tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post746526556991631755..comments2024-03-28T12:10:26.197-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Obama Hates Me!Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-23359010115475280122010-03-16T19:52:12.071-07:002010-03-16T19:52:12.071-07:00Van, that's great news!!!Van, that's great news!!!Susannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381272662339466736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-486328629479551922010-03-16T16:37:19.279-07:002010-03-16T16:37:19.279-07:00To NoMo re:
"Tigtog - As incredibly intellig...To NoMo re:<br /><br />"Tigtog - As incredibly intelligent as was the Apostle Paul, this may disappoint you: “But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." II Cor 11:3<br /><br />What was he thinking? Surely he knew better than to reference a talking snake."<br /><br />I don't think for an instance that Paul referenced anything other than the story of the Garden as told in Genesis. He was after all knowledgeable of the Hebrew telling and was a 1st century citizen. So yes, in Paul's words he speaks honestly. <br /><br />My point is the Eden story is ancient, its providence is from the mouth of the Tigres and Euphrates and its particulars changed when adapted by the Hebrews. My larger point is that the two stories portray the same fact: man became conscious and was able to control his environment using this consciousness, and likely it was women's needs/demands that caused a cessation of our wanderlust that allowed the process of civilization to begin.<br /><br />One other implication from a comparison of the Hebraic versus its earlier version is that under the Hebraic version we were never intended to fall from the Garden, while the earlier version explains why we chose to leave the Garden by cultivating it. I like Gagdad Bob, believe we were designed to leave the Garden by the Creator of the Garden. The original sin is much like Pandora's box, once you leave "unconsciousness" you can never return. <br /><br />The inherent question is were we designed to live as a beast of the forest or as a conscious being? I think the later is what we were intended for.Tigtoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03290914498892961024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-13722708575668170692010-03-16T16:36:53.460-07:002010-03-16T16:36:53.460-07:00Gagdad said "...I didn't intend to discou...Gagdad said "...I didn't intend to discourage you from commenting..."<br /><br />Oh I know, no problemo... but that one comment I made <i>was</i> a fast 'n furious reaction response... the Mrs. has noted that I'm a wee bit touchy since Ryan left...not quite back in balance yet I suppose. <br /><br />But... while I guess I can see that in my <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2010/03/common-sense-conspiracies-race-to-where.html" rel="nofollow">last post</a> too... but we <i>did</i> manage to stop Obamao's 'Race To The Top' dis-education program in MO though - woo-hoo!Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-91660860687902366132010-03-16T13:45:05.315-07:002010-03-16T13:45:05.315-07:00I have a name for Anonymous
"...Legion, for w...I have a name for Anonymous<br />"...Legion, for we are many."<br /><br />WV:<i>conship</i>Dougmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08468871451814828157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-21751442389066442312010-03-16T10:19:34.534-07:002010-03-16T10:19:34.534-07:00Do you really imagine that you can refute me with ...Do you really imagine that you can refute me with facts and logic? Ha! Always remember that I am a leftist, and therefore superior to what you naively call "truth."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-34237314978726749752010-03-16T10:07:15.609-07:002010-03-16T10:07:15.609-07:00Anon: "The founder's own religious belief...Anon: "The founder's own religious beliefs varied and were liberal by the standards of the time, tending towards deism and unitarianism, because more traditional and authoritarian forms would not permit the existence of dissident sects."<br /><br />Stuff and nonsense.<br /><br />http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html<br /><br />The sticking point: There were 88 Episcopalian/Anglican members, which was 54.7%. And 3 Unitarians, a whopping 1.9%.<br /><br />And don't try to pigeonhole Franklin as only a Deist. The guy wandered around in his personal beliefs over the years, but always was a staunch supporter of the church nearest to him in town. His later writings indicted that he was more of Christian than anything else.Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06204019386677018162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-41706873023961391532010-03-16T09:44:54.889-07:002010-03-16T09:44:54.889-07:00Van--
