Bll Maher's New Rules

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pat wrote:
The founding fathers thought the Bible was bullshit? Yeah right which is why they spent a great deal of time studying it.
[/quote]

Many of them did, yes. Thomas Paine spent a good deal of time studying it- doesn’t mean he didn’t think it wasn’t complete bullshit- he did.

Jefferson was a believer in god but not clearly thought the Bible was bullshit. He was joined by people such as Madison and Paine, who were more deists than anything else- even though Tea Partiers and the like regularly dress up like them and pretend that they would join their superchristian ranks if they were alive.

"Jefferson considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. He described these as “so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture”.[30] He described the “roguery of others of His disciples”, [31] and called them a “band of dupes and impostors” describing Paul as the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus”, and wrote of “palpable interpolations and falsifications”.[31] He also described the Book of Revelation to be “merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams”.[32]

From his careful study of the Bible, Jefferson concluded that Jesus never claimed to be God.[33] While living in the White House, Jefferson began to piece together his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity and the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, primarily leaving only Jesus’ moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation titled The LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.[10]

In 1803 Jefferson composed a syllabus of the comparative merits of Christianity. He let only a few see it, including Benjamin Rush in 1803 and William Short in 1820. When Rush died in 1813, Jefferson asked the family to return the document to him. In the syllabus, Jefferson outlines what he considers to be some of the advantages of Jesus’ teachings. In the 1820 letter to Short, he makes it clear that he disagrees with some of those teachings.[8][34]"

These were the same people that invented the electoral college, restricted voting to white male landowners, and left slavery in the constitution. Great men they were, but they were neither infallible, nor were they “common folks” or populists. Far from it.

Adams was, yes. Most of them were deists though, and this does not equate with being religious in the sense of believing in an organized religion.

Maher’s point is that this is a HUGE break from what Tea Partiers depict them as- the Christian guardians of the free market.

Exactly. But they do not make reference to what God, and that is what is good about the documents. Again, this doesn’t mean they buy into organized religion, which is much more similar to what people like myself believe as opposed to the very strict religious right.

[quote]
I thought it before but now I am convinced, Bill Maher is dumber than mule shit. [/quote]

Mule shit? Jesus cletis get off the fuckin farm.

62

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
The founding fathers thought the Bible was bullshit? Yeah right which is why they spent a great deal of time studying it.
[/quote]

Many of them did, yes. Thomas Paine spent a good deal of time studying it- doesn’t mean he didn’t think it wasn’t complete bullshit- he did.

Jefferson was a believer in god but not clearly thought the Bible was bullshit. He was joined by people such as Madison and Paine, who were more deists than anything else- even though Tea Partiers and the like regularly dress up like them and pretend that they would join their superchristian ranks if they were alive.

"Jefferson considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. He described these as “so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture”.[30] He described the “roguery of others of His disciples”, [31] and called them a “band of dupes and impostors” describing Paul as the “first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus”, and wrote of “palpable interpolations and falsifications”.[31] He also described the Book of Revelation to be “merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams”.[32]

From his careful study of the Bible, Jefferson concluded that Jesus never claimed to be God.[33] While living in the White House, Jefferson began to piece together his own condensed version of the Gospels, omitting the virgin birth of Jesus, miracles attributed to Jesus, divinity and the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, primarily leaving only Jesus’ moral philosophy, of which he approved. This compilation titled The LIFE AND MORALS OF JESUS OF NAZARETH Extracted Textually from the Gospels Greek, Latin, French, and English was published after his death and became known as the Jefferson Bible.[10]

In 1803 Jefferson composed a syllabus of the comparative merits of Christianity. He let only a few see it, including Benjamin Rush in 1803 and William Short in 1820. When Rush died in 1813, Jefferson asked the family to return the document to him. In the syllabus, Jefferson outlines what he considers to be some of the advantages of Jesus’ teachings. In the 1820 letter to Short, he makes it clear that he disagrees with some of those teachings.[8][34]"

These were the same people that invented the electoral college, restricted voting to white male landowners, and left slavery in the constitution. Great men they were, but they were neither infallible, nor were they “common folks” or populists. Far from it.

