Imperial_Samura
Anticrust Smurf
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What's that pal? What point that who made? And can you support what you believe about Christians wanting to die so that they could get to God faster?.
A little thing could history? You know... history? Back when Christians embraced Roman persecution even when there was a way to avoid death? The fact Christian writers honored these people, called them saints because they died? The fact that when the Roman persecutions ended there were Christians dismayed at the idea of not dying for their cause so they became ascetic and lived the white death?
I have not admitted anything, you are reading into my statements what is not there. Here is what I said:If JFK had said Act of God in an contractual setting then you might have a valid argument--but the fact is, he did not so quit beating a dead horse (Poor horse I will give you a proper burial). You need a new, stronger, argument to base your opposing points of view on instead of this weak, gossamer, unconvincing one about contractual niceties.
I don't know how I can say it any clearer. I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT JFK WHEN I MENTIONED CONTRACTUAL MENTIONS OF GOD.
UNDERSTAND? I was talking about the use of "The year of our Lord" and "Creator" in legal documents concerning the formation of the United States of America.
UNDERSTAND? UNDERSTAND it does you argument no good to purposely just keep reiterating the wrong interpretation of what I am saying.
NOTICE! Two different things.
NOTICE 1: JFK.
NOTICE 2: Documents that mention potentially religious things.
I fail to see any admission in what I said. Now, JFK did not mention God in a contractual setting that is why I said that if he did that you might have a valid argument. Furthermore, neither JFK nor Thomas Jefferson mentioned God in a way that implied that God was some impersonal force as the phrase, "act of God," denotes. The fact that Creator, Almighty, and God are capitalized in their speech/document respectively are indicative of the fact that they mean the God of the Bible, and some arbitrary, subjective description of God. JFK and Thomas Jefferson both mentioned God in a manner that suggested that God is a Personal God Who has done certain things for His creation (i.e. endowing us with natural rights). The fact that Creator, Almighty, and God are capitalized are indicative of the fact that they mean the God of the Bible, and some arbitrary, subjective description of God.
AS ABOVE - it is foolish to continue to mention JKF and contracts when that is not what I am saying.
IN a insurance policy the phrase is "Act of God" (or it used to be) - simple yes no answer JIA - does this signify religious belief or conformation disasters are sent by God?
NO! Just like "In the Year of our Lord" or "Creator" doesn't. They have religious links but are not binding or indicative or religious rules or belief. Stop saying I am saying this in regards to JFK...
I HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT EVERYONE KNOWS JFK WAS A RELIGIOUS MAN. IT ULTIMATELY IS IRRELEVANT.
Great men have believed in God (JFK) not so great men (Bush) - it means nothing, nor does it confirm your stance. Nor are they religious authorities. And there have been great Atheists and bad Atheists - does this mean something? No.
God's, you talk about beating a dead horse, yet in order for you to cling to some glimmer of hope you are right you have to purposely claim the same thing over and over and over based upon the misinterpretation of my post.
Simple - I didn't say JFK wasnt saying he believed it comes from God, nor that he'didn't believes in God. That in no way changes the point I made about the use of God, Creator or whatever in legal documents. ONCE AGAIN I POINT OUT - NOTICE THE TWO, YES TWO, DEBATE TOPICS THERE: NOT ONE, TWO. TWO SEPARATE ONES. COMBINING THEM JUST MAKES YOU APPEAR FOOLISH BECAUSE ANYONE ELSE CAN SEE THAT IS NOT WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
So let's put it simply. What relevance has, or difference was made by, JFK's belief in God? Which was, incidentally, strongly Catholic, but that aside, why do you raise it? If it is to demonstate that great men believe in God, Samura is entitled to say not-so-great men do also. That is a fair retort to your point, There are plenty of equally fair retorts you could make to that retort, so why not do that rather than moan about the clarification I made?
There. Deal with that.