Your Vote, Your Reasons

[hater]

here we go again. Let me buckle my seatbelt n enjoy the crazy ride.

[ElNono]

I just don't understand how the whole "anti-Christ" thought even popped into your head. That just doesn't make sense to me and from reading your posts I doubt your feelings are going to change.

Thats exactly where we lost her too.

[Nbadan]

Epic thread...who would have thought that the Political forum would someday generate the largest crowd in Spurstalk's short, infamous history...this forum was supposed to be a short-timer for the 04 Presidential election, but people kept coming and coming and coming and look at it now....

WOW, just wow!

:rollin

[tp2021]

It won't stay this way. I'm sure it peaks at election time and then drops off for 3 and a half years.

[angel_luv]

I just don't understand how the whole "anti-Christ" thought even popped into your head. That just doesn't make sense to me and from reading your posts I doubt your feelings are going to change.

I don't know either, which is why the whole thing is intriguing to me.

No one has told me they think Senator Obama is the Anti Chrtst.

Our church doesn't side with politicians one way or the other. They tell us that we are responsible to vote according to our consciences before God and that what we do is between us and God.


I never meant to cause a scene in this thread. I responded completely honestly to the questions asked me.

I never would have broached the Senator Obama/ AntiChrist subject on my own, but felt it would be deceitful and wrong to pretend I hadn't connected the two in my mind when I have.

I cannot say that my mind is completely set at ease- that I feel assurred that Senator Obama is not the anti christ.
But all the information in this thread was thrown at me quickly and I have not had adequate time yet to process it.

[baseline bum]

If he's the anti-christ, shouldn't you go do something about it angel? Like go after him with a flaming sword or something?

[Nbadan]

It won't stay this way. I'm sure it peaks at election time and then drops off for 3 and a half years.

...but that's how forums get going...I remember the first year there where maybe 10-20 semi-regular posters, by year 2 maybe double that, by year four maybe double that...today I can't even keep count of all the regular posters in this forum....undoubtedly it will decrease once the election is done but I would not be surprised to see the hardcore crowd stick around for a long, long time..

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

If he's the anti-christ, shouldn't you go do something about it angel? Like go after him with a flaming sword or something?

She should vote for him because that would mean the Second Coming is right around the corner.

God would understand.

[ElNono]

If he's the anti-christ, shouldn't you go do something about it angel? Like go after him with a flaming sword or something?

:lmao
This, gentleman, is entertainment for the whole family.

[angel_luv]

If he's the anti-christ, shouldn't you go do something about it angel? Like go after him with a flaming sword or something?

The Anti Christ's, whoever he is, war is ultimately with God. I will let God handle him.

[Shastafarian]

The Anti Christ's, whoever he is, war is ultimately with God. I will let God handle him.

Does God have a flaming sword? Or a really sweet hammer?

[Jefff]

I plan to read some of Senator Obama's writings and will see if that does not clarify things for me.

Angel_luv, I wonder what you think of this speech of Obama on the topic of religion
(http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1358313999/bclid933143286/bctid416343938)
It may increase or decrease your concern.

[ElNono]

...but that's how forums get going...I remember the first year there where maybe 10-20 semi-regular posters, by year 2 maybe double that, by year four maybe double that...today I can't even keep count of all the regular posters in this forum....undoubtedly it will decrease once the election is done but I would not be surprised to see the hardcore crowd stick around for a long, long time..

Actually, as soon as the NBA season starts, Ill probably be MIA.

[Nbadan]

:lol

If Obama was the anti-christ this election wouldn't even be close...

[Anti.Hero]

LOL at being the antichrist. It is kind of funny to think this is how it'd be like with one figure all of a sudden wooing the masses.

[angel_luv]

:lol

If Obama was the anti-christ this election wouldn't even be close...

How so?

[Anti.Hero]

Has Findog volunteered to do the full body search for the 666 mark yet? :lol:married:

[Shastafarian]

How so?

Isn't it in the bible that no one cane stop the anti-christ? Not even Zeus and his lightning farts.

[CuckingFunt]

Does God have a flaming sword? Or a really sweet hammer?

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/3808/grabbedframe1nt1.jpg

God has the Sword of a Thousand Truths. Stan Marsh gave it to him.

[TheMadHatter]

Is this Angel Luv person for real? How do we know he/she isn't just trolling?

I'm still waiting for the fundies to respond to this:


The story of Jesus as presented in the four gospels of the New Testament is essentially a piece of fiction. There are no authentic references to such a figure in the works of any historians of the early 1st century CE (common era). The pre-gospel writings of the early Christians also make no reference to the life and teachings of a recent historical Jesus. Paul, for instance, was supposedly Jesus' contemporary, yet he never claimed to have met him in the flesh or to have met anyone else who had done so; he encountered him only in visions, as a spiritual being. The Christian groups of the 1st century CE held extremely diverse theological views, and this would be hard to explain if they were the followers of a single, recent teacher. Remarkably, they showed no interest in the holy sites and relics associated with Jesus' alleged earthly career; it was not until the 4th century that pieces of the 'true cross' began to surface, and that the first shrine was set up on the supposed mount of Jesus' death.

It is only in the four canonical gospels and certain other New Testament writings that the now orthodox story of Jesus is to be found. The gospels, however, were largely written in the 2nd century, have suffered numerous alterations and additions, and contain significant contradictions and inconsistencies. Their shortcomings are recognized by Christian and non-Christian scholars alike. Some theologians are now prepared to question not only the virgin birth and miracles, but even the much more fundamental doctrine of the resurrection. Theology professor Burton Mack, for example, goes as far as to call the gospels' portrayal of Jesus 'fantastic', 'the result of a layered history of imaginative embellishments of a founder figure' [1]. But even the very existence of a great Christian founder figure living at the start of the 1st century is highly implausible, given the silence of contemporary historians and even 1st-century Christians [2].

H.P. Blavatsky stated that the story of Jesus was invented after the 1st century. Jesus, she says,

is a deified personification of the glorified type of the great Hierophants of the Temples, and his story, as told in the New Testament, is an allegory, assuredly containing profound esoteric truths, but still an allegory. . . . Every act of the Jesus of the New Testament, every word attributed to him, every event related of him during the three years of the mission he is said to have accomplished, rests on the programme of the Cycle of Initiation, a cycle founded on the Precession of the Equinoxes and the Signs of the Zodiac. [3]

The gospel figure of Jesus is a Jewish adaptation of the mythical godman found under many different names in ancient pagan mystery religions: in Egypt he was Osiris, in Greece Dionysus, in Asia Minor Attis, in Syria Adonis, in Italy Bacchus, in Persia Mithras. All the major elements of the Jesus story, from the virgin birth to the crucifixion and resurrection, can be found in earlier stories of pagan godmen. As G. de Purucker puts it:

the 'Gospel' story is merely an idealized fiction, written by Christian mystics in imitation of esoteric mysteries of the 'Pagans,' showing the initiation trials and tests of the candidate for initiation; and it is not very well done, there being much error and many mistakes in the 'Gospels.' [4]

[Shastafarian]

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/3808/grabbedframe1nt1.jpg

God has the Sword of a Thousand Truths. Stan Marsh gave it to him.

:lol

and a really sweet hammer

http://garethrees.org/2007/10/06/400-rules/world-of-warcraft.jpg

[angel_luv]

Angel_luv, I wonder what you think of this speech of Obama on the topic of religion
(http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1358313999/bclid933143286/bctid416343938)
It may increase or decrease your concern.

Thank you.


I will read it tomorrow when I am alert and not so tired- worked a double today.

[timvp]

If Obama actually turns out to be the Anti-Christ, angel_luv is going to have one heck of a bump . . .

[ElNono]

I personally can't wait for UFC Friday: Obama vs Christ on Pay Per View.

I also heard rumours that Obama is already shooting Hellboy 3: The Anti-Christ who loved me

[TheMadHatter]

Thank you.


I will read it tomorrow when I am alert and not so tired- worked a double today.

Your beliefs are dangerous to the health of this country. If there is a significant portion of America that believes what you believe may God help us that none of you ever gain political power or sway ever again.

The worst part about you is your ignorance in the face of facts. You make ridiculous claims based on your gut feelings but when presented with facts that CLEARLY show otherwise you refuse to accept them. You are the worst kind of thinker there is, you essentially don't think. It's worse than someone who is merely ignorant of facts, you refuse facts.

[Extra Stout]

How so?
His voting support is a little low for someone who is supposed to deceive all unbelievers.

[Trainwreck2100]

I wonder what all those guests are thinking?

[timvp]

I cannot say that my mind is completely set at ease- that I feel assurred that Senator Obama is not the anti christ.
But all the information in this thread was thrown at me quickly and I have not had adequate time yet to process it.



The worst part about you is your ignorance in the face of facts. You make ridiculous claims based on your gut feelings but when presented with facts that CLEARLY show otherwise you refuse to accept them. You are the worst kind of thinker there is, you essentially don't think. It's worse than someone who is merely ignorant of facts, you refuse facts.

Patience, grasshopper.

[Nbadan]

How so?

Just look at this forum...politics is divisive by it's very nature....no one is ever going to unite behind a sole political figure in the U.S. - not gonna happen...Obama could solve our current climate crisis, our own fiscal disembowelment and end the need for all wars and Republicans would still oppose him for supporting a woman's right to choice...and for having a muslim-sounding middle name and not wearing lapel pins...

[PixelPusher]

So I guess you only respect people who confirm your preconceived notions about what you want to believe about Christianity.
There's nothing preconceived about it. I grew up, not in one church, but several, which exposed me to a wide variety of Protestant churches, along with the myriad of theological perspectives offered by different pastors, bible study leaders, etc. In my post I wrote that I respected the consistency of the exclusive Jesus Club argument, as it is a neatly closed loop; that doesn't mean I hold those particular Christians (with the minority view, in my experience) in higher esteem than the Christians who recognize the injustice of millions of souls damned without hope of salvation due to arbitrary factors like time and geography.

Was Thomas Aquinas into the "great dodge" as well?
The great dodge is saying "We can never understand God's thinking", "The ways of God are a mystery" or something to that effect. It is sometimes followed with a brow-beating admonishment against hubris and/or an affirmation of the humility attained in that statement. This dodge is frequently employed by Christians who are too fair and just to abide such immortal discrimination, but recognize how a divine loophole undermines the core mission of the church (to spread the good word). It's funny you should mention Thomas Aquinas, as his philosophy actually doesn't allow for the great dodge regarding the knowing of God in this instance.


