHOW....

Pot and Kettle....


In todays episode you'll hear POT say...."damn Kettle, your BLACK!?!?!?"

and in return hear Kettle say..." FU you racist SOB...wheres the ACLU?!?


:confused1
 
goodburbon said:
Mud,

I agree with the rest of your post but the above statement and the part about accepting it is curious. I in no way want you to feel that I don't respect your right to believe in anything you feel is true, I do want you to clarify this concept for me though.

If God is just the wrong noun to indicate something which we do not understand, then what sense does it make to try to appease and appeal to something which we do not understand, which we do not know what it wants, which we cannot even really know exists. Why can we not be moral, ethical, and good because it feels right, and is driven by something within us, without the added burden of trying to placate something that we made up to explain the things we couldn't?.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to try and do a discourse on my beliefs or try to tell anybody else what to believe. But I will apologize for my spelling, my spell checker has a bug.
I have some kind of ingrained aversion to Preachers, Preists, or higher religious leaders, though I have found some to be really wise, I distrust there motives as a personal policy. Probably a hold over from my Presbyterian upbringing.
Just a hypothosis, but trying to atune yourself to God (or whatever it may be called in many langauges and religions). May be benefitial beyond the moral and ethical training.
I doubt God has the time to communicate with me personally, but the Holy Ghost for lack of a better name, has saved my bacon too many times to be ignored. It would be down right stupid of me to even try to ignore it. It may be benefitial for others, to try and become atuned to the possiblilty, it may save there bacon also.
Some people may call it instinct, logic or reasoning, but at least with me the process goes way beyond instinct, logic or most times reason. Don't have a clue what it is, but am convinced it is genenrally benenfitial to me.
Your statement about trying to be moral, ethical and good, just because it feels right. Seems like a decent philosophy to me.
I sum up my philosophy as "if at all possible, do the right thing".
 
8Mud said:
Tangent maybe, but perhaps the word God is used to try to label the unexplainable and religion is the methode used trying to explain it. We may use the word God, for lack of a better noun.
Someone trying to explain the unexplainable, with insufficient vocabulary, may be the reason for the differences in most religion. People get hung up on absolutes and are constantly trying to dissect the process. As an example, people are still trying to dissect the atom and label it's smallest parts, everytime someone cries success, somebody else finds a smaller partical. Almost the same with finding and cataloging all the parts of the universe.
Trying to legislate it's non existance, ignore it, deny it or in other ways trying to ostrich the whole thing, seems like the dumbest answer to the conundrom.
IMO, accepting it as a part of existance and concurrently trying to live a moral life, may be one answer to accepting it as an absolute (which it can't be to most people, other than phrophets) and living the ethic (maybe what the legislators in SC where hinting at) if not the substance may be the simpilist answer. I've always thought it really arrogant to ignore tradition and make judgements about it's relavance, which seems to be a sure way to make the same old mistakes, in the same old ways.
Somebody mentioned Anglo Saxon law as being the forerunner for most of the current law.
Read the law of Moses, specifically the "Judgements". Amazing how much of it is logical and still pertanant.
Click to expand...

agreed...guilty as well. Also agree with goodbourbons comments about trying to appease a god we do not know of. But I believe god is hypothetical anyways but not in your common use of hypothetical, for instance, hypothetically if there were a god. But since we cannot prove the existance or lack there of, using the word god in itself becomes hypothetical. mud, I have struggled with the concept so to speak that language is a limiting factor to our own advancement, sure there are tons of big words and small words and inbetween words out there, but really to me using words is a limiting factor of human knowledge. I have felt things or done things that I can't really describe with human words, perhaps god is our most universally accepted word for the unexplanable like you were talking about. I dunno really just a thought.

rockland I said the spanish founded america, not the puritans, it was out of order in my post but I didn't say they founded america. Anyone been to james town pretty cool place.
 
Wolfe said:
Correct me if im wrong but didnt the Pilgrims land on Plymoth Rock escaping religious persecution from the English? (Catholics)
Click to expand...
Spobi
 
red91inWA said:
WELCOME TO OUR NEW TV SHOW....

Pot and Kettle....


In todays episode you'll hear POT say...."damn Kettle, your BLACK!?!?!?"

and in return hear Kettle say..." FU you racist SOB...wheres the ACLU?!?


:confused1
Click to expand...
:laugh2:

:thumbup:
 
8Mud said:
Tangent maybe, but perhaps the word God is used to try to label the unexplainable and religion is the methode used trying to explain it. We may use the word God, for lack of a better noun.
Click to expand...
Then don't capitalize the word. That's something I've never understood about Christians--the insistence on capitalizing the word god. Other religions sometimes do it as well, but more often than not, they simply use their gods' names.
 
Timber said:
Then don't capitalize the word. That's something I've never understood about Christians--the insistence on capitalizing the word god. Other religions sometimes do it as well, but more often than not, they simply use their gods' names.
Click to expand...

best point of the thread...you capatalize a name, not a title. If I say. "I'm going to take my car to the mechanic" it is correct. but if I say "I'm going to take my car to the Mechanic" then it's grammatically incorrect.
So the insitance on capatalizing god, and the actual capatalization of it clearly shows the "god" they are speaking of whether they use the name or not.
 
"insitance"? "capatalize"? you have little room to attempt to school your fellow forum members on grammatical inaccuracies. making a point is fine, but being a hypocritical nitpicker is just the embodiment of silliness..... i REALLY tried not to post in this thread, but i found myself inexorably drawn toward it......aaaahhhhhhh dammit! bewitching, isn't he? :roll:
 
heh heh definately...

and by the way guys, i could care less whether any of you believe in any type of god. thats your perogative, and i am in no place to hold it against you.

however, with that topic, do you capitalize Buddah, Allah?

why? because they are beings of extreme importance in different religions, and they are People (at least they are given the qualities of people at times) , which according to grammar get capitalized.
in christianity, God is the supreme being, God is given no name because the name that Jesus passed to others was God, if he were to say Jim, would we all not capitalize that? God is the name by which we call our god. so we capitalize it.
another reason is to show that he is of great importance, again maybe not to you, but to christians.

and by the way, do we not capitalize Dr. Mrs. Ms. Mr. ? are these not titles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fullsizexj
Presidential and congress powers
Replies
3
Views
470
XJEEPER
XJEEPER
M
Hey how does everbody like our ISLAMIC president
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
tkjeeper
tkjeeper
ECKSJAY
A Time To Grieve
2 3
Replies
49
Views
2K
IslanderOffRoad
IslanderOffRoad
I
Defend the Constitution=terrorist (according to this...)
Replies
13
Views
888
IndyXJ
I
Ironmen77
From Neal Boortz
Replies
0
Views
384
Ironmen77
Ironmen77
Back
Top