Author Topic: A Confession and another important thing regarding England and Ireland.  (Read 3882 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kanzenkankaku

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 967
  • Gender: Female
  • Dreamer/Lightner
    • Mastadon Account
Saying that the US revolutionary war is "legitimate" is like saying that if you have a shootout with your landlord and drive him out it was a perfectly legitimate way to gain legal ownership of the house...

Somehow the US Revolution was legitimate but not the English Civil Wars and Revolutions that turned it into a parliamentary system.

Jake, care to explain how that makes any sense?

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
1. Still not legitimate. How do you know that those tribes weren't happy just as they are and were forcibly conquered and annexed into the new nation? Consent of the governed, cuck.

2. NOBODY AND NOTHING has the right not to be disrespected. Get that through your thick skull into your cuckold brain (though at this point I'm doubting you have one).

3. For one, "Creator" in that text is in a purely deistic sense, and in fact was added after Jefferson's initial draft:

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html

Quote
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;

Note: no reference to a creator.

As for references to God in patriotic songs, as long as they do not have the official imprimatur of the government, they can say whatever they want. The Ten Commandments, meanwhile, have absolutely no business being in any courtroom (whatever Stephen Breyer might think), and are certainly not the basis for US law, especially when you consider that the only ones actually implemented in law (murder, theft, perjury) were already crimes under older legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi, and others (like the VERY FIRST ONE) are directly contradicted by the US Constitution.

4. SO DOES SECULAR HUMANISM, and what's more secular humanists can actually make valid arguments for why their positions are correct. As for morality, remember that Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, and that not one jot or tittle of it would pass away, and so all that stuff about slavery and stoning disobedient children (did you ever talk back to your parents? If so, why are you still alive?) remains in force.

"Morality comes from humanism, and is stolen by religion for its own purposes."

Also, if you set up a theocracy, then it lasts only until the next religion comes in and takes over. If you set up a strictly secular state, it can withstand all assaults from religion.

And did you even give a moment's thought to Rawls' Veil of Ignorance? For that matter, are you even capable of thinking as it demands one do?

1. It was legitimate because it was a founding of a new nation where one did not exist before.

2. God and national heroes most certainly does have the right to not be disrespected because God is our creator so we owe him praises and gratitude and we also owe that to national heroes like King Arthur.


3. Well creator is referring to God and since the vast majority of the colonists were Christian, it is a reference to the Christian God. Jefferson was a deist but George Washington and other founding fathers were Christian.


4. The problem with secular humanism is that it does not have a system for how morality can be taught and excludes the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ as well as fear of God's punishment for doing wrong. And what Jesus meant by fulfilling the law was that he was fulfilling the law of the Ten Commandments, the basic tenants of morality, and that humans are sinful people who need atonement for their sins, which is why he sacrificed himself on behalf of humanity. Those other harsh laws in ancient Israel including ones that involved Kosher diets were laws meant only for the context of the time.
 


Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
I wonder, are planning to find the rightful ruler of every single former noble title in Britain, down to the last barony, like you are for the kingdom? It's all well and good to find the rightful King of England, but what about the rightful Duke of Kent, or Earl of Suffolk, for example? After all, a king is far from the sole rightful owner of the land within a kingdom. Outside of his demesne, its his vassals, both direct and indirect, that are the rightful owners of the land (and each duchy and earldom with its own independent succession laws, just to make it even more fun), and those claims are every bit as important as the king's. If you want to restore feudalism to England with the descendants of the old nobility in power, there's a lot more to consider than just the king himself.

Well most of the barrons are the rightful rulers of their lands by inheritance and are part of the current House of Lords.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Saying that the US revolutionary war is "legitimate" is like saying that if you have a shootout with your landlord and drive him out it was a perfectly legitimate way to gain legal ownership of the house...

Somehow the US Revolution was legitimate but not the English Civil Wars and Revolutions that turned it into a parliamentary system.

Jake, care to explain how that makes any sense?

1. The British government was an illegitimate government because it did not have the rightful monarchs so it had no right to rule over the colonies.

2. The British parliamentary system was supposed to give representation to the people, so if it was to give representation, it was supposed to give the colonies fair representation which it didn't.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
I wonder, are planning to find the rightful ruler of every single former noble title in Britain, down to the last barony, like you are for the kingdom? It's all well and good to find the rightful King of England, but what about the rightful Duke of Kent, or Earl of Suffolk, for example? After all, a king is far from the sole rightful owner of the land within a kingdom. Outside of his demesne, its his vassals, both direct and indirect, that are the rightful owners of the land (and each duchy and earldom with its own independent succession laws, just to make it even more fun), and those claims are every bit as important as the king's. If you want to restore feudalism to England with the descendants of the old nobility in power, there's a lot more to consider than just the king himself.

