umm...answer the question? This is why people think all Christians are wacko. Think before you brandish your sword sir. It is double edged, and very sharp.
ONCE AGAIN, you point at the messenger instead of the message.
Stop spending your time running me down and address the issue.
Whether you quoted or sited (however your little academic mind wants to work) the issue is you use the miniscule percentage of diests and the like, to undergird your point. THAT'S DISHONEST! The point of this video!
The spineless CapeandCowl has blocked me again. Make sure you drop by his site and let him know you will behave. After all, if you say things which rock his, and his friends, worlds, you will get blocked.
The only thing that appears to be vast here is your ignorance of American constitutional law and history. The United States Constitution is not based on Christianity. The primary theoretical influence on the framers of the Constitution was English liberalism, particularly as it was articulated by John Locke. Locke said there was no such thing as a Christian commonwealth, and the Constitution's framers agreed. Moreover, your claim about the "Confederation Papers" -- you might be interested...
...to discover that the original American constitution was called the Articles of Confederation, NOT the "Confederation Papers" -- also betrayed your ignorance. The Articles say nothing about Christianity or its god as the basis for the American confederation. Finally, your biblical citations were hysterically funny, though, I suspect, quite unintentionally so. I laughed out loud at your reference to Deuteronomy 13:14 as the basis for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." ...
... The verse is part of a passage in which the Israelites are instructed to investigate whether some people in a town are trying to entice others to worship a god other than Yahweh. If it turns out there are, not only were the Israelites to put the perpetrators to death, but they were also to "put to the sword ALL who live in that town" (Deuteronomy 13:15, emphasis added). Slaughtering an entire population for an offense committed by some of its members has NOTHING to do with American polity.
The most charitable and generous assessment is that you have, at best, a mere passing acquaintance with American constitutional law and history. The evidence in this video indicates that you have even less than that. Here's a word of free advice: when one is afflicted by such a profound lack of knowledge, rather than putting one's ignorance on parade for all to see, one does well to educate oneself. Perhaps a resolution for you for 2009.
Must be tough hanging on to that ego that has to put "Prof" in front of it...
Your politically correct views reflect your lack of wholistic understanding.
The #1 thing you cannot get around is that the culture was VERY Christian in its makeup as reflected by the writings and sayings of the huge, overwhelming majority of participants.
Secondly, you favor quoting only the miniscule percentage of people from the time.
"The #1 thing you cannot get around is that the culture was VERY Christian in its makeup as reflected by the writings and sayings of the huge, overwhelming majority of participants."
The founders of this republic had a common Protestant heritage. That is very different from your claim that the Constitution is based on Christianity. Again, your claim betrays ignorance of the actual theoretical influences and historical facts that led to the creation of the American constitutional system.
"Secondly, you favor quoting only the miniscule percentage of people from the time."
I quoted no one. Rather, I corrected your grossly mistaken and misguided claim that the United States Constitution is based on Christianity. Moreover, I pointed out how outrageously silly and irrelevant your citations to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures were.
The only grossly mistaken and miguided claims regarding the Constitution's origin, are yours.
Your pointing out my citations, ONCE AGAIN shows you have not done your homework. You did not read my premise. You are using CandC's premise. My quoting of scripture was in regard to principles the forefathers of our Constitution could draw from the Bible.
I'll give you another chance. Go read what our discussion was about.
Or do you want to be intellectually dishonest again? Like the video says, you don't understand honesty because I'm not speaking your native language. I apparantly, must lie and distort, in order for you to comprehend my language.
By the way, tell CapeandCowl the definition of "barbary" is "that which barbarians do." Google "barbary barbarity". See: Claude Lévi-Strauss. He may post his apology on his channel.
"I apparantly, must lie and distort, in order for you to comprehend my language."
Actually, the fact that you're pretending to know American constitutional law and the history relevant to it is quite clearly a lie. Based on what I've seen you say in both video and comments, you know little if anything about it. You may be able to fool some equally uninformed people with all of your bluster, but I actually know this stuff. So you're wasting your time trying to put it over on me.
Let's see, Dr. Meth, here's the citation: " Locke said there was no such thing as a Christian commonwealth..."
Now, I put those quotes around your quote. Just because you didn't use proper punctuation doesn't mean you didn't quote.
You see, parsing words and squirming around doesn't work with me. Keep up the easy dialogue, Meth. I look forward to bursting the bubble of snobbery in academia in which you seem to live.
Again, Mr.Meth, you are wrong in your assumptions, I suggest because of the conclusion you want to draw. Facts have little to do with it in your camp, it would seem.
Of course Protestantism is within Christianity. That does nothing to support your erroneous claim that the Constitution is based on Christianity. It's astounding that you appear to believe it *does* support your erroneous claim.
ONCE AGAIN (If you were my student, I would give you an "F" for comprehension, sir)
GO BACK TO THE VIDEO DISCUSSION!
My claim was that there were Biblical examples of the various concepts.
My debate WAS NEVER about whether or not the Constitution is based on Christianity. It is INFLUENCED by Christianity as far as Biblical evidences and examples.
