X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |
|
Sniper007 Member Profile Member Since: 2008-07-24 Last Power Points used: never • Available: now Max Power Points: 1 • Get More Power Points Now Comments 1 |
Subscribe Navigation
Member Stats Rank: no rank yet Rating: 
0 star pointsVotes Cast: 15 Comments Posted: 106 • browse Comments Applauded: 1 Profile Views: 1392 Highest Ranked Comments |
Videos Submitted by Sniper007
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Theft causes harm to the person being stolen from. People don't want to be stolen from. Therefore, people shouldn't steal from other people.
Marijuana obviously doesn't affect other people at all. Marijuana is not in the same category as theft. Marijuana is in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol and other drugs such as LSD and ecstasy. Keep it in the same category and the arguments make sense.
Do you think the taxation of cigarettes has failed? Cigarettes are extremely dangerous compared to marijuana. Lung cancer kills 1.3 million people world wide every year. Do you think we should make it illegal?
Also, keep in mind, it's big business either way you look at it. Either the government makes money, or organized crime makes money. Every single gang in the world stays in business by selling illegal substances. Also, Mexico is currently calling in their army to deal with the problem of drug cartels between the Mexico-US border.
Perhaps a lifetime of anti-drug propaganda has made it difficult for you to tell the difference between drugs and something that is actually morally wrong. It's OK.
P.S. I don't smoke weed. I actually hate it.
In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Why not start taxing theft? I mean, I don't like theft, I think it should be regulated. Right now, theft isn't regulated! Theft has been illegal for 4,000 years, it's clearly not working. People still steal every day. Its time for a new approach. I think we should legalize it, and tax it. It's a HUGE business!
I'm not saying that marijuana use is the same as theft, but some of the arguments presented in this video make no sense at all.
Heck, I happen to know its actually legal and lawful to grow marijuana on your own land, notwithstanding what the "US GOVERNMENT" says. They are just a foreign owned, private corporation. The problem is that no one has the balls and the brains to study fundamental law in relation to who THEY are, and who the "GOVERNMENT" is; and the apply that law in their lives.
In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
This video is an excellent demonstration of the term, "Straw Man." In this instance, the Straw Man is a Creationist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Believing in the supernatural does not lift your ideas above that of any other human rational. Only the supernatural being itself could be above human rational, and until they or it (if they or it exists) reveal themselves there's really nothing more that we can say. We can only document what we observe, and make opinions of the philosophies we perceive.
~Pool
In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
Poolcleaner,
In common usage, the accusation of "quoting out of context" contains the implication that the phrase as quoted caries a significantly different meaning than that held in the larger portion of the work from which it was taken. The quotes you provided do not demonstrate this disparity. The truncated parts do not substantially effect the fact that Jefferson was very much a follower of Jesus Christ and his doctrines.
It is, of course, ridiculous to claim that one could claim to believe in God without believing in the Supernatural. He (God) is the singular greatest person whose existence defines the term Supernatural.
One must of course recognize the fundamental need for a Supernatural Principal Instigator if that person is to discuss the philosophy and doctrines decreed by that Instigator. Every sequential thought concerning this God need not be, and indeed, cannot be severed from mans ratiocination.
All too often this is the nature of the straw man proffered by those who would disparage the whole of the Bible. They see an act of faith in the recognition of a supreme God, and insist that every thought thereafter must also be of the same nature. While many in so called Christendom may have abandoned their minds long ago in their pursuit of Spiritualism, it is not logically necessary to do so. Rather, I would argue the Bible contains admonitions against such abandonment.
I would disagree with Jefferson on several points concerning his theology, but for the purposes of our conversation, the points upon which I do agree are of greater import. To wit: "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."
It is very important to question everything, but a question is worthless without the right answer.
In common usage, the accusation of "quoting out of context" contains the implication that the phrase as quoted caries a significantly different meaning than that held in the larger portion of the work from which it was taken. The quotes you provided do not demonstrate this disparity. The truncated parts do not substantially effect the fact that Jefferson was very much a follower of Jesus Christ and his doctrines.
It is, of course, ridiculous to claim that one could claim to believe in God without believing in the Supernatural. He (God) is the singular greatest person whose existence defines the term Supernatural.