Well most of the barrons are the rightful rulers of their lands by inheritance and are part of the current House of Lords.
"Most" barons, and nary a mention of the earls, dukes, marquises and other landed nobility (not to mention, the clergy), huh? In other words, just ignore everything below the king and hope it works out. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence, I have to say. If you want people to get on board with your plan, you really ought to do things properly. After all, if you clearly don't give a shit, why should anyone else?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2018, 11:44:41 am by Art Vandelay »

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
Okay, Cuckob Omegason, GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD.

1. No, they conquered multiple independent polities. That is not a legitimate way to form a nation.

2. Respect is earned, and if your Bible accurately reflects your God, no even remotely moral person can honestly respect your God. National heroes are generally massively flawed and pointing that out is stating facts.

3. No, it was not a reference to the Christian God. The US Founders, whatever their personal religious convictions, were adamant that religion and government be separate--look especially at Virginia.

4. Not only does humanism have a system by which morality can be taught, it makes more sense, being based on reason and deduction, than any religious morality, which are based on fiat. Any system based on fear, especially fear of beings not proven to exist, is intrinsically inferior to a system based on reason.

I also noticed that you didn't address Rawls' Veil of Ignorance or Benn's Five Questions. Go think about those.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Okay, Cuckob Omegason, GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD.

1. No, they conquered multiple independent polities. That is not a legitimate way to form a nation.

2. Respect is earned, and if your Bible accurately reflects your God, no even remotely moral person can honestly respect your God. National heroes are generally massively flawed and pointing that out is stating facts.

3. No, it was not a reference to the Christian God. The US Founders, whatever their personal religious convictions, were adamant that religion and government be separate--look especially at Virginia.

4. Not only does humanism have a system by which morality can be taught, it makes more sense, being based on reason and deduction, than any religious morality, which are based on fiat. Any system based on fear, especially fear of beings not proven to exist, is intrinsically inferior to a system based on reason.

I also noticed that you didn't address Rawls' Veil of Ignorance or Benn's Five Questions. Go think about those.

1. But those polities were not nations, they were primitive tribes.

2. The Bible shows that we should indeed respect our God, because we are all sinners unworthy of salvation but he loved us so much that he sent his son to sacrifice himself bearing the burden of all of our sins. Pointing out mistakes National Leaders made should be done in a respectful way.

3. It was indeed a reference to the Christian God because it was referring to a singular creator.

4. But people can reason that since they are not going to be held accountable for their actions, they can do whatever they want and get away with it, including theft, murder, rape. This is why society needs the fear of God’s judgement as a deterrent to preventing evil deeds from happening.

5. Ok, using the veil of ignorance principal, I could imagine myself being an atheist under a Conservative Christian Society. I would know that my rights will be respected as long as I do not promote atheism to society, so I as an atheist could still enjoy a happy life. It is atheists who need the veil of ignorance principal to rid of their biases against Christianity so that they can realize that living under a conservative Christian society is not that bad.

6. Now I will address Benn’s 5 Questions in regards of England.

“What power have you got?”

Power as the King of England to rule the Kingdom with justice.

“Where did you get it from?”

By legal inheritance.

“In whose interests do you use it?”

The interests of the nation.

“To whom are you accountable?”

God.

“How do we get rid of you?”

By deposing me and putting someone who’s next in line on the throne.


Offline Askold

  • Definitely not hiding a dark secret.
  • Global Moderator
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 8326
  • Gender: Male
a) You have now claimed that some nations don't count because they are "primitive." This means that you can no longer claim that legitimacy of a nation has any meaning to you because you apparently move the goalposts and simply discount nations when you would otherwise have to admit that you are being hypocritical.

b) If deposing a ruler is acceptable, why would anyone choose the next in line to be the new ruler? The only justification for letting one family inherit rulership is that their rule is somehow better by virtue of birth. If you now admit that some of them may be bad rulers and that it is OK to depose them doesn't this mean that your entire argument for letting the family rule is flawed? Likewise if God is the only they are accountable for then how come mortals can depose them?
No matter what happens, no matter what my last words may end up being, I want everyone to claim that they were:
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Aww, you guys rock. :)  I feel the love... and the pitchforks and torches.  Tingly!

Offline dpareja

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
1. By what definition of primitive? And how does that give anyone the right to conquer them by force?

2. The Bible has been proven false on every testable claim it makes, and therefore cannot be regarded as true in any particular without independent corroborating evidence. As for historical figures, they are no more immune from criticism and disparagement (provided such disparagement is rooted in facts) as anyone or anything else.

3. Lots of religions posit singular creators; none have been able to prove such claims. Jefferson's original was mutilated by the Continental Congress and disrespects anyone who does not subscribe to a monotheistic religion.

4. People are held accountable for their actions; it's called the legal system. As for God, Jesus says explicitly that you can break any of the laws (which did refer to the 613; it was in the Gospel of Matthew, which was written for the Jews, who held to the 613) and still get into Heaven, you'll just be "least in Heaven", except for the singular command to worship God. As long as you do that last, you will get into Heaven, you might just have to fly coach. That is a huge disincentive for moral behaviour.

5. No, atheists still see their freedom unduly restricted under such a system, as they cannot freely express their views on certain matters. Under a secular government, Christians are still free to evangelize and proselytize; they just cannot use the government and its monopoly on legitimate force to impose their views on everyone. That is far freer than the society you propose.

6a. And when the King behaves unjustly? Absolute power of that sort is far too much power for any one person to command.

6b. Which is not a legitimate way to receive power. The ONLY (GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL YOU RETARDED MORON) legitimate source of political power is a clearly expressed, freely given, uncoerced mandate from the governed.

6c. And what happens when the King stops using his power in the interests of the nation and starts using it in his own self-interest? What prevents that? Or would you implement the autocratic principle of "L'état, c'est moi!" so that the King's actions cannot, by definition, be against the interest of the nation?

6d. Which has not been proven to exist, and indeed all the ones so far posited by humanity CANNOT exist--so, effectively, the King is accountable either to nobody or to voices in his head, which is the same thing.

6e. Which is impossible when the King commands the military, and you have no guarantee that their successor will act any differently. The only system that allows for the government to be removed from power peacefully and provides a mechanism to ensure that the new government will act in the best interests of the people is democracy. Absolute monarchy cannot provide that and is hence inferior as a system of government, and neither can theocracy.

In short, you fail on every conceivable level. You are fractally wrong. Your ideas are dangerous and deleterious to a free society.
Quote from: Jordan Duram
It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote from: Supreme Court of Canada
Being required by someone else’s religious beliefs to behave contrary to one’s sexual identity is degrading and disrespectful.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
1. By what definition of primitive? And how does that give anyone the right to conquer them by force?

2. The Bible has been proven false on every testable claim it makes, and therefore cannot be regarded as true in any particular without independent corroborating evidence. As for historical figures, they are no more immune from criticism and disparagement (provided such disparagement is rooted in facts) as anyone or anything else.

3. Lots of religions posit singular creators; none have been able to prove such claims. Jefferson's original was mutilated by the Continental Congress and disrespects anyone who does not subscribe to a monotheistic religion.

4. People are held accountable for their actions; it's called the legal system. As for God, Jesus says explicitly that you can break any of the laws (which did refer to the 613; it was in the Gospel of Matthew, which was written for the Jews, who held to the 613) and still get into Heaven, you'll just be "least in Heaven", except for the singular command to worship God. As long as you do that last, you will get into Heaven, you might just have to fly coach. That is a huge disincentive for moral behaviour.

5. No, atheists still see their freedom unduly restricted under such a system, as they cannot freely express their views on certain matters. Under a secular government, Christians are still free to evangelize and proselytize; they just cannot use the government and its monopoly on legitimate force to impose their views on everyone. That is far freer than the society you propose.

6a. And when the King behaves unjustly? Absolute power of that sort is far too much power for any one person to command.

6b. Which is not a legitimate way to receive power. The ONLY (GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL YOU RETARDED MORON) legitimate source of political power is a clearly expressed, freely given, uncoerced mandate from the governed.

6c. And what happens when the King stops using his power in the interests of the nation and starts using it in his own self-interest? What prevents that? Or would you implement the autocratic principle of "L'état, c'est moi!" so that the King's actions cannot, by definition, be against the interest of the nation?

6d. Which has not been proven to exist, and indeed all the ones so far posited by humanity CANNOT exist--so, effectively, the King is accountable either to nobody or to voices in his head, which is the same thing.