OH, and as the video says, you don't understand, do you?
Freedom of speech is separate from freedom of the press.
Freedom of speech is much more regulated than freedom of the press.
Only with modern tabloid and biased journalism have we found truth coming into question as to whether or not it is a victim of the press or the advocate of the press.
The scripture speaks of always speaking the truth. The original intention of the forefathers.
The reason I put at the end for you to go review the whole dialogue is so that you might see what the debate was about.
He asked for ANY "whatsoever" evidence from the Bible. I gave evidence from the Bible for telling the truth. Which is what the forefathers desired in the press (understanding the history of the king's press).
Actually CK, I blocked you because I grew utterly tired of your bunk about newspapers. However, I did promise you that I would allow you to post a video reply if you wanted. I have no desire to carry on a text conversation with you any longer, but I'm a man of my word. Feel free to make your video a reply to mine.
You are welcome here ANY TIME, C&C. Unless you are profane, I will not block you. Profanity is my only guideline. (See George Carlin for further information :-) )
In addition, I also owned a radio station. That will also drive you crazy because I value my privacy and won't disclose the information for you and others to see. But, that's OK. I think the proof of my skills as a writer/publisher and media professional, are quite evident.
Please come again, so you might see through the shroud you have been educated by.
202 Views since 2008.....Can you say VIRAL!!! Derrrrrr~!
BorakOBummer 8 months ago
umm...answer the question? This is why people think all Christians are wacko. Think before you brandish your sword sir. It is double edged, and very sharp.
VforVideo 1 year ago
OH, that's cute.
Can't defend christian influence. Can't defend your own lack of research. Can't defend your pious and pompous academic pharisee attitude.
Instead, you take a poke, then run... like a third grade school boy on the playground.
Please let me know what college you teach at. I want to post this on the school site for all to see.
cooksonkid 3 years ago
ONCE AGAIN, you point at the messenger instead of the message.
Stop spending your time running me down and address the issue.
Whether you quoted or sited (however your little academic mind wants to work) the issue is you use the miniscule percentage of diests and the like, to undergird your point. THAT'S DISHONEST! The point of this video!
I say again: DON'T YOU GET IT?
cooksonkid 3 years ago
The spineless CapeandCowl has blocked me again. Make sure you drop by his site and let him know you will behave. After all, if you say things which rock his, and his friends, worlds, you will get blocked.
cooksonkid 3 years ago
The only thing that appears to be vast here is your ignorance of American constitutional law and history. The United States Constitution is not based on Christianity. The primary theoretical influence on the framers of the Constitution was English liberalism, particularly as it was articulated by John Locke. Locke said there was no such thing as a Christian commonwealth, and the Constitution's framers agreed. Moreover, your claim about the "Confederation Papers" -- you might be interested...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
...to discover that the original American constitution was called the Articles of Confederation, NOT the "Confederation Papers" -- also betrayed your ignorance. The Articles say nothing about Christianity or its god as the basis for the American confederation. Finally, your biblical citations were hysterically funny, though, I suspect, quite unintentionally so. I laughed out loud at your reference to Deuteronomy 13:14 as the basis for the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." ...
ProfMTH 3 years ago
... The verse is part of a passage in which the Israelites are instructed to investigate whether some people in a town are trying to entice others to worship a god other than Yahweh. If it turns out there are, not only were the Israelites to put the perpetrators to death, but they were also to "put to the sword ALL who live in that town" (Deuteronomy 13:15, emphasis added). Slaughtering an entire population for an offense committed by some of its members has NOTHING to do with American polity.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
The most charitable and generous assessment is that you have, at best, a mere passing acquaintance with American constitutional law and history. The evidence in this video indicates that you have even less than that. Here's a word of free advice: when one is afflicted by such a profound lack of knowledge, rather than putting one's ignorance on parade for all to see, one does well to educate oneself. Perhaps a resolution for you for 2009.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You didn't go back to the original debate on CapeandCowl's channel.
He challenged me to find any mention "whatsoever"!!!!
I did, and you didn't read it... did you?
cooksonkid 3 years ago
Must be tough hanging on to that ego that has to put "Prof" in front of it...
Your politically correct views reflect your lack of wholistic understanding.
The #1 thing you cannot get around is that the culture was VERY Christian in its makeup as reflected by the writings and sayings of the huge, overwhelming majority of participants.
Secondly, you favor quoting only the miniscule percentage of people from the time.
cooksonkid 3 years ago
Finally, try sticking to facts instead of trying to boost your ego and self esteem by running me down. You may have a chance in this debate.
cooksonkid 3 years ago
"The #1 thing you cannot get around is that the culture was VERY Christian in its makeup as reflected by the writings and sayings of the huge, overwhelming majority of participants."
The founders of this republic had a common Protestant heritage. That is very different from your claim that the Constitution is based on Christianity. Again, your claim betrays ignorance of the actual theoretical influences and historical facts that led to the creation of the American constitutional system.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
"Secondly, you favor quoting only the miniscule percentage of people from the time."
