|
|
| Author |
Message |
objectivist
German Shepherd
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 335
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 7:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
ok enough posts about ad hominems and such. I think van and eddy sidetracked the debate more with their replies to my insult to revjp, then my insult did in the first place. just my opinion.
Is anybody going to respond to my arguments? 
_________________
The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of members.--Kenneth Quinell |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shepreach
Cobra
Joined: 08 Nov 2003
Posts: 493
Location: ga
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
obj said:
| Quote: | | Is anybody going to respond to my arguments? |
why? you respond so well on your own.
_________________
a servant in Christ
I'm wounded sore but not yet slain, I'll lie and bleed awhile then rise to fight again.
--? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
objectivist
German Shepherd
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shepreach thank you for once again avoiding/evading saying anything relevent. I love it!!!!
_________________
The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of members.--Kenneth Quinell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shepreach
Cobra
Joined: 08 Nov 2003
Posts: 493
Location: ga
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you're welcome. the irreverent irrelevant is so much more fun.
_________________
a servant in Christ
I'm wounded sore but not yet slain, I'll lie and bleed awhile then rise to fight again.
--? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
objectivist
German Shepherd
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
does anyone care to reply?
_________________
The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of members.--Kenneth Quinell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddy Tiner
Ferret
Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Posts: 120
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| objectivist wrote: | | I think van and eddy sidetracked the debate more with their replies to my insult to revjp, then my insult did in the first place. |
Actually, my comments had nothing to do with insults or feelings. Truth be told, I don't care all that much about folks' feelings in here. If someone is insulted or offended, they are so by choice, in my opinion. I doubt RevJP was actually insulted. I know I wouldn't have been.
What I'm really talking about is your thoughts, and your ideas. The word sidetracked is humorously appropriate. In Atlas Shrugged, I recall Dagny Taggart's reaction the night the electricity went out, and the company was unable to move its trains through the terminal. She didn't resort to invective. She didn't call the electric company a bunch of foolish thumpers. She calmly developed a plan, grabbed a bunch of lanterns, and positioned folks along the rails to direct traffic. And the trains resumed moving.
Later, when her crew abandoned their posts and left her stranded on a train in the desert, she didn't engage in diatribe. Instead, she allowed the strength of her reason, her values, her thoughts, and her rationality to carry the day once more.
So when I fail to respond to your tirades, it's not because of insult.
It's because you don't sound all that objectivist to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Van
King Kong
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2646
Location: San Clemente, California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Van did not sidetrack the debate - there is no debate. Objectivist posts an unsupported assertion, and I linked to two websites that deconstructed the assertion. Objectivist continued to assert his fiction by saying secular only means non religious. Yet the term does refer to an age which Objectivist failed to mention but this useage is included in my dictionary, so the premise has been utterly deconstructed.
My digression in the discourse on sidetracking debates with ad hominems I thought added my light than heat and was not aimed at insulting anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smilin' Jacks
Pit Bull
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Is anybody going to respond to my arguments? |
I'm not doubting the accuracy of your translation - do you have any other references citing the use of the word "seclorum" that might provide further insight into how it is used? As you had written, the word is not common and I haven't found it in the online Latin:English or even Latin:French dictionaries...
8)
_________________
All things are good that lead to God |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Van
King Kong
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2646
Location: San Clemente, California
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Type in the phrase on the Google search engine and see what pops up. All but one of about a dozen translate it as my link did. The one translated the "S" word as secular, but then secular includes age as a meaning so none support Objectivist's erroneous assertion in light of the meaning of the other Latin phrase. The symbol suggest the beginning of a new nation under the providence of the divine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
objectivist
German Shepherd
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Smilin' jacks said:
'm not doubting the accuracy of your translation - do you have any other references citing the use of the word "seclorum" that might provide further insight into how it is used? As you had written, the word is not common and I haven't found it in the online Latin:English or even Latin:French dictionaries...
Actually no I don't have any other references. It is unfortunatly a very rare word. Yea you won't find it in the online dictionary. Actually it is in Dan Brown's book "Angels and Demons" That's the only other source I can find. Van, come across the website with the official U.S. government's statement. Like they are going to spread the word that we are a godless nation. Why do you think they wrote it in latin? How many people can speak latin? Why did they choose to use an extremely rare word (Seclorum) a word for lack of god beleif? Why didn't they use the commonly know latin word for atheism "atheos"? They did it so people(thumpers) like Van will be confused and not take offense. They will only go so far to find out what seclorum means. I don't care about websites. Such a bias nature. I have a dictionary. Period.
van said:
The symbol suggest the beginning of a new nation under the providence of the divine.