6e. Which is impossible when the King commands the military, and you have no guarantee that their successor will act any differently. The only system that allows for the government to be removed from power peacefully and provides a mechanism to ensure that the new government will act in the best interests of the people is democracy. Absolute monarchy cannot provide that and is hence inferior as a system of government, and neither can theocracy.

In short, you fail on every conceivable level. You are fractally wrong. Your ideas are dangerous and deleterious to a free society.

1. They were primitive in that they were tribes not nations. Civilization spread when tribes were conquered by or unified into nations an example being the great Roman Empire.

2. Prove the Bible wrong. And I think that certain great historical figures such as America’s founding fathers, should not be insulted.

3. The only monotheistic religions are Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Zocrastianism. And as I said it was Christians that were the vast mast majority of the American colonists, so the creator is a reference to the Judeo-Christian God and could not be interpreted to also mean Allah or the Zocrastian God Ahura Mazda.

4. But people are willing to do evil deeds because they think that they won’t get caught and brought to justice. That is why the fear of God is needed, as an extra deterrent. The New Testament says that salvation. The New Testament says that salvation is by faith and good works and that you must avoid sinning and repent of your sins so the fear of God is an incentive for moral behavoir.

5. Why do you atheists need to express your views on religion to others?

6.

A) I already mentioned what can happen if the King behaves unjustly.

B) It is legitimate if it is a monarchy because then it is part of the nations constitution.

C)  Again I already mentioned what can happen if the King does not use his power in the interests of the nation.

D) The Church can hold the King accountable by threatening to excommunicate the King if the King does something very bad. That is what the Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages. The King therefore is held accountable to God.

E) Well usually when there is a horrible tyrant, many members of the military will defect in disgust and join the rebellion. And the fact that the previous King was overthrown will be used to deter the successor from acting the same way. And legitimate Democracy like in the United States is equally as great as monarchy because both have their wonderful strengths but are equally prone to corruption. While deposing a King by rebellion is less peaceful than voting out evil politicians, it is just about as easy, because it can be done at any time, while with politicians you need to wait until their term is up, and special interests groups and corporations can hijack the system to prevent opposition politicians from being elected forminag a corrupt swamp, that luckily Trump managed to win against, and now he is in the process of draining it.

Besides, under the monarchy, if the King is a good righteous monarch, his successor will be raised to be good and righteous.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3663
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
The RCC seems pretty bloody "primitive" to me what with all its saints, lucky charms, oils, bells smells and the rest and I was christened Catholic.

Then there's the matter of the Sky Fairy, who's omniscient but needs his underlings to go on fact finding missions and then gets pissed off at the news when they report back. As your entire worldview derives legitimacy from this obviously primitive belief it's illegitimate. You can go home now!

And yeah, fear of God doesn't even stop your clergy from raping little boys and girls. So much for that.

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
The RCC seems pretty bloody "primitive" to me what with all its saints, lucky charms, oils, bells smells and the rest and I was christened Catholic.

Then there's the matter of the Sky Fairy, who's omniscient but needs his underlings to go on fact finding missions and then gets pissed off at the news when they report back. As your entire worldview derives legitimacy from this obviously primitive belief it's illegitimate. You can go home now!

And yeah, fear of God doesn't even stop your clergy from raping little boys and girls. So much for that.

God is omniscient because he is omnipresent when travelling at the speed of light and his omnipresence is occasionally broken when he has to spend a lot of time at a particular location

The reason why the fear of God doesn’t stop the modern day pedophile scandal in the Church is because the Vatican 2 clergy are wicked and do not teach that God’s will punish child rapists.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3663
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
Er, Vatican 2 didn't remove Revelations from the scriptures or the doctrine of hell. You're full of shit.

Go and mumble some magic spells into your St Peter medallion and stuff your pockets with palm leaves you caveman!

Offline Jacob Harrison

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • The person who discovered England's true monarch
Er, Vatican 2 didn't remove Revelations from the scriptures or the doctrine of hell. You're full of shit.

Go and mumble some magic spells into your St Peter medallion and stuff your pockets with palm leaves you caveman!

Yes, they didn’t remove it, but they no longer teach that child rape is a damnable mortal sin and how it is in the category of the one unforgivable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Offline Tolpuddle Martyr

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3663
  • Have you got thumbs? SHOW ME YOUR FUCKING THUMBS!
When did they specifically say that was a mortal sin, when did they remove it. Citation needed!