1. God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form.
2. God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of God's complete actuality.
3. God is infinite. That is, God is not infinite in the ways that created beings are physically, intellectually, and emotionally limited. This infinity is to be distinguished from infinity of size and infinity of number.
4. God is immutable, incapable of change on the levels of God's essence and character.
5. God is one, without diversification within God's self. The unity of God is such that God's essence is the same as God's existence. In Aquinas's words, "in itself the proposition 'God exists' is necessarily true, for in it subject and predicate are the same."

God cannot be less than perfectly just, perfectly righteous or perfectly anything else. To argue that God operates on some special "unknowable" form of justice and right action beyond our grasp is bullshit. If it were true, his "more perfect" brand of justice and right actions would have to be beyond our understanding of justice and right actions. That would mean God never imparted within us the ability to fully recognize and act on "real" justice to begin with, which means God could never have expected his "free-willed, made in his image" children capable of ever being "truly" just, or "truly" righteous, or "truly" whatever else is supposed to be understood as core essence of God.

"Original Sin" isn't the answer either; taking a bite out of a piece of forbidden fruit doesn't nullify our divinely created capacity to recognize what constitutes the character and essence of God. If you were a Jesus Clubber, you might quibble with my notion of justice and fairness, but without the ability to know God's "secret edition" of justice and fairness, that just leaves them with appeals to (religious) authority. That wouldn't be good enough for Thomas Aquinas, although sadly, that's good enough for some people. And for many others, there is the great dodge, which allows them to maintain their compartmentalization of religion and reason.

[TheMadHatter]

We shouldn't be brushing under the rug people who hold views as ridiculous as this. This is dangerous thinking, dangerous thinking that could potentially lead to violence and death if someone sincerely and honestly believes so. People who believe Obama is the anti-christ or have ever had thoughts about this need to be locked up in a psyche ward ASAP. That is lunatic fringe thinking of the highest degree.

[Extra Stout]

If Obama actually turns out to be the Anti-Christ, angel_luv is going to have one heck of a bump . . .
"Hey, why doesn't angel_luv post here anymore?"

"I dunno. She stopped about the same time David Robinson and his family disappeared."

"I was going to congratulate her about the Obama Anti-Christ thing. Did you check the footage on CNN of one-third of the earth collapsing into molten lava?"

"Hold on, Emperor Obama is coming on.. broadcasting from the Temple in Jerusalem."

"Do you think maybe she was raptured?"

"Then why is Extra Stout here?"

"Oh, I'm amillenialist. We don't get raptured."

[Mr. Peabody]

Holy crap! It turns out that Obama does have the Mark of the Beast.

http://s44.photobucket.com/albums/f24/llynn3112/obama/th_obama1.jpg
http://s44.photobucket.com/albums/f24/llynn3112/obama/th_obama1drawing.jpg

[Anti.Hero]

We shouldn't be brushing under the rug people who hold views as ridiculous as this. This is dangerous thinking, dangerous thinking that could potentially lead to violence and death if someone sincerely and honestly believes so. People who believe Obama is the anti-christ or have ever had thoughts about this need to be locked up in a psyche ward ASAP. That is lunatic fringe thinking of the highest degree.

Easy there buckaroo. I'm sure there are hundreds who believe the same about Bush. BFD.

[TheMadHatter]

I have no problems coexisting with Christians so long as they admit the following:

1.) Their belief in Christianity is not based on any real substantial factual evidence. It is completely faith based and fantastical in nature.
2.) They acknowledge that their beliefs about God and religion may indeed be incorrect and that they have no way of really knowing for certain.
3.) They do not impinge their beliefs on others or condemn others for not having their beliefs.

The problem is Christians cannot peacefully coexist with others of differing views without violating the above principles.

[ElNono]

Easy there buckaroo. I'm sure there are hundreds who believe the same about Bush. BFD.

Considering Bush beliefs and his holy wars, what you just posted is an oxymoron.

[timvp]

People who believe Obama is the anti-christ or have ever had thoughts about this need to be locked up in a psyche ward ASAP.This is a disgraceful opinion for an American.

[TheMadHatter]

This is a disgraceful opinion for an American.

It's disgraceful to think people who believe Obama is the anti-christ need to be locked up in a mental ward?

No, that's called sanity.

We should not be PC about people who hold dangerous views like this. I have no doubts that attempts on Obama's life will be made should he become President, and it certainly wouldn't surprise me in the least if it came from a religious fundie nutjob like Angel Luv who believes Obama is the anti-christ.

[hater]

This is a disgraceful opinion for an American.

But still not as disgraceful as thinking Obama is the devil by gut feeling only

[DarkReign]

Yeah, you can start a new thread. Don't gotta ask me, though. SpursTalk is self correcting.

:smokin

Good idea.

heh, yeah well...Im not sure about the "change thread title business" anymore. No idea why :rolleyes.

:lol

[Trainwreck2100]

I have no problems coexisting with Christians so long as they admit the following:

1.) Their belief in Christianity is not based on any real substantial factual evidence. It is completely faith based and fantastical in nature.
2.) They acknowledge that their beliefs about God and religion may indeed be incorrect and that they have no way of really knowing for certain.
3.) They do not impinge their beliefs on others or condemn others for not having their beliefs.

The problem is Christians cannot peacefully coexist with others of differing views without violating the above principles.

Where's your proof.

[GodWarrior]

Gargoyles!!!

[timvp]

It's disgraceful to think people who believe Obama is the anti-christ need to be locked up in a mental ward?That's not what you said. And yes, that is still disgraceful. I'd rather someone think Obama may be the anti-christ than someone think it is their right to deny freedom of thought in the USA.


We should not be PC about people who hold dangerous views like this. I have no doubts that attempts on Obama's life will be made should he become President, and it certainly wouldn't surprise me in the least if it came from a religious fundie nutjob like Angel Luv who believes Obama is the anti-christ.So let's put all "fundie nutjobs", racists, xenophobes and gigaphobes in jail just to be safe.

Good idea.

[LnGrrrR]

I like how JoeChalupa thanked her for her real thoughts. Are we thanking all those Klan members that aren't violent but just loudly protest? Ha!

Additionally, honestly, who really believes that this "Anti-Christ" thought just popped into her head?

"So I was watching the debates, and I remember Obama said something about needing to have health care for all people, and then I wondered, didn't Lucifer say something like that in the Bible?"

Or maybe it went like, "Hm... I wonder what movies are coming out this weekend... or if Obama is the anti-Christ... oooh or if that new sushi place is open?!?"

I'm still waiting to see if Angel_Luv is cool with God saying slavery was okey-dokey. Or the part about stoning your teenagers if they talk back. Or the whole thing about not eating shellfish. Or where they say a bat is a bird.

[GodWarrior]

I'm a GOD Warrior!!!!!!!!!!

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao someone forgot to log out of their troll.

[GodWarrior]

:lmao someone forgot to log out of their troll.

:lmao

[Tully365]

If someone believes the prophecy that an Anti-christ will come to power as pre-ordained by the word of God, then how could you think that simply not voting for him would be enough to keep him away? Is the anti-christ going to lose a democratic election and then just kick the dirt a couple of times, say aw shucks, and go away for good? If you believe God has said that an anti-christ will rise to power, it seems odd to me to try and strategize against this Dark Historic Figure with some kind of grass-roots anti-anti-christ movement... Why use contemporary politics to go against the Word of God?

[Trainwreck2100]

That's not what I'm advocating and you know it. Typical case of you ASSuming things and making inferences that just don't exist.

I have absolutely no problem standing by my statement that people who believe Obama is the Anti-Christ should seek mental help. There IS something wrong with the way you think if that is what you truly believe. Of course I don't believe the gov't should physically lock up these people, that was what we call sarcasm in the adult world tiny tim.


looks like someon sucks balls at trolling. Rookie mistake.

[ElNono]

I don't like the idea of a thought police any more than I like the idea of religious zealots.
That said, this whole Anti-Christ innuendo needs to be called out. At least to underscore how ignorant people vote these days.

While I have no problem with her religious beliefs, regardless of wether I think they are rational or not, her vote and the votes cast by people with her mindset will affect me in the near future.
So to me it's important to highlight the fairy tales, gut feelings and denial they use to justify their choice. It's an extremely good example of how you should NOT conduct your civil duties, IMO.

[TheMadHatter]

looks like someon sucks balls at trolling. Rookie mistake.

damn you fuckers are quick........i swear i edited that out in less than 15 seconds and you still caught it.

[timvp]

People with aliases may want to take out Obama because they are showing signs of schizophrenia and are unstable. We should lock them up.

[Extra Stout]

The great dodge is saying "We can never understand God's thinking", "The ways of God are a mystery" or something to that effect. It is sometimes followed with a brow-beating admonishment against hubris and/or an affirmation of the humility attained in that statement. This dodge is frequently employed by Christians who are too fair and just to abide such immortal discrimination, but recognize how a divine loophole undermines the core mission of the church (to spread the good word). It's funny you should mention Thomas Aquinas, as his philosophy actually doesn't allow for the great dodge regarding the knowing of God in this instance.
I would agree that one could never fully comprehend God's ways, as a finite being will only have finite and therefore incomplete intellectual comprehension of an infinite God. This is where religious experience comes into play.

I invoked Aquinas because he formulated the speculation about "invincible ignorance." It is just a speculation, though, just like the one where fundamentalists condemn all the unreached to hell. All the Bible says on the subject is that people are held accountable for what they know, and believers should proclaim the Good News to them.


God cannot be less than perfectly just, perfectly righteous or perfectly anything else. To argue that God operates on some special "unknowable" form of justice and right action beyond our grasp is bullshit. If it were true, his "more perfect" brand of justice and right actions would have to be beyond our understanding of justice and right actions.The attributes of perfect justice, perfect righteousness, etc. are part and parcel of holiness, i.e. they are defined by God's nature. As such, humans have a finite understanding of justice and righteousness. The perfect standard is always still ahead, being pursued, never fully attained.


