Pro-Life flowers on the steps of the Supreme Court.

[IcarusDream]

divineseraph

I don't care about biblical passages.

Two things: 1. Are you even Christian?

2. What do you think about freewill?  

[Tarrou]

IcarusDream

Notice how you have to put "ultimately" after everything. This idea is only true in theory, and the true authority at any one time is still the Supreme Court. The people don't even control the Supreme Court. You might keep saying "ultimately" this or "ultimately" that, but that doesn't change the fact that even with a change of Congressman or president, the Supreme Court is basically controlled by death, which is the purview of God.

I'm sorry, that's just stupid. Why do you think the Supreme Court has any power at all? It's not because God handed John Jay a stone tablet inscribed with the words 'Thou shalt obey the Supreme Court'. The Court's authority derives from the Constitution, whose power derives from the fact that the citizens of the United States have all agreed to abide by it. If not for the Constitution, there would be no Supreme Court; if the Constitution were amended to dissolve the Court, there would be no Supreme Court.

Death may shuffle the bench from time to time, but new justices are selected by the President (elected) and confirmed by Congress (elected). They are not selected because they were standing near a combustible bush or by a puff of white smoke. Jesus did not give the keys to the kingdom of Constitutional law to the Apostle Jay, that he might be the rock upon which the kingdom of the Constitution on earth might be founded.

I don't have time to explain social contract theory to you. If you don't already know it, then your education has be sadly inadequate; if you don't understand it, then I won't be able to force comprehension upon you. Maybe you're just bad at English and meant not that the Court's authority comes from God, but that any given Supreme Court justice serves at God's pleasure (i.e. until God decides to kill him).

Quote:

The first amendment doesn't regulate the State governments. And since I'm not Christian, I'm not going to listen to any Supreme Court mumbo jumbo about incorporation doctrine. It's wrong.

That is stunningly incoherent. What does being a Christian (which, by the way, I am not), have to do with incorporation doctrine? Further, what does the issue of incorporation have to do with a federal body like the Supreme Court?

As an aside, I'd ask what your reasoning for rejecting incorporation doctrine as 'Supreme Court mumbo jumbo' is, but given your Southern Cross signature, I can probably guess.

Quote:

Who said God loves democracy (actually, I bet Locke actually did say that)? He put a lot of kings in their seats as the bible tells it.

Indeed, and suffice it to say it's one of the problems that I have with God and the bible. And that's all I'll say on the matter.  

[divineseraph]

IcarusDream

divineseraph

I don't care about biblical passages.

Two things: 1. Are you even Christian?

2. What do you think about freewill?

1- Depends on what you consider christian. Do I believe in Christ? Yes. As a mortal prophet. Which makes me closer to Islam. My beliefs don't fall into any one group, except maybe universalist transcendentalism. Big word for "Listen to your soul" and "All religions are good at their core".

2- Free will exists. It is what allows us to choose to break the universal laws. Otherwise we would be but automatons. We would be cogs in a machine, never able to kill others or have greed or hatred or confusion. It's not a corruption in our souls per se, but the ability to become corrupted, or to do something other than perfection.  

[IcarusDream]

Tarrou

I'm sorry, that's just stupid. Why do you think the Supreme Court has any power at all? It's not because God handed John Jay a stone tablet inscribed with the words 'Thou shalt obey the Supreme Court'.

1 Pt 2:13 basically equates to that.

Quote:

The Court's authority derives from the Constitution, whose power derives from the fact that the citizens of the United States have all agreed to abide by it.

No living American has given official consent to live under the constitution. I certainly haven't. I actually like the original constitution better than the one we've amended it to.

Quote:

Death may shuffle the bench from time to time, but new justices are selected by the President (elected) and confirmed by Congress (elected). They are not selected because they were standing near a combustible bush or by a puff of white smoke.

Sometimes I look at Justice Thomas and doubt that. It's not like every Judaic king was selected by some sort of sign. Pharaohs weren't chosen based off of explicit consent from YHWH, but nevertheless it is said that God raised them up for his purpose (see Romans 9:17).

Quote:

I don't have time to explain social contract theory to you. If you don't already know it, then your education has be sadly inadequate; if you don't understand it, then I won't be able to force comprehension upon you.

I've had to read more Hobbes and Locke than I've wanted to.

Quote:

Maybe you're just bad at English and meant not that the Court's authority comes from God, but that any given Supreme Court justice serves at God's pleasure (i.e. until God decides to kill him).

I've only been saying what the Bible tells, but I think that would be a semi-adequate understanding of it, although it takes some of the punch out of it.

Quote:

Quote:

The first amendment doesn't regulate the State governments. And since I'm not Christian, I'm not going to listen to any Supreme Court mumbo jumbo about incorporation doctrine. It's wrong.

