On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:08:24 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>news:73a710e2-1180-4e96-90e9-cb42da6b691bn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 6:30:15 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That is tricky. But I hold that if the Almighty is
>>> indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
>>> in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
>>> word "god" means.
>>
>> Then we're not speaking the same language.
>
>He's speaking the language of "I'm a two year old with a dirty diaper
>throwing a temper tantrum because I can't have my way."
>
>I'd think you were quite fluent in that language.
>
>> The word "god", on the other hand, means an immortal
>> and powerful being
>
>That means the Norse gods are not gods, since they all die in the
>end.
>
>The only objective definition of the word is "that which we call a
>god."

Which I agree with, noting that such definitions are not unknown in
this sort of topic.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:05:56 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>news:8b4791d9-b85b-44fc-8cd9-1058c7f573c0n@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 12:31:49 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini
>>> >wrote:
>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> >> news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4q...@4ax.com:
>>> >> > On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> >> > Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>>> >> >>news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578...@googlegroups.com:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke
>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>>> >> >>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>> >On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, Jibini
>>> >> >>>> >Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> >> >>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> >> >>>> >> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>>> >> >>>> >> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
>>> >> >>>> >> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>> >> >
>>> >> >>>> >> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>> >> >>>> >> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly what
>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> you are referring to, it may be useful to
>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> possible explanation.
>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>> >> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking
>>> >> >>>> >> >>> about.
>>> >> >>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>> >> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he
>>> >> >>>> >> >>realises that this is stupidity as it restricts
>>> >> >>>> >> >>his thinking so when arguing, he tries to
>>> >> >>>> >> >>criticise people's opinions on other matters by
>>> >> >>>> >> >>classifying them as "deeply held religious
>>> >> >>>> >> >>beliefs".
>>> >> >>>> >> >
>>> >> >>>> >> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some atheists.
>>> >> >>>> >> For some (including some here), atheism is a "deeply
>>> >> >>>> >> held religious belief." And they *really* hate it
>>> >> >>>> >> when someone points that out. --
>>> >> >>>> >
>>> >> >>>> >There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
>>> >> >>>> >anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and
>>> >> >>>> >"such (a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or
>>> >> >>>> >even can't!)
>>> >> >>>> >
>>> >> >>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_prob
>>> >> >>>> >abilit y
>>> >> >>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a
>>> >> >>>> being who had verifiably created the Universe with
>>> >> >>>> foreknowledge of everything that would happen in it and
>>> >> >>>> the ability to make any arbitrary change at will, they
>>> >> >>>> would refuse address that entity as "God". Presumably
>>> >> >>>> part of said being's plan is that they not do that
>>> >> >>>> after which they turn into frogs or some such.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too stupid
>>> >> >>to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Either you
>>> >> >>just don't understand the difference, or you are
>>> >> >>deliberately trying to decieve people.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>Or both.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > You really should consider that in these situations.
>>> >> I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held
>>> >> religious belief for some.
>>> >>
>>> >> But that has nothing to do with Bobbie's persistent misuse
>>> >> of the word "atheism" to refer to agnosticism. Regardless of
>>> >> what the ultimate reason is, in the end, it boils down to
>>> >> "he's too stupid to know the difference or he's lying." As I
>>> >> said.
>>> >>
>>> >> You, of course, are even stupider.
>>> >
>>> >Define agnosticism then. Without looking anything up.
>>> >
>>> >Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
>>> >in whether a person does or does not conduct
>>> >themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
>>> >the priests. It is your words and deeds that
>>> >constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
>>> >as your thoughts initiate your actions.
>>> >
>>> >Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
>>> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their
>>> faith that the gods do not want to be worshipped?
>>
>> That is tricky.
>
>That is the question that makes you look *stupid*.
>
>> But I hold that if the Almighty is
>> indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
>> in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
>> word "god" means. The word really refers to a
>> relationship, as does "husband". You can't be
>> a husband by yourself, other people need to
>> be involved.
>
>Your belief is a freakish outlier, and when you claim it represents
>the beliefs of billions of theists, you look *stupid* and
>*dishonest*.

To be fair, it /is/ the view promoted in /Clash of the Titans/ and
perhaps a few other films.

Not to mention the Incarnations of Immortality series.

>But with you, that's just a day that ends in "y."

Or he's just so far into SF that he can't see straight on this topic.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:mspoeg9utkqq2kle5ethrs473erbh3b6hr@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 18:05:56 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote in
>>news:8b4791d9-b85b-44fc-8cd9-1058c7f573c0n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 12:31:49 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda
>>>> >Jibini wrote:
>>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>> >> news:upgjegd9i3g0iev4q...@4ax.com:
>>>> >> > On Fri, 09 Jul 2021 10:15:36 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> >> > Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >>Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>>>> >> >>news:158ea6c2-0ed0-4578...@googlegroups.com:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>> On Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 17:21:37 UTC+1, J. Clarke
>>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 20:00:29 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
>>>> >> >>>> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> >On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:42:18 PM UTC-4,
>>>> >> >>>> >Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> >> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>> >> >>>> >> news:uijbegl9snlqrafg8...@4ax.com:
>>>> >> >>>> >> > On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:00:14 +1200, Titus G
>>>> >> >>>> >> > <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> >> >
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>On 7/07/21 4:44 am, Alan Baker wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> On 2021-07-06 8:55 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> In these situations, depending on exactly
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> what you are referring to, it may be useful
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> to consider "deeply held religious belief" as
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> a possible explanation.
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> I haven't the foggiest idea what you're
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> talking about.
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>Paul is a Christian zealot. At some level he
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>realises that this is stupidity as it restricts
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>his thinking so when arguing, he tries to
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>criticise people's opinions on other matters by
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>classifying them as "deeply held religious
>>>> >> >>>> >> >>beliefs".
>>>> >> >>>> >> >
>>>> >> >>>> >> > IIRC, I actually picked it up from some
>>>> >> >>>> >> > atheists.
>>>> >> >>>> >> For some (including some here), atheism is a
>>>> >> >>>> >> "deeply held religious belief." And they *really*
>>>> >> >>>> >> hate it when someone points that out. --
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >>>> >There's a difference between "we haven't encountered
>>>> >> >>>> >anything we could accurately call a deity, yet" and
>>>> >> >>>> >"such (a) being(s) absolutely does not exist." - (or
>>>> >> >>>> >even can't!)
>>>> >> >>>> >
>>>> >> >>>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_pr
>>>> >> >>>> >ob abilit y
>>>> >> >>>> I have had Atheists tell me that if the encountered a
>>>> >> >>>> being who had verifiably created the Universe with
>>>> >> >>>> foreknowledge of everything that would happen in it
>>>> >> >>>> and the ability to make any arbitrary change at will,
>>>> >> >>>> they would refuse address that entity as "God".
>>>> >> >>>> Presumably part of said being's plan is that they not
>>>> >> >>>> do that after which they turn into frogs or some
>>>> >> >>>> such.
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> My atheism consists of not worshipping gods.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>You're one of the ones either too dishonest or too
>>>> >> >>stupid to distinguish between atheism and agnosticism.
>>>> >> >>Either you just don't understand the difference, or you
>>>> >> >>are deliberately trying to decieve people.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>Or both.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > Or it is a deeply-held religious belief.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > You really should consider that in these situations.
>>>> >> I have already pointed out that atheism is a deeply held
>>>> >> religious belief for some.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> But that has nothing to do with Bobbie's persistent misuse
>>>> >> of the word "atheism" to refer to agnosticism. Regardless
>>>> >> of what the ultimate reason is, in the end, it boils down
>>>> >> to "he's too stupid to know the difference or he's lying."
>>>> >> As I said.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You, of course, are even stupider.
>>>> >
>>>> >Define agnosticism then. Without looking anything up.
>>>> >
>>>> >Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
>>>> >in whether a person does or does not conduct
>>>> >themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
>>>> >the priests. It is your words and deeds that
>>>> >constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
>>>> >as your thoughts initiate your actions.
>>>> >
>>>> >Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
>>>> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their
>>>> faith that the gods do not want to be worshipped?
>>>
>>> That is tricky.
>>
>>That is the question that makes you look *stupid*.
>>
>>> But I hold that if the Almighty is
>>> indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
>>> in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
>>> word "god" means. The word really refers to a
>>> relationship, as does "husband". You can't be
>>> a husband by yourself, other people need to
>>> be involved.
>>
>>Your belief is a freakish outlier, and when you claim it
>>represents the beliefs of billions of theists, you look *stupid*
>>and *dishonest*.
>
> To be fair, it /is/ the view promoted in /Clash of the Titans/
> and perhaps a few other films.
>
> Not to mention the Incarnations of Immortality series.

And, being a moron, you believe that matters.
>
>>But with you, that's just a day that ends in "y."
>
> Or he's just so far into SF that he can't see straight on this
> topic.

That's pretty much what I said. He's freakishly deluded.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 2:06:00 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> news:8b4791d9-b85b-44fc...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 12:31:49 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini
> >> >wrote:

[snip]

> >> >Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
> >> >in whether a person does or does not conduct
> >> >themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
> >> >the priests. It is your words and deeds that
> >> >constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
> >> >as your thoughts initiate your actions.
> >> >
> >> >Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
> >> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their
> >> faith that the gods do not want to be worshipped?
> >
> > That is tricky.
> That is the question that makes you look *stupid*.
> > But I hold that if the Almighty is
> > indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
> > in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
> > word "god" means. The word really refers to a
> > relationship, as does "husband". You can't be
> > a husband by yourself, other people need to
> > be involved.