That would mean God never imparted within us the ability to fully recognize and act on "real" justice to begin with, which means God could never have expected his "free-willed, made in his image" children capable of ever being "truly" just, or "truly" righteous, or "truly" whatever else is supposed to be understood as core essence of God. Well, indeed in this life, we don't attain perfect holiness, or at least I don't believe so. We spend our lives striving for it, but only attain it fully in the next life. That's what Jesus was talking about when he gave the Sermon on the Mount. The Jews were accusing him of brushing aside the Law, and he responded by saying, hey, you want to follow the Law to the letter? Let me tell you what that REALLY means. You still going to follow that whole thing?
It's supposed to be an incredibly hard standard of justice and righteousness. That no man can attain it by his own power is central to the Gospel message.


"Original Sin" isn't the answer either; taking a bite out of a piece of forbidden fruit doesn't nullify our divinely created capacity to recognize what constitutes the character and essence of God.It is not the eating of the fruit that impairs man's ability to commune with God; rather, it is the introduction of corruption and death that does so. So man maintains the capacity to recognize and act according to God's commands, being still made in his image, but this ability is impaired and made finite, and holiness becomes impossible by one's own power.

but without the ability to know God's "secret edition" of justice and fairness, that just leaves them with appeals to (religious) authority. That wouldn't be good enough for Thomas Aquinas, although sadly, that's good enough for some people. And for many others, there is the great dodge, which allows them to maintain their compartmentalization of religion and reason.
Or, in lieu of infallible religious authority, one could strive towards perfection anyway, even while realizing it lays just beyond his grasp, trusting instead in grace, and experience God's character through his noetic faculty rather than relying solely upon intellect.

[ratm1221]

There are volumes of conflicting information, each with its own agenda and misleading half-truths. With any controversy like this, the answer usually lies somewhere in the middle. Jesus (or somebody resembling his character) likely existed and was a local folk hero who lived on in tales passed from people who knew him. Keep in mind the first books of the New Testament weren't written until years after his death. Much like any story passed on by word-of-mouth, details begin to change (quite dramatically in some cases) and the story takes on a life of its own. While Jesus may have been a real person, the deification assigned to him was certainly the product of exaggeration. Sadly, these supernatural claims about Christ drown out the positive aspects of Christian philosophy, causing the myths to become the focal point instead of the message.

I'd like to add that it was very unlikely that Jesus received a burial. The punishment of the crucifixion wasn't the torture, but what came after it. The torture was just a bonus. Romans would leave the corpses hanging on the crosses as a warning to keep the people oppressed. You were not allowed to take the bodies down. So the idea that Jesus was resurrected is very unlikely if he was never buried.

It's also very unlikely that Mary traveled, pregnant, all the way from Nazareth to Bethlehem. 70 miles is a heck of a journey for a pregnant woman ready to burst.

And no, Jesus was not a 6 foot white dude with long hair and blue eyes. He looked like a terrorist, average height for the time (5 foot), he would have been about 110 pound soaking wet with boots on, and he would have had short hair. Believe me, you would not have been impressed if he walked through your door.

And none of the gospels make any sense what-so-ever when you look at them side by side. Christians have tried to make them fit together for centuries and it just does not work.

[ElNono]

I forgot to add to my last post: It's also worth calling out their intolerance with anything that doesn't align with their beliefs, such as the unfounded, ignorant claims that the world has been worse off when non-christians have been in a position of power. This is truly disgusting.

[Tully365]

And no, Jesus was not a 6 foot white dude with long hair and blue eyes. He looked like a terrorist, average height for the time (5 foot), he would have been about 110 pound soaking wet with boots on, and he would have had short hair. Believe me, you would not have been impressed if he walked through your door.


Funny. Years ago, I had a girlfriend who was a painter and when we first started dating she one night went on a rant about how much she hated Michelangelo because his depictions of Jesus made him look like a muscle-bound marvel comics hero.

[timvp]

Now that I think about it, Jesus probably looked like a shorter version of Obama. Perhaps Obama isn't the anti-christ, perhaps he is you know who.

[Jekka]

I cannot say that my mind is completely set at ease- that I feel assurred that Senator Obama is not the anti christ.
But all the information in this thread was thrown at me quickly and I have not had adequate time yet to process it.

I brought up the topic with Reverend Mom to see if she'd heard much about the idea of Obama being the anti-Christ, and this is what she said:

"Yes, I' ve heard it a bunch. Conservatives are really afraid of him. I think that alot of it is because he doesn't fit in the "box"."

If it's taking this long for real evidence to "sink in" for you, Angel, it's entirely possible that your box is just too small.

The Anti Christ's, whoever he is, war is ultimately with God. I will let God handle him.
Well, if you're going to be completely unreasonable, at least you aren't armed.

[LnGrrrR]

The only religious interpretation of Christianity I've found to make sense is Calvinism. And the God they believe in is not, in my estimation, a moral God.

Also, (and please forgive me for the tangent) what is with all the crazy "Jesus = Warrior" people? What about turning swords into ploughshares? Turning the other cheek? Yeesh. Do these people even read the Bible?

[Tully365]

Now that I think about it, Jesus probably looked like a shorter version of Obama. Perhaps Obama isn't the anti-christ, perhaps he is you know who.

Paul McCartney? (The real one that rose after dying in 1968?!)

[Jekka]

Now that I think about it, Jesus probably looked like a shorter version of Obama. Perhaps Obama isn't the anti-christ, perhaps he is you know who.

Voldemort?

[ElNono]

Now that I think about it, Jesus probably looked like a shorter version of Obama. Perhaps Obama isn't the anti-christ, perhaps he is you know who.

angel_luv's brother?

:stirpot:

[anakha]

If it's taking this long for real evidence to "sink in" for you, Angel, it's entirely possible that your box is just too small.


Must... resist... off-color joke... and... sounding like... Shatner...


I
Well, if you're going to be completely unreasonable, at least you aren't armed.

This reminds me of one of my favorite insults:

"You're an unarmed man participating in a battle of wits".

[Tully365]

Must... resist... off-color joke... and... sounding like... Shatner...


:lol:rollin

[PixelPusher]

Or, in lieu of infallible religious authority, one could strive towards perfection anyway, even while realizing it lays just beyond his grasp, trusting instead in grace, and experience God's character through his noetic faculty rather than relying solely upon intellect.

And what does your noetic faculty tell you about the justice of the arbitrary doom of some pre-Columbian Incan message runner or the millions of souls damned to hell without any chance of "hearing the good news"?

Let me put it this way...God calls down upon you and charges you with the responsibility to determine if these "no heards" should go to hell or go to heaven. Bear in mind, you have no access to God's "secret form of justice", you can only use your God given capacity (apparently stunted) to recognize what is good and just and fair. What do you think should happen to them?

Before you protest, saying God, in his infinite wisdom would never entrust the souls of his children to a base and sinful mortal such as yourself, recognize that he has, in fact, done exactly that, as the salvation of souls for the past 2000 years has depended entirely on the abilities of mere mortals to organize, traverse and communicate with other fellow mortals. Is it any wonder millions of souls have fallen through the cracks since then? Couldn't almighty God have stationed angels with megaphones every quarter mile to announce the good news to everyone everywhere, all day, every day?

[MannyIsGod]

Must... resist... off-color joke... and... sounding like... Shatner...



This reminds me of one of my favorite insults:

"You're an unarmed man participating in a battle of wits".

:lmao

This totally reminds me of the Curb episode where the nurse has the giant vagina hahahahahahahahahah.

[timvp]

I wonder what Manu's thoughts are on this subject.

[Extra Stout]

Is this Angel Luv person for real? How do we know he/she isn't just trolling?

I'm still waiting for the fundies to respond to this:
That snippet claims the gospels were written in the 2nd century, which is impossible since we have papyri dating from the late first century, and documents quoting them from the early 2nd.

It would make little sense for Roman records to document the exploits of an executed itinerant preacher in the eastern reachers of the Empire, at least until a group of followers that believed him to be God grew enough in size and distinctiveness from the Jews to be noticed.

How that writer claims to know the diverse views of first-century Christians is beyond me, since until the apostles grew old most teaching was oral, and all we have in addition to the New Testament is a couple of the near-miss books in the Apostolic Fathers. Are they claiming the Gnostic texts are first-century? That's anachronistic at best. What we see in the NT is some invective against people who claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh and other nascent heresies. To extrapolate from that to say that Jesus must not have been real is specious to say the least.

Indeed, there are plenty of theologians who deny essential Christian doctrines. "Theologian" is not the same thing as "professing Christian."

There are a fair number of legends in the Near East about heroes who had virgin births. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ in that sense was not unique, though it has theological importance for the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Nor would it be unusual for a hero to do miracles. What is unusual about the claims of the Christian church is the bodily resurrection.

That said, in the liberal theology schools in the 1960's, there was a tendency to become so speculative in finding parallels between the gospels and pagan myths as to be silly. Much of that has been discredited.

The snippet you quote is relying on out-of-date skepticism, which nevertheless still serves the purposes of some people looking for reasons not to believe. If you would like some more up-to-date skepticism, you have to step away from the debunked "historical Jesus never existed" arguments, or the "every first-century source is reliable except the New Testament because we say so" arguments, or the "magic jelly beans will tell us what Jesus really said" movement, and steer more towards the "Jesus didn't come back when he promised he would" school of thought. That's where the action is today.

[ElNono]

The only religious interpretation of Christianity I've found to make sense is Calvinism. And the God they believe in is not, in my estimation, a moral God.

Also, (and please forgive me for the tangent) what is with all the crazy "Jesus = Warrior" people? What about turning swords into ploughshares? Turning the other cheek? Yeesh. Do these people even read the Bible?

In luv's case, she let's the bible do the talking for her...

[Tully365]

That said, in the liberal theology schools in the 1960's, there was a tendency to become so speculative in finding parallels between the gospels and pagan myths as to be silly. Much of that has been discredited.

The snippet you quote is relying on out-of-date skepticism, which nevertheless still serves the purposes of some people looking for reasons not to believe. If you would like some more up-to-date skepticism, you have to step away from the debunked "historical Jesus never existed" arguments, or the "every first-century source is reliable except the New Testament because we say so" arguments, or the "magic jelly beans will tell us what Jesus really said" movement, and steer more towards the "Jesus didn't come back when he promised he would" school of thought. That's where the action is today.

Gotta disagree with you on this. Reasonable skepticism doesn't go in and out out style quickly like styles of furniture and music. The questions comparing the Gospels to other very popular mythologies that pre-dated the NT-- virgin birth, walking on water, dec. 25th birth, etc.-- I think are still relevant and not easily dismissed as "out-of-date." For me, the skepticism of a Socrates or Montaigne is more relevant than ever today-- time and change have not diminished their appeal at all.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Epic fun. Had to join. I could not stop reading this thread (yes, just that bored, thank you).

