God and the Little League

Mercutio said:
Either you are right, that it refers to this particular belief system and not others, in which case the First Amendment prohibits it, or you were right before when you said it was "pretty inocuous", and it trivializes god to the point of meaninglessness.
Click to expand...
If it was totally meaningless, there would be no point to it being there now would it? Do you honestly beileve that the founders of this country were promoting the belief in "no God" ... or, that this was the intended effect? If so, then yes, we should abolish any mention of the word "God" within the government. But then again, there goes any notion of freedom of belief, because the government simply won't be there (in form) to address it.
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
If it was totally meaningless, there would be no point to it being there now would it? Do you honestly beileve that the founders of this country were promoting the belief in "no God" ... or, that this was the intended effect? If so, then yes, we should abolish any mention of the word "God" within the government. But then again, there goes any notion of freedom of belief, because the government simply won't be there (in form) to address it.
Click to expand...
Do you understand the difference between "not promoting one notion of god over another" and "promoting the belief in 'no god'"?

The rest of your post is gibberish.
 
Iacchus said:
No, it is not no-specific which, is why is captitalized. It refers to "God," the Creator of the Universe.
Click to expand...

So it discriminates against non-creator gods.

It is therefore NOT the most general term.

And you still haven't got a damn clue about what a tense is despite being told.
 
cyborg said:
And you still haven't got a damn clue about what a tense is despite being told.
Click to expand...
I suspect (though it is only a hunch) that he holds his ideas as creationists do, as inspired and sacred; if one part is wrong, the whole house of cards may fall, and that is unacceptable. Even the most ludicrous and patently wrong ideas, once stated, must be defended to the death. Usually this is accomplished by re-defining terms until there are no meaningful distinctions between any two words.

After all, if "tense" is wrong, maybe the rest of the dream is suspect...
 
cyborg said:
So it discriminates against non-creator gods.

It is therefore NOT the most general term.
Click to expand...
Remember, the founding fathers of this country were Deists.

And you still haven't got a damn clue about what a tense is despite being told.
Click to expand...
If "tense" refers specifically to verbs, then I am in error. Sorry.
 
Iacchus said:
Remember, the founding fathers of this country were Deists.
Click to expand...

Remember firstly I'm not a Yank, secondly that no they weren't - some were Christian, some were more atheistic. The important commonality was that they were part of the Enlightenment.

If "tense" refers specifically to verbs, then I am in error. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you though it could have referred to nouns and certainly not to capitalization.
 
So you're basically saying you didn't really know what you were talking about but paraded it around as if it proved your point?

Hmm...

Must Try Harder. F
 
cyborg said:
So you're basically saying you didn't really know what you were talking about but paraded it around as if it proved your point?

Hmm...

Must Try Harder. F
Click to expand...
No, I was looking for the most appropriate way to put it into words. Again, sorry. You have to admit that tense is a means of defining words, even if they are verbs. While I'm still not certain if I haven't heard of anything explained in the "proper tense?" It must have been something similar anyway.
 
This discussion reminds me of a letter to the editor in the local rag today:

On behalf of the Fraternal Order of Eagles 1.1 million members, we're speaking out against atheist Michael Newdow's challenge to our nation's Pledge of Allegiance and are encouraging all Americans to stand together on this issue.

Newdow seeks to exclude the words "under God" from the Pledge, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's numerous rulings that such an official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage, foundation and character is constitutional.

The Pledge should be left as it was intended, as an honor to our flag and country.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added.

Heck, even Iacchus should be able to recognize the problem with this one.
 
Iacchus said:
Again, sorry. You have to admit that tense is a means of defining words, even if they are verbs. While I'm still not certain if I haven't heard of anything explained in the "proper tense?" It must have been something similar anyway.
Click to expand...

Look it's simple. Just say:

"I don't have a clue."
 
Iacchus said:
You have to admit that tense is a means of defining words, even if they are verbs. While I'm still not certain if I haven't heard of anything explained in the "proper tense?" It must have been something similar anyway.
Click to expand...

"Tense" refers only to verbs. It's the form the verb takes. Past tense, present tense, subjunctive tense, etc. I ate nachos, you are eating a burrito, they shall be eating tacos, and Abraham Lincoln would have eaten a quesadilla if he hadn't been assassinated before he got to the restaurant.
 
TragicMonkey said:
"Tense" refers only to verbs. It's the form the verb takes. Past tense, present tense, subjunctive tense, etc. I ate nachos, you are eating a burrito, they shall be eating tacos, and Abraham Lincoln would have eaten a quesadilla if he hadn't been assassinated before he got to the restaurant.
Click to expand...
Yes, I already understood that verbs had a past, present and future "tense" but, how would you go about describing the "proper" form of "diction" -- if I've described this correctly? -- for a noun?
 
Iacchus said:
Yes, I already understood that verbs had a past, present and future "tense" but, how would you go about describing the "proper" form of "diction" -- if I've described this correctly? -- for a noun?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't. Diction refers to pronunciation and the clarity of your speaking words, and sometimes also to your choice of words.

A noun is a noun is a noun. You're either using the right one or the wrong one. Apart from making it plural when necessary, there's nothing else you can do to a noun.
 
Iacchus said:
Except describe it as something "proper."
Click to expand...
Close. You are thinking of "proper nouns" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun, which do not describe something as "proper", but acknowledge that this particular noun is a name, a unique entity, and not a category.

From the Wikipedia (capitalized, as a proper noun denoting this particular entity) article:
Sometimes the same word can appear as both a common noun and a proper noun, where one such entity is special; for example:
there can be many gods, but there is only one God.
Click to expand...
Capitalized, it refers to one specific instance of the category. As such, it does not refer to the other members of the category. Which was the point under discussion.
 
If praying to god would get the Giants into the World Series I'd be on my knees right now.
 
Mercutio said:
Close. You are thinking of "proper nouns" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun, which do not describe something as "proper", but acknowledge that this particular noun is a name, a unique entity, and not a category.
Click to expand...
Yes, but in terms of whether a noun is "proper," or it's not, how do they describe that? For verbs they have the word "tense." What do they use, besides the word "proper," to describe nouns?
 
TragicMonkey said:
"In God We Trust" is too tame and boring. I would prefer a jazzy Bible quote:

"There are spirits that are created for vengeance, and in their fury they lay on grievous torments." Ecclesiasticus 39:33
Click to expand...
That would make the " Little League Pledge " a lot more palatable IMO ..

Little League Pledge: "I Trust in God. I love my country and will respect it's laws. I will play fair and strive to win. But win or lose, There are spirits that are created for vengeance, and in their fury they lay on grievous torment. ( especially if you lose )"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom