FOX News Defends Trump's Defense of Nazis/White Supremacists/Bigotry

[Mike Cl]

So you annoy corn farmers by wandering their fields? ;-)

How did you know?

[Baruch]

How did you know?

Children of the Corn told me they saw you ;-))

[Cavebear]

So you annoy corn farmers by wandering their fields? ;-)

I sure wouldn't mess with a farmer's fields.  But if a few acres of baseball field yielded more $ per acre than corn, then let the games begin!

[Cavebear]

Children of the Corn told me they saw you ;-))

Children Of The Corn = raccoons?

[Baruch]

Children Of The Corn = raccoons?

You don't want to know ;-(  No, not raccoons.

[Cavebear]

You don't want to know ;-(  No, not raccoons.

You don't know raccoons in the corn, do you, LOL?  They are EVIL!

[Drew_2017]

The golden rule came long before any organized religion--it is not even close to be a christian concept.  I found this on the net:

"Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040â€"1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[12][13] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[14] A Late Period (c. 664â€"323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.""

The golden rule is not a theist concept.  I would suggest it is a survival concept and is evolutionary. 

I never suggested it did arise with theism however theism gives a philosophical basis for the golden rule. You answered a question I didn't ask but failed to respond to the questions I did ask.

So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?

Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator?

[Cavebear]

I never suggested it did arise with theism however theism gives a philosophical basis for the golden rule. You answered a question I didn't ask but failed to respond to the questions I did ask.

So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?

Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator?

Oh c'mon...  All the biblical rules are (first) copied from older texts and (second)  just the rules all tribes developed from the first modern humans 100KYA.  Except the stupid stuff about what to bow your head to...

[Mike Cl]

Children of the Corn told me they saw you ;-))

Kids!--promised to keep quiet.

[Mike Cl]

I never suggested it did arise with theism however theism gives a philosophical basis for the golden rule. You answered a question I didn't ask but failed to respond to the questions I did ask.

So what objection would there be to the following? I'm curious do you find any offensive?

Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not commit murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

Would you demand the Declaration of Independence be shredded because it declares unalienable rights come from a Creator?

I've answered that question long ago.  Nothing wrong with those suggestions.  Not a thing.  And I would suggest most societies have developed rules along those lines.  And theism is not needed for any of those guidelines to have developed. 

The only demand I have upon the Declaration is that it be followed.  Unalienable or inalienable does not pertain to god-given, but to something that is part and parcel of being human.  And creator does not necessarily mean god or higher power.  An aspect of the Declaration of Independence that is seldom thought of--the purpose of the document was to declare the colonies independence from England.  The first 1/4 of the declaration was probably not thought of as being the most important part. 

Consider this:
In an interview on the History Channel (around July 4th 1999) Dr. Stephen Lucas professor of communication arts, University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has spent the last 15 years studying the origins of the Declaration of Independence made the following points:

The men who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence would be totally amazed by all the things people have since invented about what it was about, what it meant etc..
That all these religious connections and meanings etc have been added by others later it was never there as written or as understood at the time by it authors, that they were not part of what was originally important, the original understandings, meanings, intentions. etc.
One of the points made over and over again was that the sole purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to justify the separation of the colonies from England.
It also points out that much of Jefferson's writings (Declaration of Independence writings) were borrowed from himself (his proposed constitution for Virginia) The Virginia Declaration of Rights, and other sources. That such practices were quite common practice at that time period.
It is interesting that the following phrases from the Declaration of Independence:

Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
their Creator
Supreme Judge of the World
divine Providence
are cited, referred to, quoted, argued over, while the entire rest of the document is forgotten, known by few, seldom quoted. That which seemed of little importance to those who authored and or debated that document has taken on a huge life of its own since then--while that which they felt was important has been forgotten. 

[Cavebear]

I've answered that question long ago.  Nothing wrong with those suggestions.  Not a thing.  And I would suggest most societies have developed rules along those lines.  And theism is not needed for any of those guidelines to have developed. 

The only demand I have upon the Declaration is that it be followed.  Unalienable or inalienable does not pertain to god-given, but to something that is part and parcel of being human.  And creator does not necessarily mean god or higher power.  An aspect of the Declaration of Independence that is seldom thought of--the purpose of the document was to declare the colonies independence from England.  The first 1/4 of the declaration was probably not thought of as being the most important part. 