To reply to the intent of the first poster, there are several reasons I could cite as why I am voting for Obama instead of McCain (whom I supported prior to this campaign), but only one matters. The simple possibility of a President Palin terrifies the life out of me and the fact that John McCain - a 72 year old cancer survivor picked her as his running mate is the ultimate sign that he's either lost his mind, succumbed to the worst case of hubris in modern times or has complete and utter scorn for more than half the country he would lead. Palin, hands down, ends any other debate for me. Granted, it wouldn't end the debate if there were something truly awful about Obama. But...President Palin. It just makes my blood go cold.

Speaking of hubris....(Please feel free to ignore everything below in the name of tl;dr)

While the wisest posts in this wonderful thread are obviously those who chose not to engage the illogic, I can't resist. Since we've already had the anti-Christ debate, the history of the Bible debate and the Nazi debate, I just have to represent for the underdog --- the mighty A --- abortion. No forum debate can be considered complete without a shout-out to the mighty A.

What I find most interesting is that evangelical-leaning individuals so often cite abortion as the leading issue of their vote. With all that is going on in the world, everything at stake for our nation's future - dictating the morality of other people's lives overrides all else. This is an incredibly selfish and intolerant position, but because it is presented without swear words it is supposed to be afforded a measure of superior respect somehow. Sadly, it is pandering to this issue that has completely kneecapped the Republican party (which, at one time, actually did serve as a very necessary counterpoint to the Democratic party). It is because of abortion that a whacko like Palin has appeal to anyone. But the simple fact is that abortion is not an issue of religion, but of civics. As I believe Obama himself has said (and many people before him) no one is pro-abortion. Such a term is a construct to generate hype and emotion. No one hopes that one day they'll be able to have their very own abortion. It's not on anyone's wish list. I myself continue to hope I'll never have to face that sort of situation, and that no one I love will, either. I do, however, have nothing but sympathy and compassion (remember compassion, Christians?) for those who find themselves dealing with the dilemma. And when it comes to government, I would hope that my government would lean on the side of sympathy and compassion.

What's fascinating about this issue for people like myself is the seeming Christian hypocrisy that surrounds it. The entire premise that "abortion is murder" is based on the presumption that God considers "life" to begin at conception. The theological argument on this is vast (starting with what does "life" mean and going from there) and anyone presuming to know one way or the other is just plain offensive to the rest of us who don't have God's cell phone number handy to ask. If God intended life to begin at conception, wouldn't it have been prudent to give a fetus a fighting chance at survival outside of a human host instead of making it a parasite? If this issue were so important, wouldn't it be in God's interest to make a fetus higher on the food chain than, say, a tapeworm? No one can prove that God intended us to consider that life begins at conception. What we can prove is that Christianity, Judaism, and many of their linked religious offshoots spend a great deal of their various creeds and scripture on misogynistic stories and rules aimed at treating women as property and sex as evil. The very need for abortion itself is largely because of the Christian machine and the roles it imposes upon women and the stigma attached to sex-for-pleasure.

It is very telling that any Christian could spend time earnestly contemplating whether or not Obama is the anti-Christ, but claim absolute stances on knowing things like abortion is murder, or exactly what a 2000+ year old book literally means to tell us.

I am not an atheist, and I will not own the title Christian or any other religion - the same way I will not claim Republican or Democrat. Titles invariably get tainted. But, if, in fact, to know Jesus is the way to salvation, then it is difficult to believe there is a time limit. If the soul is immortal, then only giving us these few silly years on earth to decide the fates of our immortal souls makes no sense. It makes much more sense that everyone - souls that died before Jesus came to spread the message, people who live and die not knowing about Christianity, etc has infinate time to discover and come to the counter of salvation. Therefore, accepting or not accepting Jesus here on Earth grants no one a VIP ticket on morality. It is a personal relationship between the individual and their God. Everyone will or will not come to accept Jesus in their own time. Christians have an obligation to judge not lest they be judged, to pursue fellowship, and to treat their fellows with sincere Christian charity and kindness. Nearly everything else is just the industry of institutionalized relgion trying to keep control over individuals. If Jesus indeed died for our sins -- all our sins -- then our sin is between us and God. Not the government. Still, this view cannot be "proved" any more than any other view. Faith cannot be the basis of law because it simply cannot be proven by law. To do so would be to claim to know the "mind" of God. The only way to approach civil law is to base it on logic and fairness for all as best we can. That America is strongly Judeo-Christian and we have included some of the ideals of those dogmas within our civics makes sense as a great deal of this history of human law has evolved from Judeo-Christian cultures. But that doesn't mean that religion should have any special place in the laws that govern America.

Truthfully, I don't really have a problem with those who oppose abortion as an act. I think wanting to end abortion is noble. My problem is that, like most complicated human issues, people who claim to want to "end" abortion really just want the easy answer. Stop the abortions, punish those who break the law, etc. But law will not prevent desperate people from doing desperate things. And these same types who claim to loathe abortion are typically the same who believe that women who died in droves from botched back-room abortions were "getting what they deserved." Such back-rooms will not disappear if abortion is made illegal. If you really want to end abortion, then end it at the source and the act itself will be irrelevant. But then these same types are usually against things that would realistically prevent abortion. Public sex education, free birth control, morning after pills, etc. All programs that violate some line or the other of scripture, most of which are designed to keep women, pregnant, ignorant, and reduced to the role of property.

Nothing will obviously stop people from voting on this one issue. For so many it has simply been drilled into them as the absolute truth no matter what - as the begin-all-end-all way to define good and evil. Theirs is the ultimate position of intolerance and arrogance. They presume to know the purpose and intentions of God and they claim to hold judgement over their peers. In turn, those of us who do not presume to know and prever to err on the side of compassion are told to tolerate the opposing point of view. Personally, I am exhausted with being told to respect and tolerate the intolerance and arrogance of mainstream Christianity while words like eloquent and educated are transformed into insults. Some may balk at saying "fuck you" to such people because they are "polite" or because "their views should be respected." But "fuck" is just a word and "fuck you" is just a sentiment. And how can it possibly be any more or less civil or respectful than "you are going to Hell and I will pray for you." If that isn't the ultimate fuck you from someone who believes in the Bible being the literal word of God - what could possibly be worse?

Sorry for the long introductory post from unknown noobX. Blame Sullivan for sending crazy folk like me here.

(PS - MadHatter, if you really want to get him going, start talking about Mithras)

[Extra Stout]

And what does your noetic faculty tell you about the justice of the arbitrary doom of some pre-Columbian Incan message runner or the millions of souls damned to hell without any chance of "hearing the good news"?

Let me put it this way...God calls down upon you and charges you with the responsibility to determine if these "no heards" should go to hell or go to heaven. Bear in mind, you have no access to God's "secret form of justice", you can only use your God given capacity (apparently stunted) to recognize what is good and just and fair. What do you think should happen to them?
If I were given that authority, hypothetically, I would proclaim the Gospel to them in their post-mortem disembodied state, so they could choose. That is what I hope happens. But I don't know. I also believe, purely speculatively, that most would still recoil from God and his heaven and choose the place as far away from him as possible as the better alternative, even if that means jumping in a lake of fire, so to speak. I've come to understand that heaven on earth is about self-denial and servanthood, and there are a lot of people who will look at the eternal version of that and run quickly in the other direction.

For those that did choose him, they would have missed out on the joys of following God in their temporal lives, but would not have been denied all chance for forgiveness. They might be like the laborer who gets hired at the eleventh hour. But all that is speculative.

[Trainwreck2100]

I just figured out what this thread needs two words










rappin antichrist

[Tully365]

Epic fun. Had to join. I could not stop reading this thread (yes, just that bored, thank you).

To reply to the intent of the first poster, there are several reasons I could cite as why I am voting for Obama instead of McCain (whom I supported prior to this campaign), but only one matters. The simple possibility of a President Palin terrifies the life out of me and the fact that John McCain - a 72 year old cancer survivor picked her as his running mate is the ultimate sign that he's either lost his mind, succumbed to the worst case of hubris in modern times or has complete and utter scorn for more than half the country he would lead. Palin, hands down, ends any other debate for me. Granted, it wouldn't end the debate if there were something truly awful about Obama. But...President Palin. It just makes my blood go cold.

Speaking of hubris....(Please feel free to ignore everything below in the name of tl;dr)

While the wisest posts in this wonderful thread are obviously those who chose not to engage the illogic, I can't resist. Since we've already had the anti-Christ debate, the history of the Bible debate and the Nazi debate, I just have to represent for the underdog --- the mighty A --- abortion. No forum debate can be considered complete without a shout-out to the mighty A.

What I find most interesting is that evangelical-leaning individuals so often cite abortion as the leading issue of their vote. With all that is going on in the world, everything at stake for our nation's future - dictating the morality of other people's lives overrides all else. This is an incredibly selfish and intolerant position, but because it is presented without swear words it is supposed to be afforded a measure of superior respect somehow. Sadly, it is pandering to this issue that has completely kneecapped the Republican party (which, at one time, actually did serve as a very necessary counterpoint to the Democratic party). It is because of abortion that a whacko like Palin has appeal to anyone. But the simple fact is that abortion is not an issue of religion, but of civics. As I believe Obama himself has said (and many people before him) no one is pro-abortion. Such a term is a construct to generate hype and emotion. No one hopes that one day they'll be able to have their very own abortion. It's not on anyone's wish list. I myself continue to hope I'll never have to face that sort of situation, and that no one I love will, either. I do, however, have nothing but sympathy and compassion (remember compassion, Christians?) for those who find themselves dealing with the dilemma. And when it comes to government, I would hope that my government would lean on the side of sympathy and compassion.

What's fascinating about this issue for people like myself is the seeming Christian hypocrisy that surrounds it. The entire premise that "abortion is murder" is based on the presumption that God considers "life" to begin at conception. The theological argument on this is vast (starting with what does "life" mean and going from there) and anyone presuming to know one way or the other is just plain offensive to the rest of us who don't have God's cell phone number handy to ask. If God intended life to begin at conception, wouldn't it have been prudent to give a fetus a fighting chance at survival outside of a human host instead of making it a parasite? If this issue were so important, wouldn't it be in God's interest to make a fetus higher on the food chain than, say, a tapeworm? No one can prove that God intended us to consider that life begins at conception. What we can prove is that Christianity, Judaism, and many of their linked religious offshoots spend a great deal of their various creeds and scripture on misogynistic stories and rules aimed at treating women as property and sex as evil. The very need for abortion itself is largely because of the Christian machine and the roles it imposes upon women and the stigma attached to sex-for-pleasure.

