Passenger killed by air marshall

[Grammatron]

It's one of the aspects, yes.

What are the other aspects?

 

[CFLarsen]

What are the other aspects?

Of religion? Moral rules, usually combined with a post-mortem reward/punishment. Far too often, "This is The Truth (and all other religions are just fake, bad and should be suppressed)"

 

[Grammatron]

Of religion? Moral rules, usually combined with a post-mortem reward/punishment. Far too often, "This is The Truth (and all other religions are just fake, bad and should be suppressed)"

I think I see where the confusion is now.

When the word "creator" was used in DoI you automatically viewed that to be "religious" since you think "creation" is an aspect of "religion."

Correct?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

In case anyone thinkns I have forgotten.

I have finally gotten a reply from the first of the courts I contacted about the prevalence of swearing on a bible in Nevada Courts. So far the Carson City District Court Department 1 uses the phrase 'So Help Me God' in their witness and juror oaths, but you may opt out. Department 2 (I am not sure what the difference is) does not use the phrase in their oaths but you may throw it in if you wish. Neither uses a Bible or any other holy book as part of the swearing in.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think I see where the confusion is now.

When the word "creator" was used in DoI you automatically viewed that to be "religious" since you think "creation" is an aspect of "religion."

Correct?

Not just that. You also (always!) have to consider the historical context. At the time, not that many people were non-religious (the US being a haven for the religiously not-so-desirable, remember?). "Creator" was even more so an aspect of religion then.

You don't think that "creation" (the word, not in the DoI) is an aspect of "religion"?

 

[Grammatron]

Not just that. You also (always!) have to consider the historical context. At the time, not that many people were non-religious (the US being a haven for the religiously not-so-desirable, remember?). "Creator" was even more so an aspect of religion then.

You don't think that "creation" (the word, not in the DoI) is an aspect of "religion"?

Then we go back to the point of DoI being meaningless in terms of laws and how people are governed. It's an inspiring read and an amazing peace of history. That is it.

Do you understand that?

 

[CFLarsen]

Then we go back to the point of DoI being meaningless in terms of laws and how people are governed. It's an inspiring read and an amazing peace of history. That is it.

Do you understand that?

I disagree. It's not just an inspiring read and an amazing piece of history.

You don't think that "creation" is an aspect of "religion"?

 

[Jocko]

I disagree. It's not just an inspiring read and an amazing piece of history.

Evidence?

(And please don't tell me you've already supplied it; you've done no such thing and everyone here knows it.)

 

[Grammatron]

I disagree. It's not just an inspiring read and an amazing piece of history.

You're going to have to elaborate on this one as it goes against everything I have learned on American History.

You don't think that "creation" is an aspect of "religion"?

Sure, but that doesn't mean it would be in this case. Perhaps if the phrasing was "by The Creator" instead of "their Creator" you would have a point.

 

[CFLarsen]

You're going to have to elaborate on this one as it goes against everything I have learned on American History.

I have, right here in this thread.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it would be in this case. Perhaps if the phrasing was "by The Creator" instead of "their Creator" you would have a point.

Why? What's the difference?

When does "Creator" have a religious meaning, and when does it not?

 

[Grammatron]

I have, right here in this thread.

Every historical evidence you think you presented was shot down bu Upchurch. Unless you have some new evidence you are very much wrong to think you have proven this.

Why? What's the difference?

When does "Creator" have a religious meaning, and when does it not?

Up to the individual.

I view my creation as a non-religious event.

 

[CFLarsen]

Every historical evidence you think you presented was shot down bu Upchurch. Unless you have some new evidence you are very much wrong to think you have proven this.

We are talking about history. History isn't proven, like a mathematical equation.

If you are not convinced, then you are not convinced.

Up to the individual.

Rubbish. If that was true, we would all need our own dictionary. We would not have any laws at all, since we could just interpret anything the way we wanted.

But, let's say that you are right: It is up to the individual to decide. That means you have no problems with Intelligent Design? "Special creation" is a concept that should be taught in schools?

 

[Upchurch]

We are talking about history. History isn't proven, like a mathematical equation.

Whoever said that it was like a mathematical proof? There is more than one use of the word "prove".

However, it seems to me that you previously indicated that your interpretation of American history was based soley on facts. Is that correct?

If you are not convinced, then you are not convinced.

And why are you not convinced by the interpretations presented to you?

 

[CFLarsen]

Whoever said that it was like a mathematical proof? There is more than one use of the word "prove".

However, it seems to me that you previously indicated that your interpretation of American history was based soley on facts. Is that correct?