That is stunningly incoherent. What does being a Christian (which, by the way, I am not), have to do with incorporation doctrine?

I said it so I wouldn't be accused of inconsistency; under my statements earlier, any Christian would have to submit to incorporation doctrine.

Quote:

Further, what does the issue of incorporation have to do with a federal body like the Supreme Court?

You brought up the first amendment, and the only way that is actually universally relevant (which is what you mandated with "must be") to our dilemma is if it affects the states, and the only way that it affects the states is through incorporation doctrine.

Quote:

As an aside, I'd ask what your reasoning for rejecting incorporation doctrine as 'Supreme Court mumbo jumbo' is, but given your Southern Cross signature, I can probably guess.

It depends on whether or not we assume that the 14th amendment is actually valid (that is, was constitutionally passed).  

[IcarusDream]

divineseraph

2- Free will exists. It is what allows us to choose to break the universal laws.

What laws?

Quote:

Otherwise we would be but automatons. We would be cogs in a machine, never able to kill others or have greed or hatred or confusion. It's not a corruption in our souls per se, but the ability to become corrupted, or to do something other than perfection.

If we are greedy, is it not because were raised in such a way that lets us be greedy, and if we kill, do we not kill because we have been raised in such a way that lets us kill? We would not make whatever choices we make without some sort of programming on how to weigh options and make choices, and there is no doubt that we ourselves do not actually control this programming, but rather our parents or possibly even God.  

[divineseraph]

IcarusDream

divineseraph

2- Free will exists. It is what allows us to choose to break the universal laws.

What laws?

Quote:

Otherwise we would be but automatons. We would be cogs in a machine, never able to kill others or have greed or hatred or confusion. It's not a corruption in our souls per se, but the ability to become corrupted, or to do something other than perfection.

If we are greedy, is it not because were raised in such a way that lets us be greedy, and if we kill, do we not kill because we have been raised in such a way that lets us kill? We would not make whatever choices we make without some sort of programming on how to weigh options and make choices, and there is no doubt that we ourselves do not actually control this programming, but rather our parents or possibly even God.

The Universal Law spoken of by Martin Luther King, hinted at by Aristotle. We all know the universal laws- they are the basic forms of conduct and goodness. They include what is listed in the ten commandments, but are more basic than that.

Don't kill, don't harm others, don't take from others anything, hold respect, things of the like.


And we can control this "programming". Do you hear nothing in your mind? Do you not consider or think? If you think, then you are. And as such, you can override this "programming" with your own thought. It isn't easy, and in this society it isn't well liked, but it can be done and is done.

And then, I ask you, is there such thing as Sin, really, if nobody has any control? If God controls us all with programming, how can we do anything wrong? The puppet can't be blamed for the actions of the puppet-master.  

[IcarusDream]

divineseraph

And we can control this "programming". Do you hear nothing in your mind? Do you not consider or think?

Of course I do, but I don't control how I consider and think.

Quote:

If you think, then you are.

I think you assume too much here. I only experience my individual thoughts, but that does not mean I am an individual, set apart from all other entities.

Quote:

And as such, you can override this "programming" with your own thought. It isn't easy, and in this society it isn't well liked, but it can be done and is done.

That isn't overriding the programming though; that's just going through a difficult part of the program. You'll still make the same decisions, whether or not they were "hard" to make. For each set of circumstances, a person can only have one response, and it is the one they are programmed to make.

Quote:

And then, I ask you, is there such thing as Sin, really, if nobody has any control? If God controls us all with programming, how can we do anything wrong? The puppet can't be blamed for the actions of the puppet-master.

Saint Paul answered pretty much the same question in Romans 9:19-22, but it was basically "God can do whatever the hell he wants. Don't talk back to him when his will causes you to sin."

And I hate that answer too. I don't know what to tell you, honestly. I don't think we can blame people for their actions in a technical sense, but since we a programmed to blame, we will blame, and since we are programmed to punish, we will punish.

Assuming God exists, sin certainly exists also, since it is part of the program.  

[divineseraph]

IcarusDream

divineseraph

And we can control this "programming". Do you hear nothing in your mind? Do you not consider or think?

Of course I do, but I don't control how I consider and think.

Quote:

If you think, then you are.

I think you assume too much here. I only experience my individual thoughts, but that does not mean I am an individual, set apart from all other entities.

Quote:

And as such, you can override this "programming" with your own thought. It isn't easy, and in this society it isn't well liked, but it can be done and is done.

That isn't overriding the programming though; that's just going through a difficult part of the program. You'll still make the same decisions, whether or not they were "hard" to make. For each set of circumstances, a person can only have one response, and it is the one they are programmed to make.