ObSF: Vonnegut, "The Sirens of Titan"

https://vonnegut.fandom.com/wiki/The_Church_of_God_the_Utterly_Indifferent.

> Your belief is a freakish outlier, and when you claim it represents
> the beliefs of billions of theists, you look *stupid* and
> *dishonest*.
>
> But with you, that's just a day that ends in "y."
> --

Robert doesn't allow for the sincere believer who,
nevertheless, falls down in his "obligations" to
worship/make sacrifice to/appease his ghod.

Then there are those who follow every rubric that
outwardly marks them as One of Ghu's Followers,
but believeth not!

--
Kevin R

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:c5b6705b-6dee-46fa-933a-b555d7b83f76n@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 2:06:00 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini
> wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> news:8b4791d9-b85b-44fc...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 12:31:49 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda
>> >> >Jibini wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> >> >Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
>> >> >in whether a person does or does not conduct
>> >> >themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
>> >> >the priests. It is your words and deeds that
>> >> >constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
>> >> >as your thoughts initiate your actions.
>> >> >
>> >> >Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
>> >> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their
>> >> faith that the gods do not want to be worshipped?
>> >
>> > That is tricky.
>> That is the question that makes you look *stupid*.
>> > But I hold that if the Almighty is
>> > indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
>> > in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
>> > word "god" means. The word really refers to a
>> > relationship, as does "husband". You can't be
>> > a husband by yourself, other people need to
>> > be involved.
>
> ObSF: Vonnegut, "The Sirens of Titan"
>
> https://vonnegut.fandom.com/wiki/The_Church_of_God_the_Utterly_In
> different.
>
>> Your belief is a freakish outlier, and when you claim it
>> represents the beliefs of billions of theists, you look
>> *stupid* and *dishonest*.
>>
>> But with you, that's just a day that ends in "y."
>> --
>
> Robert doesn't allow for the sincere believer who,
> nevertheless, falls down in his "obligations" to
> worship/make sacrifice to/appease his ghod.

Bobbie is, of course, perfet in every possible way, and the only
reason anyone would ever not live up to his standard is because
they are lazy, stupid or willfully evil. Just ask him.
>
> Then there are those who follow every rubric that
> outwardly marks them as One of Ghu's Followers,
> but believeth not!
>
Which is literally the same sin in some versions of Christianity
(and, I suspect other major religions, as well).

But God forbid Bobbie actually have a fucking clue about what he
hates.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 00:59:38 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 2:06:00 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> > news:8b4791d9-b85b-44fc...@googlegroups.com:
> > > On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 12:31:49 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> > >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> > >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini
> > >> >wrote:
> [snip]
> > >> >Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
> > >> >in whether a person does or does not conduct
> > >> >themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
> > >> >the priests. It is your words and deeds that
> > >> >constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
> > >> >as your thoughts initiate your actions.
> > >> >
> > >> >Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
> > >> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their
> > >> faith that the gods do not want to be worshipped?
> > >
> > > That is tricky.
> > That is the question that makes you look *stupid*.
> > > But I hold that if the Almighty is
> > > indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
> > > in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
> > > word "god" means. The word really refers to a
> > > relationship, as does "husband". You can't be
> > > a husband by yourself, other people need to
> > > be involved.
> ObSF: Vonnegut, "The Sirens of Titan"
>
> https://vonnegut.fandom.com/wiki/The_Church_of_God_the_Utterly_Indifferent.
> > Your belief is a freakish outlier, and when you claim it represents
> > the beliefs of billions of theists, you look *stupid* and
> > *dishonest*.
> >
> > But with you, that's just a day that ends in "y."
> > --
> Robert doesn't allow for the sincere believer who,
> nevertheless, falls down in his "obligations" to
> worship/make sacrifice to/appease his ghod.

Gods don't allow for that either.

I doubt the sincerity of a "believer" whose beliefs are
not expressed in behaviour consistent with the belief.

Gods of the judgemental sort usually bring on some
such person as a Recording Angel who has written
down everything that you've done.

> Then there are those who follow every rubric that
> outwardly marks them as One of Ghu's Followers,
> but believeth not!

Why are they doing it then? Anyway, God can't touch
them for it.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 02:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 00:59:38 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 2:06:00 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> > news:8b4791d9-b85b-44fc...@googlegroups.com:
>> > > On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 12:31:49 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> > >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> > >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini
>> > >> >wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > >> >Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
>> > >> >in whether a person does or does not conduct
>> > >> >themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
>> > >> >the priests. It is your words and deeds that
>> > >> >constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
>> > >> >as your thoughts initiate your actions.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
>> > >> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their
>> > >> faith that the gods do not want to be worshipped?
>> > >
>> > > That is tricky.
>> > That is the question that makes you look *stupid*.
>> > > But I hold that if the Almighty is
>> > > indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
>> > > in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
>> > > word "god" means. The word really refers to a
>> > > relationship, as does "husband". You can't be
>> > > a husband by yourself, other people need to
>> > > be involved.
>> ObSF: Vonnegut, "The Sirens of Titan"
>>
>> https://vonnegut.fandom.com/wiki/The_Church_of_God_the_Utterly_Indifferent.
>> > Your belief is a freakish outlier, and when you claim it represents
>> > the beliefs of billions of theists, you look *stupid* and
>> > *dishonest*.
>> >
>> > But with you, that's just a day that ends in "y."
>> > --
>> Robert doesn't allow for the sincere believer who,
>> nevertheless, falls down in his "obligations" to
>> worship/make sacrifice to/appease his ghod.
>
>Gods don't allow for that either.
>
>I doubt the sincerity of a "believer" whose beliefs are
>not expressed in behaviour consistent with the belief.
>
>Gods of the judgemental sort usually bring on some
>such person as a Recording Angel who has written
>down everything that you've done.

So you're saying gods compel such activity whether there is belief or
not? I don't think that that's a tenet of mainstream Christianity.

>> Then there are those who follow every rubric that
>> outwardly marks them as One of Ghu's Followers,
>> but believeth not!
>
>Why are they doing it then? Anyway, God can't touch
>them for it.

In a surprising number of cases they are doing it to get laid.

And why can't an omnipotent deity touch them for it? He can touch
them for any reason he wants, who's going to stop him?

On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 11:42:56 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 02:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 00:59:38 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
> >> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 2:06:00 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> >> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> >> > news:8b4791d9-b85b-44fc...@googlegroups.com:
> >> > > On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 12:31:49 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> > >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> > >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini
> >> > >> >wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> > >> >Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
> >> > >> >in whether a person does or does not conduct
> >> > >> >themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
> >> > >> >the priests. It is your words and deeds that
> >> > >> >constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
> >> > >> >as your thoughts initiate your actions.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
> >> > >> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their
> >> > >> faith that the gods do not want to be worshipped?
> >> > >
> >> > > That is tricky.
> >> > That is the question that makes you look *stupid*.
> >> > > But I hold that if the Almighty is
> >> > > indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
> >> > > in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
> >> > > word "god" means. The word really refers to a
> >> > > relationship, as does "husband". You can't be
> >> > > a husband by yourself, other people need to
> >> > > be involved.
> >> ObSF: Vonnegut, "The Sirens of Titan"
> >>
> >> https://vonnegut.fandom.com/wiki/The_Church_of_God_the_Utterly_Indifferent.
> >> > Your belief is a freakish outlier, and when you claim it represents
> >> > the beliefs of billions of theists, you look *stupid* and
> >> > *dishonest*.
> >> >
> >> > But with you, that's just a day that ends in "y."
> >> > --
> >> Robert doesn't allow for the sincere believer who,
> >> nevertheless, falls down in his "obligations" to
> >> worship/make sacrifice to/appease his ghod.
> >
> >Gods don't allow for that either.
> >
> >I doubt the sincerity of a "believer" whose beliefs are
> >not expressed in behaviour consistent with the belief.
> >
> >Gods of the judgemental sort usually bring on some
> >such person as a Recording Angel who has written
> >down everything that you've done.
>
> So you're saying gods compel such activity whether there is belief or
> not? I don't think that that's a tenet of mainstream Christianity.

In Roman Catholic doctrine, which I'm not well acquainted
with, my understanding is that your Guardian Angel's second
job is as your personal Recording Angel.

Also there is Original Sin, which you can't not have.

In <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tree_and_its_Fruits>
Jesus explains that if you have good religion in you then
you have good behaviour, and if you have bad religion
then you have bad behaviour.

I propose that that settles the question of salvation by
faith or by doing right: that either you have both of those
things, or you have neither of them.

> >> Then there are those who follow every rubric that
> >> outwardly marks them as One of Ghu's Followers,
> >> but believeth not!
> >
> >Why are they doing it then? Anyway, God can't touch
> >them for it.
>
> In a surprising number of cases they are doing it to get laid.

I don't see that working. Except at the temple of Aphrodite.
Allegedly. I'm sceptical about that, too.

> And why can't an omnipotent deity touch them for it? He can touch
> them for any reason he wants, who's going to stop him?

No, but if he smites them while they are following
his rules, how does that look?

I think we've chatted previously about that alleged incident
where a married couple dropped dead just after privately
donating a large sum of money to Saint Peter. I know what
the bible says about it (that they kept some money, which
was their money, and they denied doing that, therefore, zap),
but who told the bible what happened? The people who died,
or Peter?

On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 11:42:56 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 02:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 00:59:38 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 2:06:00 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> >> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> >> > news:8b4791d9-b85b-44fc...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> > > On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 12:31:49 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >> > >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>> >> > >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> >On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini
>> >> > >> >wrote:
>> >> [snip]
>> >> > >> >Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
>> >> > >> >in whether a person does or does not conduct
>> >> > >> >themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
>> >> > >> >the priests. It is your words and deeds that
>> >> > >> >constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
>> >> > >> >as your thoughts initiate your actions.
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> >Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
>> >> > >> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their
>> >> > >> faith that the gods do not want to be worshipped?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > That is tricky.
>> >> > That is the question that makes you look *stupid*.
>> >> > > But I hold that if the Almighty is
>> >> > > indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
>> >> > > in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
>> >> > > word "god" means. The word really refers to a
>> >> > > relationship, as does "husband". You can't be
>> >> > > a husband by yourself, other people need to
>> >> > > be involved.
>> >> ObSF: Vonnegut, "The Sirens of Titan"
>> >>
>> >> https://vonnegut.fandom.com/wiki/The_Church_of_God_the_Utterly_Indifferent.
>> >> > Your belief is a freakish outlier, and when you claim it represents
>> >> > the beliefs of billions of theists, you look *stupid* and
>> >> > *dishonest*.
>> >> >
>> >> > But with you, that's just a day that ends in "y."
>> >> > --
>> >> Robert doesn't allow for the sincere believer who,
>> >> nevertheless, falls down in his "obligations" to
>> >> worship/make sacrifice to/appease his ghod.
>> >
>> >Gods don't allow for that either.
>> >
>> >I doubt the sincerity of a "believer" whose beliefs are
>> >not expressed in behaviour consistent with the belief.
>> >
>> >Gods of the judgemental sort usually bring on some
>> >such person as a Recording Angel who has written
>> >down everything that you've done.
>>
>> So you're saying gods compel such activity whether there is belief or
>> not? I don't think that that's a tenet of mainstream Christianity.
>
>In Roman Catholic doctrine, which I'm not well acquainted
>with, my understanding is that your Guardian Angel's second
>job is as your personal Recording Angel.
>
>Also there is Original Sin, which you can't not have.
>
>In <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tree_and_its_Fruits>
>Jesus explains that if you have good religion in you then
>you have good behaviour, and if you have bad religion
>then you have bad behaviour.
>
>I propose that that settles the question of salvation by
>faith or by doing right: that either you have both of those
>things, or you have neither of them.

But none of this compels someone to engage in worship.

>> >> Then there are those who follow every rubric that
>> >> outwardly marks them as One of Ghu's Followers,
>> >> but believeth not!
>> >
>> >Why are they doing it then? Anyway, God can't touch
>> >them for it.
>>
>> In a surprising number of cases they are doing it to get laid.
>
>I don't see that working. Except at the temple of Aphrodite.
>Allegedly. I'm sceptical about that, too.

Then you bear the common misconception that women who go to church are
chaste. I have known women who explicitly state that they are going
to church to look for likely men and who then aggressively go after
their selected targets.

Many people meet their spouses at or through the church.

And some of the best sex I have ever had was confessed a few hours
later (not by me).

>> And why can't an omnipotent deity touch them for it? He can touch
>> them for any reason he wants, who's going to stop him?
>
>No, but if he smites them while they are following
>his rules, how does that look?

Why does he care how it looks? Do you care how your activities look
to ants?

>I think we've chatted previously about that alleged incident
>where a married couple dropped dead just after privately
>donating a large sum of money to Saint Peter. I know what
>the bible says about it (that they kept some money, which
>was their money, and they denied doing that, therefore, zap),
>but who told the bible what happened? The people who died,
>or Peter?

The omniscient deity of course.

On 13/07/2021 10.11, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 11:42:56 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 02:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

>>>> Why are they doing it then? Anyway, God can't touch
>>>> them for it.
>>>
>>> In a surprising number of cases they are doing it to get laid.
>>
>> I don't see that working. Except at the temple of Aphrodite.
>> Allegedly. I'm sceptical about that, too.
>
> Then you bear the common misconception that women who go to church are
> chaste. I have known women who explicitly state that they are going
> to church to look for likely men and who then aggressively go after
> their selected targets.
>
> Many people meet their spouses at or through the church.
>
> And some of the best sex I have ever had was confessed a few hours
> later (not by me).

Billy Joel is very jealous of you:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_the_Good_Die_Young>

--
Michael F. Stemper
This post contains greater than 95% post-consumer bytes by weight.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 5:10:23 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 00:59:38 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:

[snip]

> > Robert doesn't allow for the sincere believer who,
> > nevertheless, falls down in his "obligations" to
> > worship/make sacrifice to/appease his ghod.
> Gods don't allow for that either.
>

If there really are any.....

> I doubt the sincerity of a "believer" whose beliefs are
> not expressed in behaviour consistent with the belief.
>

Are you familiar with the concept of "guilt" in religious
contexts? I grew up steeped in "Catholic guilt," where
there was always some standard of observance you
weren't meeting, and you got accused of "going through
the motions" pretty regularly. Being human beings, with
desires and appetites, and being subject to pain and fatigue,
life-affirming behavior would occasionally peek through the
layers of self-abnegation and submission.

> Gods of the judgemental sort usually bring on some
> such person as a Recording Angel who has written
> down everything that you've done.

....or clergy pretending to stand in for such.

> > Then there are those who follow every rubric that
> > outwardly marks them as One of Ghu's Followers,
> > but believeth not!

> Why are they doing it then?

To fit in? To keep from being punished by their fellow humans?
Because they are social climbers? To recruit customers for their
business? To lock in slots for their kids in pre-schools, kindergartens
and other schools? To be able to be on the church softball team?
Bevause they like to sing in the choir? To meet potential marriage
partners?

In USA history, switching denominations in order to gain an "upgrade"
in social class was long a thing.

Why did Disraeli's papa have his sons baptized as Anglicans?

Was Paris "worth a Mass?"

> Anyway, God can't touch them for it.

I'd agree with that. Most theists wouldn't.

--
Kevin R

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 11:47:58 AM UTC-4, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 13/07/2021 10.11, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> > <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 11:42:56 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 02:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Why are they doing it then? Anyway, God can't touch
> >>>> them for it.
> >>>
> >>> In a surprising number of cases they are doing it to get laid.
> >>
> >> I don't see that working. Except at the temple of Aphrodite.
> >> Allegedly. I'm sceptical about that, too.
> >
> > Then you bear the common misconception that women who go to church are
> > chaste. I have known women who explicitly state that they are going
> > to church to look for likely men and who then aggressively go after
> > their selected targets.
> >
> > Many people meet their spouses at or through the church.
> >
> > And some of the best sex I have ever had was confessed a few hours
> > later (not by me).
> Billy Joel is very jealous of you:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Only_the_Good_Die_Young>
>
> --

It always amused me how many Catholic school boys would
razz a fellow who was dating a non-Catholic, on the theory that
"Protestant girls are easy! And they are allowed to go on the Pill!"
(Or words to that effect.) Meanwhile, the Protestant boys were
assuming that Catholic girls had rounder heels than Episcopalian
or Lutheran ones, and the Jewish guys lusted after "shiksas."
Your mother and sisters are virgins until they marry, but females
outside the tribe are exotic wantons to be ravaged. Your mother
and the clergy want you to steer clear of them.

--
Kevin R

On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 16:11:06 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 05:22:31 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 11:42:56 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 02:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 00:59:38 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
> >> >> On Sunday, July 11, 2021 at 2:06:00 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> >> >> > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
> >> >> > news:8b4791d9-b85b-44fc...@googlegroups.com:
> >> >> > > On Sunday, 11 July 2021 at 12:31:49 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> >> > >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2021 04:24:57 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
> >> >> > >> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> >On Saturday, 10 July 2021 at 19:03:58 UTC+1, Ninapenda Jibini
> >> >> > >> >wrote:
> >> >> [snip]
> >> >> > >> >Gods, or in practice priests, are only interested
> >> >> > >> >in whether a person does or does not conduct
> >> >> > >> >themself to satisfy the gods, or in practice
> >> >> > >> >the priests. It is your words and deeds that
> >> >> > >> >constitute worship, not your thoughts, except
> >> >> > >> >as your thoughts initiate your actions.
> >> >> > >> >
> >> >> > >> >Someone who does not worship gods is an atheist.
> >> >> > >> Even one who does not worship because it is a tenet of their
> >> >> > >> faith that the gods do not want to be worshipped?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > That is tricky.
> >> >> > That is the question that makes you look *stupid*.
> >> >> > > But I hold that if the Almighty is
> >> >> > > indifferent to worship then the Almighty is not,
> >> >> > > in fact, a god; that being worshipped is what the
> >> >> > > word "god" means. The word really refers to a
> >> >> > > relationship, as does "husband". You can't be
> >> >> > > a husband by yourself, other people need to
> >> >> > > be involved.
> >> >> ObSF: Vonnegut, "The Sirens of Titan"
> >> >>
> >> >> https://vonnegut.fandom.com/wiki/The_Church_of_God_the_Utterly_Indifferent.
> >> >> > Your belief is a freakish outlier, and when you claim it represents
> >> >> > the beliefs of billions of theists, you look *stupid* and
> >> >> > *dishonest*.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But with you, that's just a day that ends in "y."
> >> >> > --
> >> >> Robert doesn't allow for the sincere believer who,
> >> >> nevertheless, falls down in his "obligations" to
> >> >> worship/make sacrifice to/appease his ghod.
> >> >
> >> >Gods don't allow for that either.
> >> >
> >> >I doubt the sincerity of a "believer" whose beliefs are
> >> >not expressed in behaviour consistent with the belief.
> >> >
> >> >Gods of the judgemental sort usually bring on some
> >> >such person as a Recording Angel who has written
> >> >down everything that you've done.
> >>
> >> So you're saying gods compel such activity whether there is belief or
> >> not? I don't think that that's a tenet of mainstream Christianity.
> >
> >In Roman Catholic doctrine, which I'm not well acquainted
> >with, my understanding is that your Guardian Angel's second
> >job is as your personal Recording Angel.
> >
> >Also there is Original Sin, which you can't not have.
> >
> >In <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tree_and_its_Fruits>
> >Jesus explains that if you have good religion in you then
> >you have good behaviour, and if you have bad religion
> >then you have bad behaviour.
> >
> >I propose that that settles the question of salvation by
> >faith or by doing right: that either you have both of those
> >things, or you have neither of them.
>
> But none of this compels someone to engage in worship.

Well, it's a bit difficult to define worship. It seems to include
begging, the lively arts, and money. But I think that "doing right
because your god wants you to" is reasonably included.
Worship is the currencies with which you pay your god.
It is what /makes/ the god your god.

I think I mentioned that some gods seem to be happy
if you only think of them when you need a favour.
And others insist that your food and sex all has to be
blessed by priests. Or they legally force you to come
and visit them regularly. Some gods are high maintenance.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 5:10:23 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 00:59:38 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Robert doesn't allow for the sincere believer who,
> > > nevertheless, falls down in his "obligations" to
> > > worship/make sacrifice to/appease his ghod.
> > Gods don't allow for that either.
> >
> If there really are any.....
> > I doubt the sincerity of a "believer" whose beliefs are
> > not expressed in behaviour consistent with the belief.
> >
> Are you familiar with the concept of "guilt" in religious
> contexts? I grew up steeped in "Catholic guilt," where
> there was always some standard of observance you
> weren't meeting, and you got accused of "going through
> the motions" pretty regularly. Being human beings, with
> desires and appetites, and being subject to pain and fatigue,
> life-affirming behavior would occasionally peek through the
> layers of self-abnegation and submission.
> > Gods of the judgemental sort usually bring on some
> > such person as a Recording Angel who has written
> > down everything that you've done.
> ...or clergy pretending to stand in for such.
> > > Then there are those who follow every rubric that
> > > outwardly marks them as One of Ghu's Followers,
> > > but believeth not!
>
> > Why are they doing it then?
> To fit in? To keep from being punished by their fellow humans?
> Because they are social climbers? To recruit customers for their
> business? To lock in slots for their kids in pre-schools, kindergartens
> and other schools? To be able to be on the church softball team?
> Bevause they like to sing in the choir? To meet potential marriage
> partners?
>
> In USA history, switching denominations in order to gain an "upgrade"
> in social class was long a thing.
>
> Why did Disraeli's papa have his sons baptized as Anglicans?

Isaac had a long-standing quarrel with his local rabbi, and punished
the man by having all his children baptized. He never adopted
Christianity himself, and continued, now and then, to go to
Jewish services, if they weren't too conservative.

Of course he was aware of the doors this would open for his children.
>
> Was Paris "worth a Mass?"

Well, if he hadn't taken Paris he probably wouldn't have been assassinated a few
years later. Which didn't mean he would still be alive. The minority of
protestants couldn't rationally expect to keep winning battles against
the majority catholics. Sooner or later even a brilliant commander will lose or
at least die on the battlefield when the odds are perpetually against
him.

"There are three things which are true but which nobody believes, that I am a sincere Catholic, that
d'Alva is a good general, and that Elizabeth is a virgin" - Henry IV (from memory, names of Spanish generals
may vary).

> > Anyway, God can't touch them for it.
> I'd agree with that. Most theists wouldn't.

Henri may have felt that bringing peace to France made up for the "sin" of joining
a different version of the same god's church. Isaac probably didn't believe in any
serious way.

William Hyde

On 26/06/21 4:21 am, edstas...@gmail.com wrote:

snip

Thank you for your detailed reply with which I completely disagree.

>
> When the foundation of your dogma is that inanimate objects cause crime,
> you've nowhere to go but down.

You will not be wanting to read Martha Wells' Murderbot series.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 11:54:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 10:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 10:14:46 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> >> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 20:46:18 -0700, Alan Baker
> >> <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> >
> >> >There has always been an common law understanding that only adults have
> >> >full agency and thus the full exercise of their rights.
> >
> >> >Try again.
> >
> >> So, your position is that Common Law /overrides/ the Constitution? And
> >> so, by extension, all positive law?
> >
> >> Interesting. I was under the impression that the opposite was the
> >> case.
> >
> >You're quiite correct, but here Common Law is not overriding anything.
> >
> >It's just filling in the unstated omissions.
> Hey, at least your response is actually to the point, as opposed to a
> mindless diversion.
>
> There are no "unstated omissions". "shall not be infringed" is quite
> clear. Nothing is omitted.
>
> But considered as part of /regulating the militia/, age limits make
> sense.
>
> And the 2nd Amendment /clearly/ has "a well-regulated militia" as its
> purpose in life. Says so in plain English.
>
> There is a challenge in some state (California?) to the raising of the
> age limit. It will be interesting to see if it is based on the Common
> Law tradition -- or on Federal supremacy -- or on regulating the
> "unorganized militia" defined in a law quoted here by another on
> several occasions -- a law which, /itself/, is regulating the militia,
> if only by defining it.
> --