Consider this:
In an interview on the History Channel (around July 4th 1999) Dr. Stephen Lucas professor of communication arts, University of Wisconsin, Madison, who has spent the last 15 years studying the origins of the Declaration of Independence made the following points:

The men who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence would be totally amazed by all the things people have since invented about what it was about, what it meant etc..
That all these religious connections and meanings etc have been added by others later it was never there as written or as understood at the time by it authors, that they were not part of what was originally important, the original understandings, meanings, intentions. etc.
One of the points made over and over again was that the sole purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to justify the separation of the colonies from England.
It also points out that much of Jefferson's writings (Declaration of Independence writings) were borrowed from himself (his proposed constitution for Virginia) The Virginia Declaration of Rights, and other sources. That such practices were quite common practice at that time period.
It is interesting that the following phrases from the Declaration of Independence:

Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
their Creator
Supreme Judge of the World
divine Providence
are cited, referred to, quoted, argued over, while the entire rest of the document is forgotten, known by few, seldom quoted. That which seemed of little importance to those who authored and or debated that document has taken on a huge life of its own since then--while that which they felt was important has been forgotten.

Much of the language of the Declaration Of Independence is reasonably attributed to the style of language at the time.  I would be surprised if they HADN'T used religious language. And keep in mind they had a foreign audience, plus it wasn't the legal system they were describing.

[Baruch]

Drew - it is very old theology, that there are truths from actual experience, and truths from reasonomg about actual experience, but that there are truths that don't fit either ... those are truths from revelation (either from personal revelation or in an authoritative chain from "an age of faith".  I am not sure of that third category, certainly not certain one can assume it.  One can have opinions, either from G-d or out of one's ass ... but they are just opinions, not truths.  Remember, orthodoxy = correct opinion, not correct truth.  Also orthopraxis = correct behavior ... but given the limitations of orthodoxy, any orthopraxis based on revelation ... is marginal, compared to correct behavior based on actual experience or reason from actual experience. The Church only claims orthodoxy, because the Truth is G-d.  Islam and Judaism claim orthopraxis.  The Epistle of James shoots both down.

See Kant.  "A priori" vs "a posteriori" ... but "a priori" is truth based on definition, not reasoning from "a posteriori".  Kant would deny truth from authority or revelation however.  Any fool can be an authority, or claim to have revelation.  The Unabomber for instance.

[Cavebear]

Drew - it is very old theology, that there are truths from actual experience, and truths from reasonomg about actual experience, but that there are truths that don't fit either ... those are truths from revelation (either from personal revelation or in an authoritative chain from "an age of faith".  I am not sure of that third category, certainly not certain one can assume it.  One can have opinions, either from G-d or out of one's ass ... but they are just opinions, not truths.  Remember, orthodoxy = correct opinion, not correct truth.  Also orthopraxis = correct behavior ... but given the limitations of orthodoxy, any orthopraxis based on revelation ... is marginal, compared to correct behavior based on actual experience or reason from actual experience. The Church only claims orthodoxy, because the Truth is G-d.  Islam and Judaism claim orthopraxis.  The Epistle of James shoots both down.

See Kant.  "A priori" vs "a posteriori" ... but "a priori" is truth based on definition, not reasoning from "a posteriori".  Kant would deny truth from authority or revelation however.  Any fool can be an authority, or claim to have revelation.  The Unabomber for instance.

I knew there was a reason I liked Kant.  BTW, can you type "GOD"?  I just noticed you seem to avoid it like Islamists avoid picturing Mohhamed...

[Baruch]

I knew there was a reason I liked Kant.  BTW, can you type "GOD"?  I just noticed you seem to avoid it like Islamists avoid picturing Mohhamed...

Not very observant are we ;-) ... there is god, Gpd and G-d.  I can use all three.  By god, I mean the conventional kind like Zeus.  By God I mean the monotheist kind.  But G-d I mean the Jewish kind.  The kind the Christians and Muslims don't have.

[Cavebear]

Not very observant are we ;-) ... there is god, Gpd and G-d.  I can use all three.  By god, I mean the conventional kind like Zeus.  By Gpd I mean the monotheist kind.  But G-d I mean the Jewish kind.  The kind the Christians and Muslims don't have.

Yeah, its that "G-d" I have to smile at.  Its just "English" man, not even the original language...