Quote:

And then, I ask you, is there such thing as Sin, really, if nobody has any control? If God controls us all with programming, how can we do anything wrong? The puppet can't be blamed for the actions of the puppet-master.

Saint Paul answered pretty much the same question in Romans 9:19-22, but it was basically "God can do whatever the hell he wants. Don't talk back to him when his will causes you to sin."

And I hate that answer too. I don't know what to tell you, honestly. I don't think we can blame people for their actions in a technical sense, but since we a programmed to blame, we will blame, and since we are programmed to punish, we will punish.

Assuming God exists, sin certainly exists also, since it is part of the program.

I say that you can.

You are an individual. Oh wait, except my programming only tells me to tell you that, I didn't actually think that. By the same principle, I can say validly that nothing exists. Prove to me the existence of anything in a way that I couldn't have just fabricated. Prove that I'm not an insane hobo in a cardboard box talking to a crudely drawn image on the side panel.

You can over-ride programming. I agree that there ARE societal trends and factors that seem like programs, but people choose them. And they often choose the one everyone takes since it's the easiest to pick up and learn.

And I say bullshit. St. Paul must have been an idiot. I don't care what Saint Paul thinks about it.

I guess it would just be my programming talking to call you an ignorant ********.  

[IcarusDream]

divineseraph

You are an individual. Oh wait, except my programming only tells me to tell you that, I didn't actually think that.

Of course you think it, and of course you respond sarcastically. You're totally programmed to do it.

Quote:

By the same principle, I can say validly that nothing exists. Prove to me the existence of anything in a way that I couldn't have just fabricated. Prove that I'm not an insane hobo in a cardboard box talking to a crudely drawn image on the side panel.

Can't; how do I know you aren't?

Quote:

You can over-ride programming.

It's only part of the program to think that you can ;]

Quote:

And I say bullshit. St. Paul must have been an idiot. I don't care what Saint Paul thinks about it.

Of course, but we should obviously believe you, right?

Quote:

I guess it would just be my programming talking to call you an ignorant ******** class="clear">

[divineseraph]

IcarusDream

divineseraph

You are an individual. Oh wait, except my programming only tells me to tell you that, I didn't actually think that.

Of course you think it, and of course you respond sarcastically. You're totally programmed to do it.

Quote:

By the same principle, I can say validly that nothing exists. Prove to me the existence of anything in a way that I couldn't have just fabricated. Prove that I'm not an insane hobo in a cardboard box talking to a crudely drawn image on the side panel.

Can't; how do I know you aren't?

Quote:

You can over-ride programming.

It's only part of the program to think that you can ;]

Quote:

And I say bullshit. St. Paul must have been an idiot. I don't care what Saint Paul thinks about it.

Of course, but we should obviously believe you, right?

Quote:

I guess it would just be my programming talking to call you an ignorant ******** class="clear">

Yes, it would be part of someone's programming as a douche to call people that.

[IcarusDream]

divineseraph

What a conveniently impossible to prove belief.

I usually think the same thing about your God. blaugh  

[divineseraph]

IcarusDream

divineseraph

What a conveniently impossible to prove belief.

I usually think the same thing about your God. blaugh

Exactly. Which is why I don't think God acts on humanity- If He did, He would be far easier to prove.

Point being, your belief is foolishly self-reliant. It is because it is, and even if you have evidence, it's only because it let you have evidence to the contrary because that's part of it's mechanism. I could tell you that the sky is really green- It just turns blue when you look at it or whenever it's being documented. It would be to the same effect.  

[IcarusDream]

divineseraph

IcarusDream

divineseraph

What a conveniently impossible to prove belief.

I usually think the same thing about your God. blaugh

Exactly. Which is why I don't think God acts on humanity- If He did, He would be far easier to prove.

Point being, your belief is foolishly self-reliant. It is because it is, and even if you have evidence, it's only because it let you have evidence to the contrary because that's part of it's mechanism. I could tell you that the sky is really green- It just turns blue when you look at it or whenever it's being documented. It would be to the same effect.

So maybe there is some hope left...

If you can see this in the idea I presented and choose not to believe it, why is the idea of God any different? What makes God any more credible than programming?  

[divineseraph]

There is a difference. The macrocosm is so expansive and complex, it is all but probabilistically impossible to exist in a tangible way, let alone support atomic reaction and then support life. Definite proof? There is none. But going by probability is better than "it could happen so it must be that it is!"  

[IcarusDream]

divineseraph

There is a difference.

Not really...

Quote:

The macrocosm is so expansive and complex it is all but probabilistically impossible to exist in a tangible way, let alone support atomic reaction and then support life.

Well, how much do you trust your own observations?

Quote:

Definite proof? There is none. But going by probability is better than "it could happen so it must be that it is!"

Well, how do you know that going by probability is better?