It is very telling that any Christian could spend time earnestly contemplating whether or not Obama is the anti-Christ, but claim absolute stances on knowing things like abortion is murder, or exactly what a 2000+ year old book literally means to tell us.

I am not an atheist, and I will not own the title Christian or any other religion - the same way I will not claim Republican or Democrat. Titles invariably get tainted. But, if, in fact, to know Jesus is the way to salvation, then it is difficult to believe there is a time limit. If the soul is immortal, then only giving us these few silly years on earth to decide the fates of our immortal souls makes no sense. It makes much more sense that everyone - souls that died before Jesus came to spread the message, people who live and die not knowing about Christianity, etc has infinate time to discover and come to the counter of salvation. Therefore, accepting or not accepting Jesus here on Earth grants no one a VIP ticket on morality. It is a personal relationship between the individual and their God. Everyone will or will not come to accept Jesus in their own time. Christians have an obligation to judge not lest they be judged, to pursue fellowship, and to treat their fellows with sincere Christian charity and kindness. Nearly everything else is just the industry of institutionalized relgion trying to keep control over individuals. If Jesus indeed died for our sins -- all our sins -- then our sin is between us and God. Not the government. Still, this view cannot be "proved" any more than any other view. Faith cannot be the basis of law because it simply cannot be proven by law. To do so would be to claim to know the "mind" of God. The only way to approach civil law is to base it on logic and fairness for all as best we can. That America is strongly Judeo-Christian and we have included some of the ideals of those dogmas within our civics makes sense as a great deal of this history of human law has evolved from Judeo-Christian cultures. But that doesn't mean that religion should have any special place in the laws that govern America.

Truthfully, I don't really have a problem with those who oppose abortion as an act. I think wanting to end abortion is noble. My problem is that, like most complicated human issues, people who claim to want to "end" abortion really just want the easy answer. Stop the abortions, punish those who break the law, etc. But law will not prevent desperate people from doing desperate things. And these same types who claim to loathe abortion are typically the same who believe that women who died in droves from botched back-room abortions were "getting what they deserved." Such back-rooms will not disappear if abortion is made illegal. If you really want to end abortion, then end it at the source and the act itself will be irrelevant. But then these same types are usually against things that would realistically prevent abortion. Public sex education, free birth control, morning after pills, etc. All programs that violate some line or the other of scripture, most of which are designed to keep women, pregnant, ignorant, and reduced to the role of property.

Nothing will obviously stop people from voting on this one issue. For so many it has simply been drilled into them as the absolute truth no matter what - as the begin-all-end-all way to define good and evil. Theirs is the ultimate position of intolerance and arrogance. They presume to know the purpose and intentions of God and they claim to hold judgement over their peers. In turn, those of us who do not presume to know and prever to err on the side of compassion are told to tolerate the opposing point of view. Personally, I am exhausted with being told to respect and tolerate the intolerance and arrogance of mainstream Christianity while words like eloquent and educated are transformed into insults. Some may balk at saying "fuck you" to such people because they are "polite" or because "their views should be respected." But "fuck" is just a word and "fuck you" is just a sentiment. And how can it possibly be any more or less civil or respectful than "you are going to Hell and I will pray for you." If that isn't the ultimate fuck you from someone who believes in the Bible being the literal word of God - what could possibly be worse?

Sorry for the long introductory post from unknown noobX. Blame Sullivan for sending crazy folk like me here.

(PS - MadHatter, if you really want to get him going, start talking about Mithras)

Impressive first post. Welcome.

[Classic Thread]

As God is my Witness, I approve this thread.

[timvp]

Damn, MaryAnnKilledGinger with a hard hitting first post.

I'm not sure what is more noteworthy -- that there is a literate Miami Heat fan or this guy may know a way to get rid of Bonner . . .

Welcome :tu

[Extra Stout]

Gotta disagree with you on this. Reasonable skepticism doesn't go in and out out style quickly like styles of furniture and music. The questions comparing the Gospels to other very popular mythologies that pre-dated the NT-- virgin birth, walking on water, dec. 25th birth, etc.-- I think are still relevant and not easily dismissed as "out-of-date." For me, the skepticism of a Socrates or Montaigne is more relevant than ever today-- time and change have not diminished their appeal at all.
The "out-of-date" skepticism is that whose premises have fallen out of favor because they are unreasonable, or that has been debunked because of new evidence.

I readily admit that having Christmas on December 25th has everything to do with fitting in with the Sol Invictus festival, and nothing to do with when Jesus was actually born.

[Ignignokt]

That snippet claims the gospels were written in the 2nd century, which is impossible since we have papyri dating from the late first century, and documents quoting them from the early 2nd.

It would make little sense for Roman records to document the exploits of an executed itinerant preacher in the eastern reachers of the Empire, at least until a group of followers that believed him to be God grew enough in size and distinctiveness from the Jews to be noticed.

How that writer claims to know the diverse views of first-century Christians is beyond me, since until the apostles grew old most teaching was oral, and all we have in addition to the New Testament is a couple of the near-miss books in the Apostolic Fathers. Are they claiming the Gnostic texts are first-century? That's anachronistic at best. What we see in the NT is some invective against people who claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh and other nascent heresies. To extrapolate from that to say that Jesus must not have been real is specious to say the least.

Indeed, there are plenty of theologians who deny essential Christian doctrines. "Theologian" is not the same thing as "professing Christian."

There are a fair number of legends in the Near East about heroes who had virgin births. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ in that sense was not unique, though it has theological importance for the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Nor would it be unusual for a hero to do miracles. What is unusual about the claims of the Christian church is the bodily resurrection.

That said, in the liberal theology schools in the 1960's, there was a tendency to become so speculative in finding parallels between the gospels and pagan myths as to be silly. Much of that has been discredited.

The snippet you quote is relying on out-of-date skepticism, which nevertheless still serves the purposes of some people looking for reasons not to believe. If you would like some more up-to-date skepticism, you have to step away from the debunked "historical Jesus never existed" arguments, or the "every first-century source is reliable except the New Testament because we say so" arguments, or the "magic jelly beans will tell us what Jesus really said" movement, and steer more towards the "Jesus didn't come back when he promised he would" school of thought. That's where the action is today.

thats why i'm praeterist with a future bodily last day ressurection believer.

[Tully365]

[/B] this guy may know a way to get rid of Bonner . . .


C'mon timvp, that's a big burden to drop on a new guest, wouldn't you say?
Don't scare him away so fast!

[ElNono]

Epic fun. Had to join. I could not stop reading this thread (yes, just that bored, thank you).

To reply to the intent of the first poster, there are several reasons I could cite as why I am voting for Obama instead of McCain (whom I supported prior to this campaign), but only one matters. The simple possibility of a President Palin terrifies the life out of me and the fact that John McCain - a 72 year old cancer survivor picked her as his running mate is the ultimate sign that he's either lost his mind, succumbed to the worst case of hubris in modern times or has complete and utter scorn for more than half the country he would lead. Palin, hands down, ends any other debate for me. Granted, it wouldn't end the debate if there were something truly awful about Obama. But...President Palin. It just makes my blood go cold.

Speaking of hubris....(Please feel free to ignore everything below in the name of tl;dr)

While the wisest posts in this wonderful thread are obviously those who chose not to engage the illogic, I can't resist. Since we've already had the anti-Christ debate, the history of the Bible debate and the Nazi debate, I just have to represent for the underdog --- the mighty A --- abortion. No forum debate can be considered complete without a shout-out to the mighty A.

What I find most interesting is that evangelical-leaning individuals so often cite abortion as the leading issue of their vote. With all that is going on in the world, everything at stake for our nation's future - dictating the morality of other people's lives overrides all else. This is an incredibly selfish and intolerant position, but because it is presented without swear words it is supposed to be afforded a measure of superior respect somehow. Sadly, it is pandering to this issue that has completely kneecapped the Republican party (which, at one time, actually did serve as a very necessary counterpoint to the Democratic party). It is because of abortion that a whacko like Palin has appeal to anyone. But the simple fact is that abortion is not an issue of religion, but of civics. As I believe Obama himself has said (and many people before him) no one is pro-abortion. Such a term is a construct to generate hype and emotion. No one hopes that one day they'll be able to have their very own abortion. It's not on anyone's wish list. I myself continue to hope I'll never have to face that sort of situation, and that no one I love will, either. I do, however, have nothing but sympathy and compassion (remember compassion, Christians?) for those who find themselves dealing with the dilemma. And when it comes to government, I would hope that my government would lean on the side of sympathy and compassion.

What's fascinating about this issue for people like myself is the seeming Christian hypocrisy that surrounds it. The entire premise that "abortion is murder" is based on the presumption that God considers "life" to begin at conception. The theological argument on this is vast (starting with what does "life" mean and going from there) and anyone presuming to know one way or the other is just plain offensive to the rest of us who don't have God's cell phone number handy to ask. If God intended life to begin at conception, wouldn't it have been prudent to give a fetus a fighting chance at survival outside of a human host instead of making it a parasite? If this issue were so important, wouldn't it be in God's interest to make a fetus higher on the food chain than, say, a tapeworm? No one can prove that God intended us to consider that life begins at conception. What we can prove is that Christianity, Judaism, and many of their linked religious offshoots spend a great deal of their various creeds and scripture on misogynistic stories and rules aimed at treating women as property and sex as evil. The very need for abortion itself is largely because of the Christian machine and the roles it imposes upon women and the stigma attached to sex-for-pleasure.

It is very telling that any Christian could spend time earnestly contemplating whether or not Obama is the anti-Christ, but claim absolute stances on knowing things like abortion is murder, or exactly what a 2000+ year old book literally means to tell us.

I am not an atheist, and I will not own the title Christian or any other religion - the same way I will not claim Republican or Democrat. Titles invariably get tainted. But, if, in fact, to know Jesus is the way to salvation, then it is difficult to believe there is a time limit. If the soul is immortal, then only giving us these few silly years on earth to decide the fates of our immortal souls makes no sense. It makes much more sense that everyone - souls that died before Jesus came to spread the message, people who live and die not knowing about Christianity, etc has infinate time to discover and come to the counter of salvation. Therefore, accepting or not accepting Jesus here on Earth grants no one a VIP ticket on morality. It is a personal relationship between the individual and their God. Everyone will or will not come to accept Jesus in their own time. Christians have an obligation to judge not lest they be judged, to pursue fellowship, and to treat their fellows with sincere Christian charity and kindness. Nearly everything else is just the industry of institutionalized relgion trying to keep control over individuals. If Jesus indeed died for our sins -- all our sins -- then our sin is between us and God. Not the government. Still, this view cannot be "proved" any more than any other view. Faith cannot be the basis of law because it simply cannot be proven by law. To do so would be to claim to know the "mind" of God. The only way to approach civil law is to base it on logic and fairness for all as best we can. That America is strongly Judeo-Christian and we have included some of the ideals of those dogmas within our civics makes sense as a great deal of this history of human law has evolved from Judeo-Christian cultures. But that doesn't mean that religion should have any special place in the laws that govern America.

Truthfully, I don't really have a problem with those who oppose abortion as an act. I think wanting to end abortion is noble. My problem is that, like most complicated human issues, people who claim to want to "end" abortion really just want the easy answer. Stop the abortions, punish those who break the law, etc. But law will not prevent desperate people from doing desperate things. And these same types who claim to loathe abortion are typically the same who believe that women who died in droves from botched back-room abortions were "getting what they deserved." Such back-rooms will not disappear if abortion is made illegal. If you really want to end abortion, then end it at the source and the act itself will be irrelevant. But then these same types are usually against things that would realistically prevent abortion. Public sex education, free birth control, morning after pills, etc. All programs that violate some line or the other of scripture, most of which are designed to keep women, pregnant, ignorant, and reduced to the role of property.

Nothing will obviously stop people from voting on this one issue. For so many it has simply been drilled into them as the absolute truth no matter what - as the begin-all-end-all way to define good and evil. Theirs is the ultimate position of intolerance and arrogance. They presume to know the purpose and intentions of God and they claim to hold judgement over their peers. In turn, those of us who do not presume to know and prever to err on the side of compassion are told to tolerate the opposing point of view. Personally, I am exhausted with being told to respect and tolerate the intolerance and arrogance of mainstream Christianity while words like eloquent and educated are transformed into insults. Some may balk at saying "fuck you" to such people because they are "polite" or because "their views should be respected." But "fuck" is just a word and "fuck you" is just a sentiment. And how can it possibly be any more or less civil or respectful than "you are going to Hell and I will pray for you." If that isn't the ultimate fuck you from someone who believes in the Bible being the literal word of God - what could possibly be worse?

Sorry for the long introductory post from unknown noobX. Blame Sullivan for sending crazy folk like me here.

(PS - MadHatter, if you really want to get him going, start talking about Mithras)

Welcome, I enjoyed reading your post. Please make yourself at home. Also, put on your kneecaps, as Im sure somebody is going to come around to challenge your views on abortion, a topic that has been previously discussed in other threads, but that always gets revisited :lol

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Don't scare him away so fast!
Not that it makes much difference on a message bored, but "her."


Im sure somebody is going to come around to challenge your views on abortion, a topic that has been previously discussed in other threads, but that always gets revisited :lol

Gee -- I'd hate to hijack...

Hi and thanks to all who said (and might yet say) welcome ;-)

[PixelPusher]

But all that is speculative.

That about sums it all up for me.

[Tully365]

Not that it makes much difference on a message bored, but "her."


Ah-ha! My apologies-- and welcome again, ma'am!

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I'm not sure what is more noteworthy -- that there is a literate Miami Heat. . .

In all fairness, I was mostly unschooled and didn't get to avail myself of the Miami public school system until I was already literate. But that's pretty much par for the course since I was a senior in high school before we got a basketball team. :p:

[anakha]

I just figured out what this thread needs two words










rappin antichrist

+1 googol

[tp2021]

What's fascinating about this issue for people like myself is the seeming Christian hypocrisy that surrounds it. The entire premise that "abortion is murder" is based on the presumption that God considers "life" to begin at conception. The theological argument on this is vast (starting with what does "life" mean and going from there) and anyone presuming to know one way or the other is just plain offensive to the rest of us who don't have God's cell phone number handy to ask. If God intended life to begin at conception, wouldn't it have been prudent to give a fetus a fighting chance at survival outside of a human host instead of making it a parasite? If this issue were so important, wouldn't it be in God's interest to make a fetus higher on the food chain than, say, a tapeworm? No one can prove that God intended us to consider that life begins at conception. What we can prove is that Christianity, Judaism, and many of their linked religious offshoots spend a great deal of their various creeds and scripture on misogynistic stories and rules aimed at treating women as property and sex as evil. The very need for abortion itself is largely because of the Christian machine and the roles it imposes upon women and the stigma attached to sex-for-pleasure.


Truthfully, I don't really have a problem with those who oppose abortion as an act. I think wanting to end abortion is noble. My problem is that, like most complicated human issues, people who claim to want to "end" abortion really just want the easy answer. Stop the abortions, punish those who break the law, etc. But law will not prevent desperate people from doing desperate things. And these same types who claim to loathe abortion are typically the same who believe that women who died in droves from botched back-room abortions were "getting what they deserved." Such back-rooms will not disappear if abortion is made illegal. If you really want to end abortion, then end it at the source and the act itself will be irrelevant. But then these same types are usually against things that would realistically prevent abortion. Public sex education, free birth control, morning after pills, etc. All programs that violate some line or the other of scripture, most of which are designed to keep women, pregnant, ignorant, and reduced to the role of property.

Some may balk at saying "fuck you" to such people because they are "polite" or because "their views should be respected." But "fuck" is just a word and "fuck you" is just a sentiment. And how can it possibly be any more or less civil or respectful than "you are going to Hell and I will pray for you." If that isn't the ultimate fuck you from someone who believes in the Bible being the literal word of God - what could possibly be worse?

Some of my favorite parts. Epic first post.

[Extra Stout]

I'll jump back in on abortion. While my views certainly are informed by religion, I tie them to what I see a basic right to life that human beings need to respect in one another. The unborn child is an innocent human life, and the preference should be to protect that life. If you say, "then why do you oppose XYZ effort to keep it from getting to that point?" I say, try XYZ. I draw a distinction between having a basic philosophy to protect life, and trying to force people to follow some particular religious mores about sexuality. Sex education, birth control, emergency contraception, try it all. Yeah, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need the government to teach those things, but let's deal first with the world we have and assign priorities.

I understand that to be consistent in a pro-life position, that also means no capital punishment and no more pointless wars where the lives of non-Americans are devalued. For the first, it's a fair trade, all the more since C.P. serves only the vengeful instinct of the public, actually being more expensive than life imprisonment and providing no additional deterrent. For the latter, well it shouldn't even need to be debated.

You think I'm selfish and arrogant. I don't understand how the needless killing of human beings is just taken for granted. I understand that you can't just make the problem go away by outlawing the procedure and thinking everyone will just change their behavior. I'm more than willing to support programs both public and private to assist women so they don't get into the situation where abortion has to become an option. But ultimately, the direction I want to go is where almost no woman in her right mind would think aborting her child is a good idea.

Maybe someone can convince me that Obama is actually on my side on this after all, so I can furtively vote for him (if I admitted it openly, there would be problems). So far, I am not convinced. So far, I haven't seen substantial agreement. I see it not as a religious litmus test, but rather as a fundamental disagreement in the philosophy of government's role of protecting the lives of its people.

[MannyIsGod]

This thread has made my head explode. First I hear that Veronica thinks Obama may be the AntiChrist. Then the thread pops up on a blog of one of - IMO - the smartest conservative minds on the net. THEN we get all kinds of crazy posters going on in here including a bad ass troll. THEN we get some awesome posters like MaryAnnKilledGinger who may very well be the female equivlant of Extra Stout. Then this thread shows up on twoplustwo and FINALLY someone gets what my title is about.

Seriously. Head. Exploding.

[TheMadHatter]

It is common to argue over the historicity of Jesus by calling upon analogies with other historical questions. However, this is fraught with peril. Most analogies break down due to the unusual nature of early Christian history. First, there is the general incongruity between ancient and modern societies, which I discuss in "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story" and "Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels." But more important than that is the peculiarity of Christian history itself. From very early on Christianity was wracked with bitter ideological disputes and competing sects with conflicting claims. Even the letters of Paul are full of references to his opponents and the desperate struggles he had with them to maintain control of his own congregations. Yet the sect that "won" this internecine propaganda war achieved victory by political rather than epistemic means.

Every Patristic historian remarks on how regularly the surviving ("orthodox") literature of the second and third centuries slanders opponents with exaggerated or even false charges, how they employed shunning and other acts of social intimidation rather than open debate, and how routinely complaints are heard of forged texts and other tools of deception in the ranks. Numerous extant orthodox works have been proven to be forgeries, and even many canonical texts are universally agreed to be dubious. There is also an endless record of persistent ideological doctoring of the canonical texts from the earliest dates (see Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament, 1993, and the works cited there; also, my essay "The Formation of the New Testament Canon"). Though the New Testament in its entirety is a rather small book by ancient standards, it contains over a thousand passages that have so many early variants we cannot confidently identify the original reading (there are 19 such passages in 1 Timothy alone, a letter only 134 verses long, meaning 14% of the letter is to some extent uncertain; see my "Two Examples of Faulty Bible Scholarship"). Many of these conflicting readings cannot be explained as mere scribal errors, but are ideological in nature.

To make matters worse, when the Church finally acquired absolute political power under the Constantines, opponents were compelled by force to fall in line. The sect that gained the emperor's ear did not win this trophy through convincing him by sound evidence and argument in an open and equal debate with opponents, but by mere luck: they just happened to be the ones in his entourage. As the threat of death, prison, or dispossession was used to eliminate opponents, "disapproved" texts were collected and burned, or simply never copied and thus left to disintegrate, never to be read again. And thus, though we know there were radically variant sects even in Paul's day, we have not a single text from them. Instead, the vast bulk of surviving material is solely what was approved by the victorious "orthodoxy," who did not win because of their greater adherence to the truth, but their more effective and fortunate politics.