Adams was, yes. Most of them were deists though, and this does not equate with being religious in the sense of believing in an organized religion.

Maher’s point is that this is a HUGE break from what Tea Partiers depict them as- the Christian guardians of the free market.

Exactly. But they do not make reference to what God, and that is what is good about the documents. Again, this doesn’t mean they buy into organized religion, which is much more similar to what people like myself believe as opposed to the very strict religious right.

[quote]
I thought it before but now I am convinced, Bill Maher is dumber than mule shit. [/quote]

Mule shit? Jesus cletis get off the fuckin farm.[/quote]

Yes he’s dumber than mule shit. He’s not funny, he said a lot of untrue things and still managed not to make a point. He’s simply a wanna-be but can’t be George Carlin, who was not funny either. They are satirists, Bill Maher is just bad at it. On the other hand, Jon Stewart is far better at it even though I disagree with his points, but he is actually smart.

Katt Williams, Ron White? Now those are some funny mother fuckers right there, Bill Maher cannot hold a candle.

Jefferson was a deist, he didn’t think it was bullshit, he was certainly skeptical, but he questioned the very necessity of miracles and divinity when the morality alone should have been enough. It’s actually a point Jesus himself made. But the man knew the bible through and through. I have the complete letters of Adams and Jefferson and 75% of the book is about faith and religion. He may have seen it differently than others but he was plainly fascinated by it. His own words bare that out.

Thomas Paine is one guy, most of them were religious to say otherwise is patently, unaduteratingly false.

Again, most of the documents have at least some religious overtones from that period, don’t trust me look it up.

63

Here is a link that should lay that line of bullshit to rest:

64

[quote]pat wrote:
Here is a link that should lay that line of bullshit to rest:

Nah. bullshit. One might look at where I was from and call me a catholic just because of my history but it means nothing.

Washington was said to be one religion but I’ve read that he never attended church, and his letters rarely address any personal beliefs.

Many of them were the same way. Being interested in it doesn’t mean they were believers, it means they were philosophers, and as for Jefferson, he denied the holy trinity. Therefore, he would not be Robert Bentley’s brother.

65

By the way, the very nature of being a deist is that you think the Bible is bullshit. If you didn’t think it was bullshit, you’d be… a christian.

66

Pat- just out of curiosity, would you consider Dawkins to be “religious”? He certainly studies and thinks about religion quite a bit but that certainly wouldn’t make him a believer in religion would it?

This is part of the issue- the founding fathers may have thought and spoke about religion, but it seems clear they were not religious in the way many today assume that they were. In fact, many conservative Christians would be very uncomfortable with their beliefs. Jefferson was accused by some of his peers of actually being an atheist if that gives some idea as to how radical his “belief” was.

67

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

Just because we don’t like/respect you does not mean we do not like/respect other members.[/quote]

I don’t care whether you like or respect me. You’re nothing to me.

And if you’re counting yourselves among the same ranks as Zeb, who’s exhibited nothing but disgust and disdain for a segment of the population based on their sexual preference alone, you’ve got a long and miserable time ahead of you.[/quote]

Really? So are you just trolling or really that unaware of what is going on in this forum? Take a good look at my display pic. then realize that Maher was all over his nuts till he got voted out of the primary then acted like he never heard of him.

68

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

Just because we don’t like/respect you does not mean we do not like/respect other members.[/quote]

I don’t care whether you like or respect me. You’re nothing to me.

And if you’re counting yourselves among the same ranks as Zeb, who’s exhibited nothing but disgust and disdain for a segment of the population based on their sexual preference alone, you’ve got a long and miserable time ahead of you.[/quote]

Really? So are you just trolling or really that unaware of what is going on in this forum? Take a good look at my display pic. then realize that Maher was all over his nuts till he got voted out of the primary then acted like he never heard of him.[/quote]

It seems like Maher has migrated from a more libertarian to a more typically modern-liberal position. It’s kind of disappointing.