One must of course recognize the fundamental need for a Supernatural Principal Instigator if that person is to discuss the philosophy and doctrines decreed by that Instigator. Every sequential thought concerning this God need not be, and indeed, cannot be severed from mans ratiocination.
All too often this is the nature of the straw man proffered by those who would disparage the whole of the Bible. They see an act of faith in the recognition of a supreme God, and insist that every thought thereafter must also be of the same nature. While many in so called Christendom may have abandoned their minds long ago in their pursuit of Spiritualism, it is not logically necessary to do so. Rather, I would argue the Bible contains admonitions against such abandonment.
I would disagree with Jefferson on several points concerning his theology, but for the purposes of our conversation, the points upon which I do agree are of greater import. To wit: "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."
It is very important to question everything, but a question is worthless without the right answer.
>> ^poolcleaner:
Sniper,
The Wall Builders site, like most Christian biased sites (and books) on the founding fathers take a lot of quotes out of context, superimposing their beliefs of God and Jesus onto others they wish were just like them. I've had this conversation a number of times, pointing to the fact that while the builders mention Jesus and God and Christianity, the emphasis is almost always on the philosophy, minus the supernatural. The founding fathers as a collective were very much deists and pantheists. Their ideas on religion are more comparable to the "God" of Einstein. shrug Read between the lines, man.
---
Some convenient editting:
Wall Builders quoting of Jefferson: "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others."
His actual quote: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."
Wall Builders again quoting Jefferson: "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
Actual quote: "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw."
---
Quoting out of context seems to be the bread and butter of the current America. Question everything.
In search of truth and not justification for my beliefs,
~Pool
The Wall Builders site, like most Christian biased sites (and books) on the founding fathers take a lot of quotes out of context, superimposing their beliefs of God and Jesus onto others they wish were just like them. I've had this conversation a number of times, pointing to the fact that while the builders mention Jesus and God and Christianity, the emphasis is almost always on the philosophy, minus the supernatural. The founding fathers as a collective were very much deists and pantheists. Their ideas on religion are more comparable to the "God" of Einstein. *shrug* Read between the lines, man.
---
Some convenient editting:
Wall Builders quoting of Jefferson: "I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others."
His actual quote: "I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other."
Wall Builders again quoting Jefferson: "I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
Actual quote: "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw."
---
Quoting out of context seems to be the bread and butter of the current America. Question everything.
In search of truth and not justification for my beliefs,
~Pool
In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
McCain is an idiot who isn't worth listening too. Nevertheless, America was absolutely founded on the Bible. It's a historical fact alluded to in the foundational documents of the American Nation. To quote from the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin:
"We the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare: do establish this CONSTITUTION."
Furthermore, the congress in this nation agreed, and in 1983 passed public law 97-280 which recognized the fact that the Bible was instrumental in this Nations inception.
The first Continental Congress ever held in this country was opened with Judeo-Christian Prayer. http://tinyurl.com/5zs6q3
To see mountains of evidence to this effect, see http://www.wallbuilders.com/.
Rebut that with which you disagree with relevant fact and law.
I am not arguing that the old testament God is any different than the new testament God.
Though I gave a response, I am not certain your comment was intended to elicit one. If it was, please draft future comments in the form of a question.
I hope you're not arguing that the old testament was a meaner God who become less bloodthirsty by the new testament...
In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
So... the moral authority for all of life is "ethical intuitions"? Would not those fail us as well? Sam Harris presupposes (without discussion) that men are basically, fundamentally good and that men will define and keep the proper moral standards based on their own "ethical intuitions". How does Sam Harris know that it is wrong to "paddle children" (as his diatribe implies)? Is it wrong to paddle children because the majority of people feel it is against their "ethical intuitions"? Do we need a poll to determine the morality of such events? How would such moral standards ever change over time if there is no set standard to which we may return, and the only 'standard' is current popular opinion? He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The true problem Harris has is understanding the apparent contradictions in the Bible. Rather than seeking a greater understanding of these ostensibly conflicting Biblical mandates, he chooses to ridicule all religious positions without clarifying or even considering his own position. His position is, in fact, untenable.