Devout Christians have the most reason to be alarmed at this: a church that engages in murder, slander, deceit, compulsion, and intimidation could not plausibly be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Like Jesus himself, true Christians did not write down their beliefs to argue or prove them, but simply had faith, accepting their deaths without a fight. Thus, if there is any true Holy Spirit, it was more likely inspiring the first believers, none of whose literature survives, and those souls who turned the other cheek to the "orthodoxy's" bullying and machinations rather than fight back. And so true Christianity could well have died a silent death. But even if you turn aside from that awful possibility, you are faced with the original problem: Christian literature, and history, holds almost no analogy with any other literature or history we could care to name. From Homer to Tacitus, there is by comparison virtually no such background or context of ideological conflict affecting the texts--affecting not only the doctoring or editing of their content, but their very selection and preservation. Christianity's own history, and above all the nature of Jesus, was the very target of contention here. I cannot think of any comparable problem in ancient history that is as seriously challenged by such biasing of the source material.

Yet the "victorious" sect happened to be historicist. Since that was an accident of their tactics and good fortune, we cannot be entirely confident that the orthodoxy, much less the surviving source material, reflects the truth about Jesus. This is all the more troubling since we know the orthodox sect was credulously eager to latch onto any piece of nonsense that supported their historicist position. Prominent examples include the obvious fantasies inserted into the Gospel narrative by Matthew, the wild legends believed and repeated by the early 2nd century Christian Papias, and Eusebius' belief and reliance upon a forged letter of Jesus himself. More troubling, though more debatable, examples include Luke's "importation" of historical details into the basic combination of Mark and Q so as to make a hagiography look like a history (see my "Luke and Josephus"), and John's probable invention of the Doubting Thomas tale (not mentioned by anyone else, least of all Matthew, who was clearly prone to recording the fabulous, or (Ps.-) Peter, and Paul, who had several occasions to call upon the story, e.g. 2 Pet. 1:16-19; 1 Cor. 15:5-7, 35-58).

All this does not entail that the historicist sect was wrong and that Jesus didn't exist. But it does throw a wrench into any argument that draws on analogies with other historical questions which were not subject from the start to this unusually intense and persistent ideological conflict and behavior. Historians are in a worse position regarding early Christian history than any comparable (and comparably preserved) institutional history (such as the origins of the major schools of philosophy), and the most suspect elements are, by an unfortunate coincidence, the very ones a historicist needs to settle his case.

[Trainwreck2100]

This thread has made my head explode. First I hear that Veronica thinks Obama may be the AntiChrist. Then the thread pops up on a blog of one of - IMO - the smartest conservative minds on the net. THEN we get all kinds of crazy posters going on in here including a bad ass troll. THEN we get some awesome posters like MaryAnnKilledGinger who may very well be the female equivlant of Extra Stout. Then this thread shows up on twoplustwo and FINALLY someone gets what my title is about.

Seriously. Head. Exploding.

what the hell is twoplustwo

And don't anybody say 4

[tp2021]

Then this thread shows up on twoplustwo and FINALLY someone gets what my title is about.Huh?

[Ignignokt]

obama is not the antichrist, but to some, his believers, he is a Christ so in that sense, with it having nothing to do with Obama's will, he is a anti christ.

But i don't think obama is dangerous to our lives. So who cares.

[Trainwreck2100]

Huh?

ok he's talking about this
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41/politics/obama-vs-mccain-general-election-chatter-october-3-a-324766/index21.html

and u hope they liked my sig cause if not it would hurt my feelings

[Ignignokt]

kori showed up... gay.

[TheMadHatter]

I'll jump back in on abortion. While my views certainly are informed by religion, I tie them to what I see a basic right to life that human beings need to respect in one another. The unborn child is an innocent human life, and the preference should be to protect that life. If you say, "then why do you oppose XYZ effort to keep it from getting to that point?" I say, try XYZ. I draw a distinction between having a basic philosophy to protect life, and trying to force people to follow some particular religious mores about sexuality. Sex education, birth control, emergency contraception, try it all. Yeah, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need the government to teach those things, but let's deal first with the world we have and assign priorities.

I understand that to be consistent in a pro-life position, that also means no capital punishment and no more pointless wars where the lives of non-Americans are devalued. For the first, it's a fair trade, all the more since C.P. serves only the vengeful instinct of the public, actually being more expensive than life imprisonment and providing no additional deterrent. For the latter, well it shouldn't even need to be debated.

You think I'm selfish and arrogant. I don't understand how the needless killing of human beings is just taken for granted. I understand that you can't just make the problem go away by outlawing the procedure and thinking everyone will just change their behavior. I'm more than willing to support programs both public and private to assist women so they don't get into the situation where abortion has to become an option. But ultimately, the direction I want to go is where almost no woman in her right mind would think aborting her child is a good idea.

Maybe someone can convince me that Obama is actually on my side on this after all, so I can furtively vote for him (if I admitted it openly, there would be problems). So far, I am not convinced. So far, I haven't seen substantial agreement. I see it not as a religious litmus test, but rather as a fundamental disagreement in the philosophy of government's role of protecting the lives of its people.

Yet you support Senator John McCain who supports the continuation of the Iraq War and possibly war with Iran which would no doubt send hundreds or even thousands of troops to their deaths. It is death we can avoid if we choose Obama as President. You are a hypocrite.

Furthermore WTF is McCain going to do about abortion? Bush was FAR more religious than McCain and he had a full Republican House and Senate, and two SC appointments and did NOTHING TO STOP ABORTIONS. When will you ignorant fucks learn that the Republican Party has no plans to ever overturn Roe v. Wade. They use it as a wedge issue to get religious nutjobs to vote from their party.

[Trainwreck2100]

:lol

all the views killed dark reign's photobucket sig.

[Extra Stout]

Why do skeptics repeat the glaring falsehood that Constantine settled the debate in favor of Nicene Christianity? The theological squabble of his early reign was over Arianism, not the earlier subjects like Modalism, Montanism, Docetism, Gnosticism, Origenism, etc. And Arianism hardly died after 325; it kept going strong for centuries thereafter! Neither was it Constantine who began the persecutions; that was Theodosius in 381. Even then, as the fourth century became the fifth, successive emperors flipped back and forth between awarding primacy to the Nicenes and the Arians. A new emperor would be crowned, and one group would get the big church in the city back, while the other would be kicked outside the walls.

And if the texts of these second- and third-century groups the Fathers apparently so unfairly savaged were destroyed, then why do we have them on hand?

Now this idea that no other source text carries the ideological "baggage" of the New Testament is simply not credible. For example, Josephus embellished the exploits of the Jews both out of pride for his people and to serve the Roman government's propaganda campaign that defeating the Jews was a major victory. None of the ancients wrote history the way moderns do.

Claiming that the New Testament alone has to be distrusted among ancient manuscripts is the view of a small, agenda-driven minority. The distortions and inaccuracies in that excerpt which are apparent to the casual student of late Roman history make that readily apparent.

[mcd410x]

If Senator Obama has addressed the anti Christ accusations, I would be greatly interested to hear what he had to say.

By the same reasoning, I think McCain & Palin need to call a press conference to address whether they do or don't molest goats.

Until they speak out against it, I don't really have enough information to judge one way or another.



x

[tp2021]

By the same reasoning, I think McCain & Palin need to call a press conference to address whether they do or don't molest goats.

Until they speak out against it, I don't really have enough information to judge one way or another.



x
Not-so-epic first post.

But point taken nonetheless.

[Trainwreck2100]

By the same reasoning, I think McCain & Palin need to call a press conference to address whether they do or don't molest goats.

Until they speak out against it, I don't really have enough information to judge one way or another.



x

I know they don't cause they don't have goat herpes, and that shit is everywhere.

[Extra Stout]

Yet you support Senator John McCain who supports the continuation of the Iraq War and possibly war with Iran which would no doubt send hundreds or even thousands of troops to their deaths. It is death we can avoid if we choose Obama as President. You are a hypocrite.

Furthermore WTF is McCain going to do about abortion? Bush was FAR more religious than McCain and he had a full Republican House and Senate, and two SC appointments and did NOTHING TO STOP ABORTIONS. When will you ignorant fucks learn that the Republican Party has no plans to ever overturn Roe v. Wade. They use it as a wedge issue to get religious nutjobs to vote from their party.
See, here's the part where you clearly just didn't read my post about my misgivings on McCain and just recycled your boilerplate "you're a hypocrite" auto-reply.

Are you even really participating in this debate, or just finding passages from atheist websites to cut and paste to see if you can wear me out?

Oh, what Bush delivered on abortion was Supreme Court justices, though as I said above I no longer think the strategy of "overturn Roe v. Wade and ban abortion in the red states" is the best way to curtail the practice.

[anakha]

Seems like the number of viewers is going down.

We need another controversial argument, quick!

[Tully365]

Originally Posted by angel_luv

If Senator Obama has addressed the anti Christ accusations, I would be greatly interested to hear what he had to say.

I've read anti-christ accusations about every presidential candidate in my lifetime. Ronald Wilson Reagan had six letters in each of his names... thus: 666.
This is one area where I don't think politicians should answer what I view as crazy accusations. Nobody, regardless of what party, country, or philosophy they represent, is going to look reasonable while standing behind a podium in a public forum declaring, "I am Not the anti-christ!"

Honestly, I think all of this anti-christ stuff is beyond ridiculous. If you really believe in it as a prophecy of the Bible, then why would you try to stop it? Do you think that you can change the course of a pre-ordained history by voting a certain way in a democratic election, and convince God to give the End-of-Days a more user-friendly ending?

[tp2021]

Seems like the number of viewers is going down.

We need another controversial argument, quick!

INhrACfQMBM&feature=related

amjUNF_R_PY&feature=related
uul6COkTnNU&NR=1
2VFGv0mdckM&feature=related
NFRHnmcPjrY

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I'll jump back in on abortion. While my views certainly are informed by religion, I tie them to what I see a basic right to life that human beings need to respect in one another. The unborn child is an innocent human life, and the preference should be to protect that life.

The basis of your argument on this issue is centered upon the premise that life begins at conception. You believe that a fetus at every stage is an "innocent human life." You consider this a given. May I ask what you personally base this presumption on if not your faith?


Yeah, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need the government to teach those things, but let's deal first with the world we have and assign priorities.