Yes, I didn't intend to discourage you ...Van--<br /><br />Yes, I didn't intend to discourage you from commenting -- as you say, others may well benefit from your comments, even though the troll cannot.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-54908270055124516082010-03-16T09:36:54.998-07:002010-03-16T09:36:54.998-07:00aninnymouse said ""The founder's own...aninnymouse said ""The founder's own religious beliefs varied and were liberal by the standards of the time, tending towards deism and unitarianism, because more traditional and authoritarian forms would not permit the existence of dissident sects."<br /><br />(Sorry guys, can't resist... maybe others reading will find it useful)<br /><br />Obviously since they established a Constitution with no established church, and then several years later ratified amendments to emphasize the fact that the Federal "<a href="http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_religion.html" rel="nofollow">Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof</a>", they did not want the Federal Govt making religious decisions for the states - or infringing upon they or their peoples free exercise thereof. But the fact that the much vaunted 'wall of separation' was constructed more of loosely woven whicker than of leftist stone, should be obvious from the fact that even Jefferson attended church services within the Capitol building. <br /><br />Individual choice and free will were of high importance to the Founding Father's generation, they desired that matters of religion be left to the conscience of the people... however, the idea that 'the people' should be spared the burden of coming into contact with any religious materials or sentiments when out in public, or from any possible connection to those working for the government, is historically and philosophically ignorant in the extreme. <br /><br />Too often when we hear "religious beliefs varied and were liberal by the standards of the time, tending towards deism and unitarianism", it is being used to suggest that they were just a nudge and a wink away from modern irreligiousity, which is an absurd temporal provincialism. For every Ethan Allen you may find, you'll discover a Sam Adams, Patrick Henry and a Roger Sherman looking disapprovingly down their noses at you.<br /><br />I know, because twenty something years ago I set out to prove to a friend that the "founder's own religious beliefs varied and were liberal by the standards of the time, tending towards deism and unitarianism"... and after reading beyond my handy dandy quotes pages and into the actual documents of the Founders, letters, newspapers and books from their times (much of which can now be found online at <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/" rel="nofollow">Gutenberg.org</a> or the <a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&Itemid=28" rel="nofollow">Online Library of Liberty</a> and elsewhere), it became obvious that I was laboring under an ideological pretension, and I've spent the time since then reading what they wrote themselves, as well as the materials, ideas and other influences which caused them to write and create what they did.<br /><br />True, the Federal govt shouldn't be making any laws regarding religious matters, but neither should we need to put up with ACLU'ish hysterics over a church organization being prohibited from utilizing a school auditorium for fear of 'breaching the wall between church and state'.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-37899609500144649182010-03-16T09:30:32.474-07:002010-03-16T09:30:32.474-07:00Tigtog - As incredibly intelligent as was the Apos...Tigtog - As incredibly intelligent as was the Apostle Paul, this may disappoint you: “But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." II Cor 11:3<br /><br />What was he thinking? Surely he knew better than to reference a talking snake.NoMohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01100042056270224683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-71074628737109818942010-03-16T08:49:07.451-07:002010-03-16T08:49:07.451-07:00Anonymouse: "They weree "hostile" (...<b>Anonymouse:</b> "<i>They weree "hostile" (your word) to the idea of an official, established church. They were hostile to the close integration of church and state which was the default mode in Europe.</i>"<br /><br />You really don't understand what you're talking about, do you?<br /><br />The Framers of the US Constitution were not against the establishment of religion -- they saw, as we do not, establishment of religion as a valid governmental action -- they were against the Federal government either:<br />1) establishing any particular sect at the federal level;<br />2) acting to disestablish any establishment of religion in the roughtly half dozen States which had an established religions.<br /><br /><br />"<i><b>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, </b></i>"<br /><br />This simply means that the Federal government is to remain wholly silent regarding establishments of religion. It simply means exactly what it say: it does not dictate hostility to Christianity.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-69364097586217778232010-03-16T08:29:19.856-07:002010-03-16T08:29:19.856-07:00As for your absurd apparent belief that the US was...<i>As for your absurd apparent belief that the US was founded by people hostile to religion... seriously dude, what planet are you from?</i><br /><br />And where did I say they were? They weree "hostile" (your word) to the idea of an official, established church. They were hostile to the close integration of church and state which was the default mode in Europe. They were hostile to the wars of religion that had devasted Europe not that long before. <br /><br />The founder's own religious beliefs varied and were liberal by the standards of the time, tending towards deism and unitarianism, because more traditional and authoritarian forms would not permit the existence of dissident sects.<br /><br />This is something any high school student should know, so it's hardly a wacky belief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-68561245603642572572010-03-16T07:24:57.779-07:002010-03-16T07:24:57.779-07:00And even were it true (as it is not) that the men ...And even were it true (as it is not) that the men who wrote the US Constitution were hostile to Christianity -- which is what those folk almost always meant when they used the word "religion" -- the "Founding Fathers" includes *all* the citizens of the US at the time the Constitution was enacted.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-34241237004318832252010-03-16T07:19:07.959-07:002010-03-16T07:19:07.959-07:00Anonymous wrote:
"You can't seem to gras...Anonymous wrote:<br /><br /><i>"You can't seem to grasp the simple fact that someone can understand what you are saying and still disagree with you."</i><br /><br />First of all we have almost no way of telling one "anonymous" from another. Many posts under that non-name indicate a wholesale lack of comprehension of the core ideas communicated in this blog.<br /><br />Frankly I welcome the rare appearance of an outsider who really does seem to grasp some of what raccoons believe and actually do a reasonable job of challenging some of those beliefs. So far all such challenges have been in vain, but at least some were brought in good faith.<br /><br />As for your absurd apparent belief that the US was founded by people hostile to religion... seriously dude, what <i>planet</i> are you from?Stephen Macdonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13474300559219020772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-15588373649196568462010-03-16T05:06:27.836-07:002010-03-16T05:06:27.836-07:00To Anonymous re:
Both actually. That's the ni...To Anonymous re:<br /><br />Both actually. That's the nice thing about the "wall of separation" metaphor -- walls work both ways. <br /><br />I believe Jefferson understood that the act of faith was a higher pursuit not suitable for the business paying bills and balancing a checkbook. Jefferson never foresaw a people choosing to believe in mere mortals. When mortals worship mortals has Jefferson's wall of separation been breached? <br /><br />Separation of church and state suggests that citizens know the difference between faith and rational process. The habit, or should I say, the deep need of the left to believe in something (usually a mortal or a plan) repeatedly contradicts their admonitions regarding separation. <br /><br />Do you find this contradiction puzzling?Tigtoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03290914498892961024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-70935135666284920202010-03-15T22:40:04.305-07:002010-03-15T22:40:04.305-07:00{* This comment commenced before reading other pos...{* This comment commenced before reading other posts: it was good to hear, again, from TJ, re The Americas, faith, Church/State.<br /> * On Topic - Ezra Pound, Idaho´s smartest native - admired both TJ and Il Duce!}<br /><br />¨...However, in ... America, the break from religious oppression had already been effected, so that political liberation was not conflated with a rebellion against God.¨<br /> NORTH America, I suggest: our ´Latin´ neighbors embrace leftist tribalism. Innumeracy, scientific illiteracy, narco-traffic, and Ibero-mania may condemn SA to more generations of anguish. <br /> <br /> Welcome to South America and el Istmo:<br />¨...the more left the country, the more laws must exist to constrain and control the people, exterior laws which displace the interior law written in the heart of man...¨Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11816128268464995920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-3073215006065954452010-03-15T22:03:03.949-07:002010-03-15T22:03:03.949-07:00"However, in Protestant England and America, ..."However, in Protestant England and America, the break from religious oppression had already been effected, so that political liberation was not conflated with a rebellion against God. Thus, the Founders were able to formulate the ideal of distinct domains of church and state, not for the purpose of ending religion's influence, but strengthening it."<br /><br />Indeed, and if one wishes to gain a proper context for the founders' understanding of law, <a href="http://www.blackstoneinstitute.org/sirwilliamblackstone.html" rel="nofollow">Blackstone</a> is the one to read. <a href="http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/" rel="nofollow">Here is the full text online of Blackstone's Commentaries </a>. Current Anon. (really, they do get confusing) would do well to start there.Susannahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16381272662339466736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-87501596503360347692010-03-15T21:05:41.705-07:002010-03-15T21:05:41.705-07:00I have been away for several days.
Before catchi...I have been away for several days. <br /><br />Before catching up on recent Coon talk, here´s an important ON TOPIC<br />--<br />WUWT link: English translation of<br />¨Post-normal failings¨Jaap Hanekamp<br />http://climategate.nl/2010/03/15/post-normal-failings/Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11816128268464995920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-85165278701205040322010-03-15T20:36:05.829-07:002010-03-15T20:36:05.829-07:00aninny said "blah blah blah Tripoli blah blah...aninny said "blah blah blah Tripoli blah blah blah..." <br /><br />To avoid my lack of interest and attention doing further harm to the English language, see my comment on 12/09/2009 02:56:00 PM on <a href="http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-sons-of-liberty-and-cosmic.html" rel="nofollow">this OC Post</a> for the last time I once again was tired of answering that tired and out of context 'point'.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-25221528219577383182010-03-15T20:18:13.167-07:002010-03-15T20:18:13.167-07:00Do you stalk all of them, or just me?Do you stalk all of them, or just me?Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-83199470209195958722010-03-15T20:11:37.669-07:002010-03-15T20:11:37.669-07:00He is literally uneducable.
Funny, I feel just t...<i>He is literally uneducable. </i><br /><br />Funny, I feel just the same way about you.<br /><br />You can't seem to grasp the simple fact that someone can understand what you are saying and still disagree with you. Apparently the force of your belief system is so strong that anybody who is not immediately bowled over by it must be under some form of demonic possession. I've known some pretty intellectually arrogant people in my time, but you may take the prize.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-11581407217866468902010-03-15T20:05:54.799-07:002010-03-15T20:05:54.799-07:00Van said:
Everyone of those snippets are give a mu...Van said:<br /><i>Everyone of those snippets are give a much fuller meaning, and different from your desires.</i><br /><br />For someone who claims to have read as much as you do, you sure have trouble constructing an English sentence that is grammatical and makes sense.<br /><br />Since you have read and understood all of Adam's writings, and those of the other founders, perhaps you can point out some particular passages that you think contradicts anything I've said here. So far you haven't. <br /><br /><i>Rather than an effort to save Govt from the nefarious taint of religious peoples words, Jefferson was clearly seeking to be protect the Church's from the State, rather than the other way around, </i><br /><br />Both actually. That's the nice thing about the "wall of separation" metaphor -- walls work both ways. <br /><br />What's your opinion of the Treaty of Tripoli? Unlike Jefferson's letters, that actually had the force of law, and reads "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-34172192525087829272010-03-15T19:55:21.119-07:002010-03-15T19:55:21.119-07:00Not really. This might be it. I prefer the immedia...Not really. This might be it. I prefer the immediacy of blogging anyway.... Although, if I could come up with a theme and an organizing structure to contain everything I want to say, I might give it a shot.... One shouldn't write a book unless it's absolutely necessary, since there are already way too many books.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-12164962886486309412010-03-15T19:04:00.184-07:002010-03-15T19:04:00.184-07:00To Gagdad re:
"People believe lies because t...To Gagdad re:<br /><br />"People believe lies because they turn from the light and place faith in the serpent; in short, they turn from the vertical/essential to the horizontal/contingent (the snake being the quintessential horizontal beast)."<br /><br />The snake being the quintessential horizontal beast I find interesting from the Eden story point of view. It is my understanding that the Eden story came from ancient Sumeria. In its first telling the "snake" represented a Great River God, which was seen as slithering throughout the entire world, brining with it predictability and great bounty. Since Eden was located at the nexus of four rivers, it was the cause (tempter) of man becoming "conscious", or godlike in his command of the material world (knowledge of right and wrong), thus separating him from his "unconscious" forbearers (beasts of the field). When incorporated into the Hebraic books, the serpent tempts man by seducing woman. Interesting twist. Both tellings are correct and meaningful, but one has to wonder why the Hebrews dropped the river god concept and included Eve as the weak link. Did the Hebrews see women as a more powerful motive force than the Sumerians' river god in awakening the consciousness of man? I think this concept of women being the civilizing force was stated by Goethe. Not sure, but it does jive with my existence; the wife wants a new clothes dryer. <br /><br />BTW, I enjoyed your book. Do you plan another?Tigtoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03290914498892961024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-8131303865640796692010-03-15T18:48:21.612-07:002010-03-15T18:48:21.612-07:00Gagdad said "He is literally uneducable. Some...Gagdad said "He is literally uneducable. Some people do not wish to know the truth. For him there is no help."<br /><br />Yeah... I know, sorry about that. Don't quite have my equilibrium back yet.<br /><br />wv:besingsh<br />wordveri's either talking deep equilibrium... or it's very coonfused.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-35452781368271974102010-03-15T18:32:25.405-07:002010-03-15T18:32:25.405-07:00Well, don't worry. Our default setting is alw...Well, don't worry. Our default setting is always Genesis anyway. People believe lies because they turn from the light and place faith in the serpent; in short, they turn from the vertical/essential to the horizontal/contingent (the snake being the quintessential horizontal beast).Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.com