69

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:

Just because we don’t like/respect you does not mean we do not like/respect other members.[/quote]

I don’t care whether you like or respect me. You’re nothing to me.

And if you’re counting yourselves among the same ranks as Zeb, who’s exhibited nothing but disgust and disdain for a segment of the population based on their sexual preference alone, you’ve got a long and miserable time ahead of you.[/quote]

Really? So are you just trolling or really that unaware of what is going on in this forum? Take a good look at my display pic. then realize that Maher was all over his nuts till he got voted out of the primary then acted like he never heard of him.[/quote]

It seems like Maher has migrated from a more libertarian to a more typically modern-liberal position. It’s kind of disappointing.[/quote]

I just figured this guy was a fraud looking for the next thing to put him on the “outside” so he can talk down to people.

70

[quote]John S. wrote:
I just figured this guy was a fraud looking for the next thing to put him on the “outside” so he can talk down to people.[/quote]

I think he’s just another example of someone who is all about limited government when they don’t like the people in power, and become born-again big-government partisan ideologues the moment their team is winning.

71

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Pat- just out of curiosity, would you consider Dawkins to be “religious”? He certainly studies and thinks about religion quite a bit but that certainly wouldn’t make him a believer in religion would it?

This is part of the issue- the founding fathers may have thought and spoke about religion, but it seems clear they were not religious in the way many today assume that they were. In fact, many conservative Christians would be very uncomfortable with their beliefs. Jefferson was accused by some of his peers of actually being an atheist if that gives some idea as to how radical his “belief” was. [/quote]

No he’s an atheist.

How religious they were or fervent I do not know. But numb nut bill maher said they though the bible and religion was bullshit. Clearly that is a falsehood.
That they did their level best to separate religion and politics is something I very much applaud. Church and state historically have not mixed well.

72

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
By the way, the very nature of being a deist is that you think the Bible is bullshit. If you didn’t think it was bullshit, you’d be… a christian.[/quote]

No. Deism itself is not a defining of practiced religion. It simply a belief in God based on natural order rather than revelation. I happen to agree with that stance and hence I would be a deist as well. A non-deist religious person would argue the God can only be known through divine revelation.
It speak to neither the bible or religion itself actually, but it does not stand to reason that they think the bible is bullshit, especially when so many knew it well.

73

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Pat- just out of curiosity, would you consider Dawkins to be “religious”? He certainly studies and thinks about religion quite a bit but that certainly wouldn’t make him a believer in religion would it?

This is part of the issue- the founding fathers may have thought and spoke about religion, but it seems clear they were not religious in the way many today assume that they were. In fact, many conservative Christians would be very uncomfortable with their beliefs. Jefferson was accused by some of his peers of actually being an atheist if that gives some idea as to how radical his “belief” was. [/quote]

No he’s an atheist.

How religious they were or fervent I do not know. But numb nut bill maher said they though the bible and religion was bullshit. Clearly that is a falsehood.
That they did their level best to separate religion and politics is something I very much applaud. Church and state historically have not mixed well.[/quote]

You can’t talk about them as a “they”. Many of them were deists, some were agnostic, but a number of them were very clearly anti-church/anti-organized religion.

Easy examples:

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Paine

Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true.
Thomas Paine

It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.
Thomas Paine

My mind is my own church.
Thomas Paine

74

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Here is a link that should lay that line of bullshit to rest:

Nah. bullshit. One might look at where I was from and call me a catholic just because of my history but it means nothing.

Washington was said to be one religion but I’ve read that he never attended church, and his letters rarely address any personal beliefs.

Many of them were the same way. Being interested in it doesn’t mean they were believers, it means they were philosophers, and as for Jefferson, he denied the holy trinity. Therefore, he would not be Robert Bentley’s brother.
[/quote]

You have proof countering my proof or that’s just your opinion?