The 4th Circuit struck down bans on selling to 18-20-year-olds,
just yesterday:

Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

[quoting a headline]

Appeals court rules 21-year minimum age for handgun
purchases is unconstitutional | By Mychael Schnell -

07/13/21 05:23 PM EDT

[/quote]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/562834-appeals-court-rules-21-year-minimum-age-for-handgun-purchases-is?rl=1 See also

[quoting the majority opinion]

According to Richardson, the text of the Constitution itself shows "the
Founders considered age and knew how to set age requirements but
placed no such restrictions on rights, including those protected by the
Second Amendment." Furthermore, "Every militia law near the time of
ratification required 18-year-olds to be part of the militia and bring their
own arms."

[/quote]

But....

[quote]

Notably, the 4th Circuit today reached the opposite conclusion reached by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which did not recognize Second
Amendment rights for 18-20 year olds in National Rifle Association v. Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2012).

[/quote]

https://reason.com/2021/07/13/barely-legal-teens-can-legally-buy-guns-appeals-court-says/

When two or more circuits don't agree the Supreme Court is usually
called on to rule, and yesterday's decision will be appealed. There
may be a re-hearing at the 4th Circuit with more judges. Similar
cases have been filed in other states in other circuits. Stay tuned.
--
Kevin R

On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:38:40 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 11:54:49 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 10:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 10:14:46 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 20:46:18 -0700, Alan Baker
>> >> <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >There has always been an common law understanding that only adults have
>> >> >full agency and thus the full exercise of their rights.
>> >
>> >> >Try again.
>> >
>> >> So, your position is that Common Law /overrides/ the Constitution? And
>> >> so, by extension, all positive law?
>> >
>> >> Interesting. I was under the impression that the opposite was the
>> >> case.
>> >
>> >You're quiite correct, but here Common Law is not overriding anything.
>> >
>> >It's just filling in the unstated omissions.
>> Hey, at least your response is actually to the point, as opposed to a
>> mindless diversion.
>>
>> There are no "unstated omissions". "shall not be infringed" is quite
>> clear. Nothing is omitted.
>>
>> But considered as part of /regulating the militia/, age limits make
>> sense.
>>
>> And the 2nd Amendment /clearly/ has "a well-regulated militia" as its
>> purpose in life. Says so in plain English.
>>
>> There is a challenge in some state (California?) to the raising of the
>> age limit. It will be interesting to see if it is based on the Common
>> Law tradition -- or on Federal supremacy -- or on regulating the
>> "unorganized militia" defined in a law quoted here by another on
>> several occasions -- a law which, /itself/, is regulating the militia,
>> if only by defining it.
>> --
>
>The 4th Circuit struck down bans on selling to 18-20-year-olds,
>just yesterday:
>
>Hirschfeld v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
>
>[quoting a headline]
>
>Appeals court rules 21-year minimum age for handgun
>purchases is unconstitutional | By Mychael Schnell -
>
>07/13/21 05:23 PM EDT
>
>[/quote]
>
>https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/562834-appeals-court-rules-21-year-minimum-age-for-handgun-purchases-is?rl=1 See also
>
>[quoting the majority opinion]
>
>According to Richardson, the text of the Constitution itself shows "the
>Founders considered age and knew how to set age requirements but
>placed no such restrictions on rights, including those protected by the
>Second Amendment." Furthermore, "Every militia law near the time of
>ratification required 18-year-olds to be part of the militia and bring their
>own arms."
>
>[/quote]

Just wanted to point out that they are /referencing how militias/ were
regulated.

Without it, we appear to have the Constitution setting "no limits at
all" on how age affects gun ownership. Of course, the full opinion may
have more detail on this.

>But....
>
>[quote]
>
>Notably, the 4th Circuit today reached the opposite conclusion reached by the
>U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which did not recognize Second
>Amendment rights for 18-20 year olds in National Rifle Association v. Bureau
>of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (2012).
>
>[/quote]
>
>https://reason.com/2021/07/13/barely-legal-teens-can-legally-buy-guns-appeals-court-says/
>
>When two or more circuits don't agree the Supreme Court is usually
>called on to rule, and yesterday's decision will be appealed. There
>may be a re-hearing at the 4th Circuit with more judges. Similar
>cases have been filed in other states in other circuits. Stay tuned.

Indeed.

This should be very interesting.

Unless, of course, the Supremes choose to dodge the bullet.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."