On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:04:03 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 3/14/2012 8:13 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 3/14/2012 12:01 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:20:03 -0400, "Scout"
wrote:



"Jeff wrote in message
...

. net wrote in message
...


"Gunner wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:47:39 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
wrote:

On 3/12/2012 3:41 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 3/12/2012 10:33 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
On 3/12/2012 1:07 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 3/10/2012 1:31 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

There are zero or one correct religions. That fact is
indisputable.


I disagree totally .

Then mount a substantive counter-argument.

If one God exists, that makes it even more likely that there are
multiple Gods.

I didn't say gods, I said religions.

One God could inspire many religions.

Indeed. In fact...the Norse gods for example have comminality with the
Greek ones and so forth.

Its not at all impossible for a single God to show himself to different
cultures in different ways, ways that have some commonality with the
culture in question.

Or a bunch of god(s) divided up the human race via dice, foot races or
some such and are huckstering

Heck, it could be a completion to see who can get the most worshipers.

Which come to think of it would do a lot to explain some tenets in
Christianity.

Such as the 1st Commandment.



"Thou shall have no other Gods before me," means to not pray to the rain
god, wind god, sun god, and so on. There are no other gods, that's all
that means.

If there are no other gods, then how can one have another before Him?

Sorry, but that commandment clearly establishes and acknowledges the
existence of gods other than God.
For if there were no other gods, then this commandment would be moot and
irrational.

Are you suggesting God is irrational?


Excellent !! Bravo!!


Why don't people use this type of logic when discussing the constitution?

Instead when people discuss the constitution they ignore what is written
and tell us all kinds of things that should be filling up the white
space on the page.


I ask questions like How can the "United States" include the States and
the People when in Amendment 10 it clearly defines the States and The
people as having the powers NOT delegated to the United States. That
absolutely separates the three.


So when reading ARTICLE I Section 8 and it says "United States" why is
it suddenly "interpreted" as including the People and the States and so
Federal Welfare can go to the States and the People?

You work at being stupid, don't you? It's one of the few successes in
your life.

"Welfare" in Article I Section 8 does not mean "the dole", "food
stamps", "AFDC/TANF", or any other kind of transfer payment.

Hamilton would have said it could, if Congress so decides. And his
view is now ensconsed in all of the case law, at all levels.

See my other post to Scotty about "general welfare" interpretations.


"United States" in the Constitution refers to the country, or - and the
context makes it clear - to the federal government of the country. I
know you're just itching to show your ass again by saying that
constitutional mention of citizenship refers to being "citizens of the
federal government", and of course you will be wrong when you do.

I don't think even Scotty is that clueless...but I could be wrong
about that.

--
Ed Huntress