Denying doesn’t mean he did not know the bible, the trinity doctrine came in the early 3rd century. Ironically the bible came in 297 A.D. after the doctrine of the trinity. But you see, the trinity is not spelled out in the bible.

Because you parents were Catholic doesn’t make you one.

75

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Pat- just out of curiosity, would you consider Dawkins to be “religious”? He certainly studies and thinks about religion quite a bit but that certainly wouldn’t make him a believer in religion would it?

This is part of the issue- the founding fathers may have thought and spoke about religion, but it seems clear they were not religious in the way many today assume that they were. In fact, many conservative Christians would be very uncomfortable with their beliefs. Jefferson was accused by some of his peers of actually being an atheist if that gives some idea as to how radical his “belief” was. [/quote]

No he’s an atheist.

How religious they were or fervent I do not know. But numb nut bill maher said they though the bible and religion was bullshit. Clearly that is a falsehood.
That they did their level best to separate religion and politics is something I very much applaud. Church and state historically have not mixed well.[/quote]

You can’t talk about them as a “they”. Many of them were deists, some were agnostic, but a number of them were very clearly anti-church/anti-organized religion.

Easy examples:

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
Thomas Paine

Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true.
Thomas Paine

It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.
Thomas Paine

My mind is my own church.
Thomas Paine
[/quote]

I provided proof to the contrary, provide proof to counter my proof. If you want more, I will provide.

76

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
By the way, the very nature of being a deist is that you think the Bible is bullshit. If you didn’t think it was bullshit, you’d be… a christian.[/quote]

No. Deism itself is not a defining of practiced religion. It simply a belief in God based on natural order rather than revelation. I happen to agree with that stance and hence I would be a deist as well. A non-deist religious person would argue the God can only be known through divine revelation.
[/quote]

Right. I agree with you.

[quote]
It speak to neither the bible or religion itself actually, but it does not stand to reason that they think the bible is bullshit, especially when so many knew it well.[/quote]

Sure it does. If they thought it was true, they would not abandon the traditional Christian thought process and have become deists.

And knowing the Bible means nothing. I can know Mein Kampf inside and out but it doesn’t make me a Nazi.

77

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
I just figured this guy was a fraud looking for the next thing to put him on the “outside” so he can talk down to people.[/quote]

I think he’s just another example of someone who is all about limited government when they don’t like the people in power, and become born-again big-government partisan ideologues the moment their team is winning.[/quote]

He has moved slowly to the left. He was initially in support of the Iraq War as well.

There’s nothing wrong with changing opinions over the years. I’d say most intelligent people don’t feel the same way about a lot of things ten years later.

However, he and Ron Paul have one big thing in common- wanting to end the drug war.

Maher has always been very liberal. Libertarianism tends to seep into a lot of liberals’ minds regarding personal issues like sexuality or drug use or abortion. It’s not like that’s a new thing.

78

Maher was a lot more conservative back in the old politically incorrect days in the early 90s. His big swing left happened after he made his stupid-ass coward comment.

79

[quote]pat wrote:
You have proof countering my proof or that’s just your opinion?

Denying doesn’t mean he did not know the bible, the trinity doctrine came in the early 3rd century. Ironically the bible came in 297 A.D. after the doctrine of the trinity. But you see, the trinity is not spelled out in the bible.

Because you parents were Catholic doesn’t make you one. [/quote]

Who cares if they knew it? It doesn’t mean they believed it. And my point, and Maher’s point, is that they clearly, clearly stated numerous times that they didn’t.

This wouldn’t matter so much if dickfors like Glen beck weren’t dressing up as Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine would be disgusted if he ever knew that a half-witted neocon moron like Beck was using his liklihood.

Yes, it’s something new: Xenophobic dinner theater.