Van you truly believe what you say you believe, don't you?
You will say anything to defend what you believe. Even if it is something like, "No, No, No triangles are round" or "Well, most sites on google said that triangles were round, so there" and "I don't care what your foolish textbook says" and "TRIANGLES ARE ROUND,IT IS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!!"
I mean van, how is somebody supposed to respond to such jabber?
_________________
The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of members.--Kenneth Quinell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Objectivist, your entire argument is meaningless. You are faced with overwhelming evidence that contradicts your position and the only suport you can provide is that 'they are all lying and I am the only one telling the truth and so you should believe me and not the people who originated the idea, or those extra sources which support their position.'
I am to believe you becasue you say it is so? Why?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
objectivist
German Shepherd
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Even if I somehow showed you my latin dictionary, you still wouldn't believe it. My argument is meaningless? Refute it. Like you never do when you get scared.
_________________
The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of members.--Kenneth Quinell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blather, drivel, and bunk. Your argument has already been refuted, and you want me to reute it further? Why? You refuse to believe anything that doesn't come from your own mind (oh yes, and your own latin dictionary apparently), so why should I add to the already mountainous pile of evidence contradicting you?
Did you read anything Van posted? Did you do the Google search he suggested? Did you see the evidence weighing against you and conclude that your one source for one latin word outstripped them all?
Why do you insist on being deliberately obtuse?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Smilin' Jacks
Pit Bull
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 354
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 04, 2004 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Actually no I don't have any other references. It is unfortunatly a very rare word. Yea you won't find it in the online dictionary. |
Well, I did the google search as Van suggested. There are a lot of hits for what looks like some goofy game. But I did find this one:
www.ira.uka.de/13V_HTML/JB_LIT/16610035.html
and they have translated it as you - Towards a New World Order, but with a question mark (part of their conference title, I guess)
There is another from Blackstone Audio Books - A New Order for the Ages...
Oh, dear. I've just found a similar thread from 1993...It is pretty long (apologies). 8) Here is some of it:
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 1993
From: "Terry L. Papillon"
Subject: Dollar Bill
Who can tell me please the source of the latin quotation "novus ordo seclorum" on the back of the US dollar bill? Is it connected with the image above it? with the Masons? Is the quotation above it, "annuit coeptis," connected with it, or a separate thought imported into the seal? Where does this whole "great seal" come from? A (conservative) theologian wants to translate the former quotation "the new secular order" I'm trying to explain the difficulties there, but I can't explain the connections between secularis and our modern connotation of secular (vs. state). When does the change from "of or pertaining to the age" move to the modern idea of secular? Thanks in advance for the help.
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993
From: Dougal Blyth
Subject: Re: Dollar Bill
I'm not sure why you oppose secular to the state, but I assume the derivation of *secular*, in the modern sense opposed to *sacred*, from *saecularis* maintains the opposition of the temporal to the eternal (i.e., the changing and the unchanging).
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993
From: Bill Kupersmith
Subject: Secular (was Dollar Bill)
For "secular" meaning "having to do with this world" (as opposed to the world or life to come) see C. S. Lewis, Studies in Words, 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 225-37.
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 1993
From: "Sterling G. Bjorndahl"
Subject: Re: Dollar Bill
So instead of "new secular order" you can tell him that it means "New Age." That'll REALLY set a conservative Christian theologian's mind at ease!
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993
From: William Douglas Burgess
Subject: Re: Dollar Bill
This is the first time that I have done this, so I don't know if it will work, but here goes. One of the "advantages" of being the only ancient historian at a small, regional university is that you "get" to teach all sorts of things, including the occasional American history survey (American history could use a good subversive ancient historian, I think.) "Novus Ordo Seclorum" should properly be translated as "The New Order of the Ages", and yes, it is a reference to classical literature. The "Fathers" were all hot for the Classics, as we all know. And were heavily influenced by the writing of the libertarian Whigs of England. I recommend to your "conservative theologian" the series of books on the Constitution and the Fathers by the Amerian historian Forrest McDonald, especially the one entitled "Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution". It ought to knock his socks off. I hope this works and you get all of this, if not I will try again.
_________________
All things are good that lead to God |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
