Radorth

That's not what I said but anyway, but if you are going to use one, use them all. But I guess you just pick out what you like.

Ah baloney. It gives us an idea how autonomous Jewish women were and what they could do, like choose and buy land.

So they never looked at the old treaties and decided to reject certain clauses. They just made up new ones from scratch. The fact is, their were still pirates and bigoted Muslim robbers to deal with, and I think they must have cosidered it very seriously.

(More if Toto doesn't cut it off before I can respond)

Radorth

Oops

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

ybnormal

What, Radorth? You'll respond to my posts that expose utter disingenuousness, yet ignore a post where I sincerely answer a question, explain my motivation and generally try to reach you as just another fellow human being? May I ask, why that is? As it stands, this puzzlement leaves me to believe that you'd really rather me argue unendingly, than try to reach some type of common understanding on something specific. Is the reason possibly that I said I would back off? And certainly, I don't appear to be the only one here who seems left with this puzzlement.

Anyway, thanks for responding... and thanks for the opportunity to speak to this issue one last time.

In response, I must point out that my And this is just from the Moderator. point, seems to have zinged right past you... I'm reminded of the phrase, "Can't see the forest for the trees". I thought that post might help you understand our general frustration... feel free of course, to demonstrate your own particular frustration.

My other post was a serious attempt to slow down the acrimony, and draw some correlation to the list of repeated pleadings, that you could provide a link whenever you could. My attempt didn't work. I'll try to clarify.

Sorry my friend, but for you to tell Buffman, on the 9th and final page, It is most sad that you accuse me of anything more than not giving the whole context... when you never, even once, provided a single link on that entire thread of 9 pages, was the absolute height of hypocrisy. Let's just say, that by comparison, I don't have enough time left to live, to count the number of links that just two folks, Buffman and Toto, provided to you.

And also on that final page, after Toto's belabored pleas, you quadrupled that absolute hypocrisy in saying, I marvel the moderators allow these rants to go on and on and on.

Thus, I fully understand why you were unwilling to respond to my honest answer to you, regarding the integrity of xians vs. Atheists.

Other that all that, and with the above in mind, I was only asking if you would recognize, that it is to your distinct advantage when you are allowed to define this much broader debate, than just the Constitution itself?

In other words, by your arguments, are you not making the claim that the actual words of the Constitution itself are of equal, if not of lesser importance, than the beliefs of the men who constructed it?

And if this is accurate, and contrary to your many personal statements regarding governance, are you not by default, aligning yourself with those who would willingly replace man's law with God's law?

Are you not espousing that the United States dispense with the Constitution as we know it?

************

[Toto: Your forewarning of this thread-closing is most appreciated, and goes a long way in keeping old men's erratic blood pressure levels under control. It could be a nice and welcomed universal practice in many non-emergency situations. Consider yourself profusely appreciated and thanked.]

Peace!

Yellum Notnef

Balderdash!
You`re the one picking out what you like. Like with the muzzled oxen nonsense.

Your talking oxen were a fine example of free speech when you thought JESUS said it,but once you realized it was from the OT it was no longer helpful in your mindless crusade. (even though it was utterly ridiculous to imply that that verse had ANYTHING to do with free speech by either oxen or people regardless of who it was who said it).
Stick a fork in yourself Radorth.You`re done.

Sweet fancy Moses! Man this thread has been amusing to follow.


[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Fenton Mulley ]</p>

Daggah

The Constitution defines the U.S. Government. Do you accept this, Radorth?

Buffman

Radorth

Maybe Federer does take ques from Barton. How would I know that?

Because Federer provides references for each of the qiotes "he" uses. You will find them at the end of the quote.

Why do you think I posted the example from Federer? If you quoted from Federer, then you must have known that he was quoting from Barton. I had to assume that you knew and that is why you didn't provide a reference. If I am mistaken, all you have to do is provide the URL/book reference from which you took the Dayton quote. I am interested in tracking it back to a source document. Aren't you? It is the only one that makes the claims that it does from all the other source documents about the Franklin plea. Apparently even Timothy Dwight didn't know about all this praying.

Radorth

My opinion is that the phrase was put there to kiss butt, and was not used later (in that form) because it was thought dishonest particularly "in no sense."

Also Buffman, your own site seems to contadict your an interpretation of motives, which seems rather stretched to fit your beliefs about the founders. I.e:


Again you are asking for something that may not exist. Would a book ref written around 1830 do you? Or is no reference or quote valid unless it appears on the web now?

Skeptic debate rule no 12: If your opponent can't give you a URL, the writing may be presumed not to exist.

Forget it Buffman. My rule is to take quotes pretty much at face value unless they sound really fishy or are very short or have ellipses around them.

Yb, my "ignoring" you has nothing to do with my appreciation or lack thereof for your post. I read it carefully and thought about it later, and was glad to see it.

Close but not quite. I think they understood (and many said) that the Constitution could say anything and it would not matter, the republic would not survive, unless God was called upon for help, and unless "the Lord built the house" and I think, kept the house. The only real danger I see for America is is leaving God out of government.

Good question. My answer is that if God does not rule us, we will be ruled by tyrants, Constitution or no. We disagree on what God's law is obviously, yet if God's "law of the Spirit of life" to truly ruled our hearts, we should need no Constitution or courts, or anything else to make us treat each other justly.

Rad

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Yellum Notnef

But your god *is* a tyrant so whats the difference?


I`ll answer this. The difference is that your god (a tyrant) isn`t real,but other (human) tyrants are.

And gods laws do nothing to make people treat each other justly.
Are you sure it`s the bible you`ve been reading for 25 years and not some other book?

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Fenton Mulley ]</p>

Radorth

You pays your money and you picks your tyrant Fenton, I guess. Lord Self, whom you apparently worship, hasn't exactly made you a holy neighbor either.

But that's OK Jesus loves you anyway.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

What makes me an "unholy neighbor"? because I don`t agree with you and wish you`d go live your life and keep your opinions to yourself? Do you have any idea how much time you`ve wasted with this crusade of yours?
Not just on this website but on the others as well. The site we found you on yesterday said your post count was over 2000 and you`re already over 800 here nevermind the other places you visit.

WHAT HAS ALL THIS ACCOMPLISHED RADORTH???
As far as I can tell you haven`t changed ANYONES opinions after all this time,but you`re still at it.
I hope for your sake that there is an afterlife because you`re wasting this life.

And wouldn`t putting an end to all this fussing and fighting with the world make your wife happy?

AND if God is real and watching you don`t you think he knows you`ve done enough already for the cause? You claim to now be incapable of sin for crying out loud. What more does he expect you to do?
Yeesh!

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: Fenton Mulley ]</p>