You don’t have to watch the whole thing. If you’re white, and have an older relative you wish was dead, you know where it’s going. A bore’s litany of harrumphing clichés. The greatest generation didn’t defend the Alamo just so a lot of special interests could overcrowd the emergency rooms. He’s going to say “We the people” a couple more times. If you’re waiting for “mad as hell,” it’s at 1:34 and 6:04.

You should check out his other videos. You’ve got to admire a guy who can say “the time for talk is over,” and then go on for six more minutes.

I wish I loved anything as much as this racist gasbag loves the sound of his own voice.

And now the scary part: This video has been viewed two-and-a-half million times on YouTube.

The clod in jodhpurs who says he’s Thomas Paine is actually a motivational speaker named Bob Basso. He’s the author of Don’t Let the Gerosofers Bite!, Never Wanted to Set the World on Fire But Now that I’m 50 Maybe it’s a Good Idea!, The Job Should be Fun!, Lighten Up Corporate America! and Spill Your Guts! Many of his book titles end in exclamation points! It’s like he’s overacting even when he’s just writing!

And that’s okay, too. (Although I didn’t know the tea bag tax protests had so much to do with deporting all the illegal aliens.) Bob Basso has heard quite a few things on the radio, and here they are again. But why drag Thomas Paine into it? Is it just because you want to wear the hat? Why not say you’re the Quaker Oats guy?

What did Thomas Paine ever do to you?

Besides, Bob Basso can’t be Thomas Paine. Glenn Beck is Thomas Paine.

Beck says he’s been “rewriting” Common Sense. He’s also made Paine the theme of his upcoming stage show. The one he describes as:

Fun for the whole family and it’s common sense. This time we may be joined on stage by a slightly crazy Founding Father… who’s got a few things to say!
You cringe and you never stop cringing.

Now, none of this means anything. Glenn Beck is just an asshole, and next week he’ll announce that he’s Sponge Bob and he lives in a pineapple under the sea. But before another sputtering doofus claims to be the author of the Rights of Man, he might want to check if they share a single belief.

Do you like estate taxes? Paine was pitching them in 1791.

How about progressive taxation? Paine wasn’t just for it, he made charts and graphs.

Welfare? Absolutely.

Government make-work programs? Yep. Pay for them with the estate tax.

Public education? Yes, please.

International organizations? Paine said we needed them. Thought they might be useful for preventing wars after we disarmed.

Feminism?

If a woman were to defend the cause of her sex, she might address him in the following manner … If we have an equal right with you to virtue, why should we not have an equal right to praise? … Our duties are different from yours, but they are not therefore less difficult to fulfill, or of less consequence to society … You cannot be ignorant that we have need of courage not less than you … Permit our names to be sometimes pronounced beyond the narrow circle in which we live. Permit friendship, or at least love, to inscribe its emblem on the tomb where our ashes repose; and deny us not that public esteem which, after the esteem of one’s self, is the sweetest reward of well doing. – T. Paine
Compare and contrast:

OK, so anyway, I was talking about ugly people. Ugly people, if you’re a guy, you can get past it. I don’t think you can as an ugly woman. I don’t – no, I don’t. If you’re an ugly woman, I apologize. Oh, you’ve got a double cross, because if you’re an ugly woman, you’re probably a progressive as well. --G. Beck
Animal Rights Nuts?

Everything of cruelty to animals is a violation of moral duty. – T. Paine
Religion?

Religion is under attack! – G. Beck
Priests and conjurors are of the same trade. – T. Paine
Clammy Tub Toys who Think Putting on a Tricorn Makes Them Thomas Paine?

I’m Thomas Paine. – G. Beck
The sublime and the ridiculous are often so nearly related, that it is difficult to class them separately. – T. Paine

80

The thing that kills me about Bill Maher and guys just like him is that he takes this stance of liberal, open mindedness yet woe to you if you disagree with his personal belief. He makes all sorts of assertions that you can either be smart and rational or you can believe in religion yet he backs these up with his own personal opinions. Sounds like a pretty closed minded conservative person to me.