|
Post by Paradox on Mar 10, 2016 19:00:20 GMT -5
Seeming to be contradictions ?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 11, 2016 19:00:11 GMT -5
Seeming to be contradictions ? If it doesn't quack, if it doesn't fly -- is it still a duck?
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Mar 11, 2016 22:12:46 GMT -5
Seeming to be contradictions ? If it doesn't quack, if it doesn't fly -- is it still a duck? Once a duck , always a duck! right?
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Mar 11, 2016 22:17:13 GMT -5
A contraction: can any being , truly deny there existence?
logically we would say no. To be or not to be.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 12, 2016 3:35:44 GMT -5
If it doesn't quack, if it doesn't fly -- is it still a duck? Once a duck , always a duck! right? How does one know that it was EVER a duck?
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Mar 12, 2016 3:50:57 GMT -5
Once a duck , always a duck! right? How does one know that it was EVER a duck? We might not know..... But if it was a duck, it could "still" be? ShOuld I deny its existence ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 3:58:59 GMT -5
Seeming to be contradictions ? If it doesn't quack, if it doesn't fly -- is it still a duck? Yeh! A sitting duck. Have you ever heard about that one?
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Mar 12, 2016 7:57:37 GMT -5
If it doesn't quack, if it doesn't fly -- is it still a duck? Yeh! A sitting duck. Have you ever heard about that one? good one! or perhaps a "lame" duck ?
|
|
|
Post by Hmmmm on Mar 12, 2016 10:21:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 12, 2016 15:47:52 GMT -5
How does one know that it was EVER a duck? We might not know..... But if it was a duck, it could "still" be? ShOuld I deny its existence ? Your use of the word "if" makes it a hypothetical question. In that case, treat it like your belief system requires. Or you may just be serious enough about knowing the truth to investigate further, after which you may have to decide whether or not to reject your religious belief. And if you really aren't prepared to reject that belief, you'd probably be a lot more comfortable not knowing the truth.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 12, 2016 15:58:57 GMT -5
If it doesn't quack, if it doesn't fly -- is it still a duck? Yeh! A sitting duck. Have you ever heard about that one? Yeah. The kind with a spike up his arse.
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Mar 12, 2016 19:39:32 GMT -5
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Is this a virtuous pursuit that can only be achieved by living within virtuousness.
If it isn't virtuous, then it cannot comprehend it's noble pursuit ?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 12, 2016 22:57:59 GMT -5
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's not a biblical quote, BTW.
|
|
|
Post by Yes on Mar 12, 2016 23:35:49 GMT -5
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's not a biblical quote, BTW. [ ]inalienable right of an American
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Mar 13, 2016 1:01:03 GMT -5
That's not a biblical quote, BTW. [ ]inalienable right of an American I know. That makes it American, not Christian.
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 13, 2016 3:21:10 GMT -5
[ ]inalienable right of an American I know. That makes it American, not Christian. Eccles 2:24 There is nothing better for a man , than that he should to eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labor . This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God. no discrimination implied, virtues required. ( to enjoy the good ) pride is the enemy of our soul. (helping those in need of help )
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 13, 2016 3:43:57 GMT -5
No, no reason to believe.
Just another of those kinds of NDE's that has many facets, most of which are ignored by those that want to believe.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 13, 2016 3:48:18 GMT -5
We might not know..... But if it was a duck, it could "still" be? ShOuld I deny its existence ? Your use of the word "if" makes it a hypothetical question. In that case, treat it like your belief system requires. Or you may just be serious enough about knowing the truth to investigate further, after which you may have to decide whether or not to reject your religious belief. And if you really aren't prepared to reject that belief, you'd probably be a lot more comfortable not knowing the truth. Oh, but the freedom when you finally know (and accept) the truth!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 13, 2016 4:04:21 GMT -5
If it doesn't quack, if it doesn't fly -- is it still a duck? Once a duck , always a duck! right? duck decoy?
Just something looking like a duck made to cause one to believe something (god maybe?) is alive & exists when it is only made from dead wood that has been carved by mankind to seduce people to believe there is something that isn't really alive?
Oh dear me! There I go again! Waxing way, way too poetic! Time to go to bed. zz
|
|
|
Post by Rejected on Mar 13, 2016 4:36:53 GMT -5
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched refuse of your teeming shores........... youtu.be/8vOnDlld5gkThe New Colossol by Emma Lazerus
|
|
|
Post by Poem on Mar 13, 2016 4:43:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Poem on Mar 13, 2016 4:46:28 GMT -5
[ br]http://youtu.be/8vOnDlld5gk New Colossus. by Emma Lazarus 1883
|
|
|
Post by poem on Mar 13, 2016 7:55:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 13, 2016 9:14:03 GMT -5
That's not a biblical quote, BTW. [ ]inalienable right of an American You need to reread the source. When it was written there were no Americans and, in any case, it was not directed at them. Jefferson's original draft should have been used: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...
|
|
|
Post by Inalienableright on Mar 13, 2016 12:12:25 GMT -5
[ ]inalienable right of an American You need to reread the source. When it was written there were no Americans and, in any case, it was not directed at them. Jefferson's original draft should have been used: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...
Also called a "natural right" , as differing from a legal right. A natural right is a right not only of a due process citizen of "America" but was argued to have been ignored by British in governing the colonies, hense commencing the revelutionary war for independence. Confirmed by Google search on topic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2016 12:28:26 GMT -5
[ ]inalienable right of an American You need to reread the source. When it was written there were no Americans and, in any case, it was not directed at them. Jefferson's original draft should have been used: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...
don't worry rational if the left gets their way they will re-write everything to suit their ideology...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 13, 2016 12:37:42 GMT -5
You need to reread the source. When it was written there were no Americans and, in any case, it was not directed at them. Jefferson's original draft should have been used: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...
don't worry rational if the left gets their way they will re-write everything to suit their ideology... Compare the original quote with the edited one that ended up in the declaration of independence and decide for yourself which is more universally appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Ratified on Mar 13, 2016 13:49:15 GMT -5
don't worry rational if the left gets their way they will re-write everything to suit their ideology... Compare the original quote with the edited one that ended up in the declaration of independence and decide for yourself which is more universally appropriate. 5 leaders were chosen to edit the original text. Franklin and John Adams were responsible for much of editing , in time all agreed , not positive why Jefferson lapsed into being slightly offended that it was edited, but the process moved the D of I forward and was ratified by all 13 colonies.
|
|