I quoted no one. Rather, I corrected your grossly mistaken and misguided claim that the United States Constitution is based on Christianity. Moreover, I pointed out how outrageously silly and irrelevant your citations to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures were.
"...in this debate."
There's a debate? LOL.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
IF there's no debate, why are you here, Mr. Meth?
The only grossly mistaken and miguided claims regarding the Constitution's origin, are yours.
Your pointing out my citations, ONCE AGAIN shows you have not done your homework. You did not read my premise. You are using CandC's premise. My quoting of scripture was in regard to principles the forefathers of our Constitution could draw from the Bible.
I'll give you another chance. Go read what our discussion was about.
cooksonkid 3 years ago
"IF there's no debate, why are you here...?"
To point out your errors.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Sounds like a debate to me.
Or do you want to be intellectually dishonest again? Like the video says, you don't understand honesty because I'm not speaking your native language. I apparantly, must lie and distort, in order for you to comprehend my language.
By the way, tell CapeandCowl the definition of "barbary" is "that which barbarians do." Google "barbary barbarity". See: Claude Lévi-Strauss. He may post his apology on his channel.
cooksonkid 3 years ago
"I apparantly, must lie and distort, in order for you to comprehend my language."
Actually, the fact that you're pretending to know American constitutional law and the history relevant to it is quite clearly a lie. Based on what I've seen you say in both video and comments, you know little if anything about it. You may be able to fool some equally uninformed people with all of your bluster, but I actually know this stuff. So you're wasting your time trying to put it over on me.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Mr. Meth, I have never claimed to know constitutional law. You are putting words in my mouth. Once again you speak with your 'father's' tongue.
No lie on my behalf. I know only that which I can document.
You said, "...You may be able to fool some equally uninformed people with all of your bluster..."
I was just thinking the same of you, sir.
Pseudo-intellectualism is a disease which you appear to be succuming to.
Pride comes before destruction. Proceed.
cooksonkid 3 years ago
"I quoted no one."
Let's see, Dr. Meth, here's the citation: " Locke said there was no such thing as a Christian commonwealth..."
Now, I put those quotes around your quote. Just because you didn't use proper punctuation doesn't mean you didn't quote.
You see, parsing words and squirming around doesn't work with me. Keep up the easy dialogue, Meth. I look forward to bursting the bubble of snobbery in academia in which you seem to live.
cooksonkid 3 years ago
"Just because you didn't use proper punctuation doesn't mean you didn't quote."
Are you for real here? Is this really the best you can do? Wow.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Again, Mr.Meth, you are wrong in your assumptions, I suggest because of the conclusion you want to draw. Facts have little to do with it in your camp, it would seem.
cooksonkid 3 years ago
"The founders of this republic had a common Protestant heritage..."
Let's see... Protestant (let me think) OH YES, that was a CHRISTIAN movement wasn't it?
cooksonkid 3 years ago
Of course Protestantism is within Christianity. That does nothing to support your erroneous claim that the Constitution is based on Christianity. It's astounding that you appear to believe it *does* support your erroneous claim.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
ONCE AGAIN (If you were my student, I would give you an "F" for comprehension, sir)
GO BACK TO THE VIDEO DISCUSSION!
My claim was that there were Biblical examples of the various concepts.
My debate WAS NEVER about whether or not the Constitution is based on Christianity. It is INFLUENCED by Christianity as far as Biblical evidences and examples.
DON'T YOU GET IT?
cooksonkid 3 years ago
OH, and as the video says, you don't understand, do you?
Freedom of speech is separate from freedom of the press.
Freedom of speech is much more regulated than freedom of the press.
Only with modern tabloid and biased journalism have we found truth coming into question as to whether or not it is a victim of the press or the advocate of the press.
The scripture speaks of always speaking the truth. The original intention of the forefathers.
cooksonkid 3 years ago
I do not know why you were sent this video.
The reason I put at the end for you to go review the whole dialogue is so that you might see what the debate was about.
He asked for ANY "whatsoever" evidence from the Bible. I gave evidence from the Bible for telling the truth. Which is what the forefathers desired in the press (understanding the history of the king's press).
cooksonkid 3 years ago
Tell me... what does it feel like?
cooksonkid 3 years ago
So, dude does he still have you blocked?
okla4operationchaos 3 years ago
Yes. Unfortunately... or fortunately for him. Can't stand to be embarassed by we "fundies". :)
cooksonkid 3 years ago
Actually CK, I blocked you because I grew utterly tired of your bunk about newspapers. However, I did promise you that I would allow you to post a video reply if you wanted. I have no desire to carry on a text conversation with you any longer, but I'm a man of my word. Feel free to make your video a reply to mine.
CapeandCowl 3 years ago
You are welcome here ANY TIME, C&C. Unless you are profane, I will not block you. Profanity is my only guideline. (See George Carlin for further information :-) )
cooksonkid 3 years ago
In addition, I also owned a radio station. That will also drive you crazy because I value my privacy and won't disclose the information for you and others to see. But, that's OK. I think the proof of my skills as a writer/publisher and media professional, are quite evident.
Please come again, so you might see through the shroud you have been educated by.
cooksonkid 3 years ago