No, not correct. History is never just about facts. It is also about interpreting those facts.

Do we know for a fact that Emperor Claudius invaded Britain? Yes. Do we know why? We can base our explanation on the documents, artifacts etc. That doesn't mean that every explanation is equally valid. If you were to claim that he did it because aliens told him to, you would have to work hard to convince us.

And why are you not convinced by the interpretations presented to you?

I don't find them compelling.

Do you think that "Creator" in the DoI can mean whatever people believe it to be?

 

[Upchurch]

No, not correct. History is never just about facts. It is also about interpreting those facts.

Ah. So, you're saying that subjective interpretation is required to understand history, is that correct?

Do we know for a fact that Emperor Claudius invaded Britain? Yes. Do we know why? We can base our explanation on the documents, artifacts etc. That doesn't mean that every explanation is equally valid. If you were to claim that he did it because aliens told him to, you would have to work hard to convince us.

So, given the known history, would say that the US Founding Fathers intended the US government to be a religious government or a secular government?

I don't find them compelling.

What about them do you not find compelling?

Do you think that "Creator" in the DoI can mean whatever people believe it to be?

No, I believe any word must be taken with in the context that it is presented. I've given you a rather thurough analysis of what that context was. I assume you still find it not compelling? If so, what about it is not compelling?

 

[Grammatron]

We are talking about history. History isn't proven, like a mathematical equation.

If you are not convinced, then you are not convinced.

You mean there can be more than one right answer? I don't understand.

Rubbish. If that was true, we would all need our own dictionary. We would not have any laws at all, since we could just interpret anything the way we wanted.

But, let's say that you are right: It is up to the individual to decide. That means you have no problems with Intelligent Design? "Special creation" is a concept that should be taught in schools?

How the heck did you get from what I said to ID taught in schools? Talk about derailing a derail.

Anyway, how were you created?

 

[CFLarsen]

Ah. So, you're saying that subjective interpretation is required to understand history, is that correct?

Of course. That's the nature of history. But I want to stress that it doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid.

Do you understand this point?

So, given the known history, would say that the US Founding Fathers intended the US government to be a religious government or a secular government?

I would say that they worded it in such a way that, regardless of those FFs that were non-religious, the larger population would accept that they had their god on their side, e.g., to sever the ties to the British King whose rights were believed to be God-given.

What about them do you not find compelling?

That "Creator" and "Nature's God" aren't religious references.

No, I believe any word must be taken with in the context that it is presented. I've given you a rather thurough analysis of what that context was.

Who decides what that context is? If those claiming that "special creation" doesn't mean "God Created The World", how can you deny them the right to have Intelligent Design taught in schools?

Or are you the sole arbiter of when "Creator" and "Creation" means God?

 

[CFLarsen]

You mean there can be more than one right answer? I don't understand.

The right answer in history depends on what historical facts we find. E.g., it was once believed that the Nazis made soap out of Jews. We now know this is not true.

How the heck did you get from what I said to ID taught in schools? Talk about derailing a derail.

No, it's not a derail. It follows logically: If "creation" can mean what people say it means, then you cannot possibly have anything against Intelligent Design being taught in schools. Those who want it taught argues that it doesn't mean God.

Do you have anything against "special creation" being taught in schools?

Anyway, how were you created?

In what way?

 

[Upchurch]

Of course. That's the nature of history. But I want to stress that it doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid.

Do you understand this point?

Oh, yes. I just wanted to make sure you understood it.

I would say that they worded it in such a way that, regardless of those FFs that were non-religious, the larger population would accept that they had their god on their side, e.g., to sever the ties to the British King whose rights were believed to be God-given.

er... just so I'm clear, worded what exactly? In what document do you think that the FFs set up the US Government?

That "Creator" and "Nature's God" aren't religious references.

Why?

Who decides what that context is?

It is, unfortunately, a somewhat subjective thing. In the case of the DoI, I think the context should include not only the words surrounding the words in question, but also the authors and the intended recipient.

Or are you the sole arbiter of when "Creator" and "Creation" means God?

Nope. Are you?

 

[Grammatron]

The right answer in history depends on what historical facts we find. E.g., it was once believed that the Nazis made soap out of Jews. We now know this is not true.

You're all over the map here.

No, it's not a derail. It follows logically: If "creation" can mean what people say it means, then you cannot possibly have anything against Intelligent Design being taught in schools. Those who want it taught argues that it doesn't mean God.

Not in a science class, though.

Do you have anything against "special creation" being taught in schools?

In what way?

In what way?

In how you came into existance.