This is exactly my point. We deal with the world we have. In the world we have, outlawing abortion will not stop abortions anymore than the "war on drugs" has stopped drug use. So you either have a sincere interest in preventing abortion, or you're just looking for the easy scapegoat of making it illegal and taboo. To earnestly end abortion you have to fight the good fight at the root and deal with the world we have. Given the myriad reasons women have to seek abortions, you first need to target those causes and eliminate them. To use an old anaology, it makes a lot more sense to take the bullets out of the gun than it does to force everyone to wear a bullet-proof vest. (yes, I'm totally using Jedi mind powers to get gun control somewhere in this thread - I just realized it was missing)


You think I'm selfish and arrogant.

I never called specific names. I spoke about people who identify themselves with a certain religious demographic. You would seem to be one of them, but I don't have any way to know that for certain. That's not fancy footwork, I simply don't have any desire to personalize a theorhetical discussion.


I don't understand how the needless killing of human beings is just taken for granted.

You, like many others, consider a fetus a human being. I consider it a lump of cells that behaves very much like a parasite. Many would not use that exact language, but share my basic view. A lot of people in the middle don't know what they think and get brain freeze trying to figure it out. The truth is that none of us can know for certain. Not yet. Maybe not ever. Until then, telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body is the ultimate in arrogance (although many religions think that imposing will over the body of another - especially a woman - is just fine).


Maybe someone can convince me that Obama is actually on my side on this after all, so I can furtively vote for him (if I admitted it openly, there would be problems).

I'm not exactly sure what your side, but a good reference for Obama's abortion position is here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

I'm confused as to why you think McCain is on your side. He has repeatedly stated (like BO) that he will not try to repeal RvW:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/John_McCain_Abortion.htm

This issue gets even more complicated when you factor in stem cell research. How does one apply that from the pro-life standpoint? And, if one is truly pro-life doesn't rape and incest abortion still have to be off the table?

Also, I'm just curious, and would like to know if you don't mind answering: If neither BO or JM are "on [your] side" of the abortion issue, will you still exercise your rights as an American and cast a ballot based on other issues, or will you abstain?

[Tully365]

INhrACfQMBM&feature=related

amjUNF_R_PY&feature=related
uul6COkTnNU&NR=1
2VFGv0mdckM&feature=related
NFRHnmcPjrY

Ah, controversy!

Good job answering the call so quickly!

[TheMadHatter]

See, here's the part where you clearly just didn't read my post about my misgivings on McCain and just recycled your boilerplate "you're a hypocrite" auto-reply.

Are you even really participating in this debate, or just finding passages from atheist websites to cut and paste to see if you can wear me out?

Oh, what Bush delivered on abortion was Supreme Court justices, though as I said above I no longer think the strategy of "overturn Roe v. Wade and ban abortion in the red states" is the best way to curtail the practice.

The excerpts I'm posting are from acknowledged historians Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier with more years research on this subject than you and I have probably been alive.

Doherty’s argument from silence is striking. While I was attending Catholic high school (which I did for 4 years), we often heard readings from the Epistles and the Gospels. Only once was I in a class where the students were told that the Epistles were the only existing Christian writings for the 40 years following the alleged death of Jesus (the earliest date on which scholars affix the writing of the Gospels was about 90 A.D.). Even more striking, it was never pointed out to the students that the Epistles failed to even mention Mary, Joseph, the birth of an historical Jesus, the miracles of Jesus or the teachings of an historical Jesus. This is rather incredible, given that an earth-residing Jesus was allegedly God.

Think about this: out planet was visited by God incarnate (Creator of the Universe), whose earthly life was snuffed out by a bloody crucifixion after He performed dozens miracles allegedly witnessed by thousands, and we get . . . silence. For 40 years. Imagine an event that is much less noteworthy, for instance imagine that San Francisco suffered a massive earthquake in 1906 but no one wrote anything about it for 40 years. Jesus did something even more amazing, it is claimed. Upon his death, the earth shook, tombs opened and dead people walked around the town. But no one wrote about this for 40 years. Or imagine Michael Jordan dazzling the basketball world for years, but no one writing about it . . . for 40 years.

I find these discussions of Doherty and Carrier to be fascinating. In fact, these sorts of discussions should really be one of the starting points for any thoughtful Christian’s education. Shouldn’t anyone who wants to follow the truth consider even those things that might appear inconvenient or even hostile to those beliefs? In the same vein, shouldn’t those who want to use the Bible itself as the starting point for their beliefs, consider the origin of the Bible writings, including the undeniable fact that numerous biblical writings have been tampered with over the years?

I’m not disparaging the teachings of Jesus. Many of those teachings are challenging, humanitarian, even revolutionary. We don’t need to believe in a flesh and blood Jesus in order to find value in those teachings that have value, right? Nor do we need to believe in a physical reality of Atticus Finch to be inspired by the kind of man he was portrayed to be. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am raising the issue of the existence of a flesh and blood Jesus, but not contesting that many of his teaching were inspirational.

Nor am I raising alarm that many people are striving to seek out higher meaning in the absence of sufficient facts on which to base that meaning of life. All of us, those who believe in God and those who don’t, are all in the same boat in that respect. But I also think that beliefs should always be thoughtful, striving, humble and willing to consider all serious opposing views and consider where and when they don’t know what they don’t know.

I would just end this diatribe in asking what do you honestly believe is more likely given the facts we know? I'd wager if most people knew the facts about the origins of the Bible and Jesus we'd have a lot less Christians in this world.

[timvp]

You, like many others, consider a fetus a human being. I consider it a lump of cells that behaves very much like a parasite. Many would not use that exact language, but share my basic view. A lot of people in the middle don't know what they think and get brain freeze trying to figure it out. The truth is that none of us can know for certain. Not yet. Maybe not ever.That "truth" is obviously the crux of the abortion debate. Let's say that at some point in the future, science has figured out that the unborn fetus develops human traits instantly - in terms of features such as self consciousness or the ability to sense pain. At that point, if abortion is deemed a barbaric act, that will be a tough pill for humanity to swallow.

As huge of an issue as the Iraq war seems, more fetuses are aborted in the U.S. in one day than the total number of U.S. soldiers that have died in Iraq. "Better safe than sorry" is basically why I lean pro-life in theory, however it's such a personal decision that I can't get myself to negatively judge someone else for their reasoning.

All that said, I personally do not factor in the abortion issue during presidential elections. It too easily becomes an overriding factor and the uncertainty surrounding it doesn't make one side overwhelming more "correct" than the other.

[DWest30]

This thread is so full of win, I had to register and post. As a rabid Hornets fan, it hurts me to post here and yeah, I was at Game 7. This thread beckoned me like a Chris Paul lob to the basket....

My problem with the fundamentalist attitude is not the belief structure itself but its conflict with our form of government. Representative democracy requires compromise to affect the best outcome for the most people. That is entirely possible using Christian principles, but not possible if following the Bible literally and inputting that into your politics. A Bible literalist can't compromise on anything as that would be going against God's Will. When applied to politics, there is only One Way. The Founding Fathers were big on rational debate, but that's not a viable option if your religious belief is tied directly to your voting habits. Christian principles have been the basis for many of this country's greatest triumphs. Christian literalist theology has not.

What confounds me is the literlists' desire to legislate their belief system. Faith is a personal relationship with the Almighty. When actively pushing for laws that mandate active fealty to matters of Faith, you remove that option from the non-believers/unbeleivers. Forcing people by writ of law to ACT in a manner 'pleasing to God' without the underlying belief structure is a wasted effort and a defeat of the theology. It cheapens Faith.

See yall in the playoffs. We wont choke next time ;)

[rascal]

you can bet your ass that there are millions that think like this.

and they will all be voting for mccain.

Why couldn't Palin be the anti christ? Does the anti christ have to be a man?

[rascal]

No because my boyfriend has accepted and confesses Jesus Christ as his personal savior, which for the record is all Senator Obama needs to do to clarify his position and prove himself not to be the anti christ.



I'm sorry Dark Reign about your thread.

I was asked a question and I answered it.

Be careful with that religious stuff. There is not only one way to the promised land.

[Mr. Peabody]

Nothing will obviously stop people from voting on this one issue. For so many it has simply been drilled into them as the absolute truth no matter what - as the begin-all-end-all way to define good and evil. Theirs is the ultimate position of intolerance and arrogance. They presume to know the purpose and intentions of God and they claim to hold judgement over their peers. In turn, those of us who do not presume to know and prever to err on the side of compassion are told to tolerate the opposing point of view. Personally, I am exhausted with being told to respect and tolerate the intolerance and arrogance of mainstream Christianity while words like eloquent and educated are transformed into insults. Some may balk at saying "fuck you" to such people because they are "polite" or because "their views should be respected." But "fuck" is just a word and "fuck you" is just a sentiment. And how can it possibly be any more or less civil or respectful than "you are going to Hell and I will pray for you." If that isn't the ultimate fuck you from someone who believes in the Bible being the literal word of God - what could possibly be worse?


:lol:toast

[rascal]

I was going to phrase this into a question, but decided not to because it isnt worth it.

There is no interpretation needed on such a simple sentence as...

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

...as spoken by Jesus himself. You cannot pick and choose which way you want it, Christian. The Bible is an 800+ page metaphor or its very, very real.

If its real, no interpretation is needed or required. None. The words mean exactly as they say. The only way to salvation/heaven is thru Jesus. There is no other way. PERIOD.

If its a metaphor, then I'll accept your answer.

When he says through me it can mean his basic teachings which are the same teachings in most other religions.

[ElNono]

By the same reasoning, I think McCain & Palin need to call a press conference to address whether they do or don't molest goats.

Until they speak out against it, I don't really have enough information to judge one way or another.

x

Welcome

[Mr. Peabody]

They way I look at this thread is that if I came in here one day and said -

You know what fellow SpursTalk posters. I think I might be Jesus. I'm not sure, but uh, there have been some signs. This woman came to visit me and said I was God. I healed some guy the other day at work. Turned some water into wine at the water cooler. I was a carpenter in undergrad. Multiplied some fish and bread....I really think I might be Jesus.

If I said that, would the "religious" posters on this thread say "Well, you should respect this guy's beliefs"? Would people be quoting passages out of the Bible stating that we can't be sure that I'm not Jesus?

[jochhejaam]

But I would strongly urge you to remove your moral convictions from the equation....but I doubt you can do that. Most fathful people cant. Thats called indoctrination.
That's more accurately referred to as conviction.




FTR, I don't believe Obama is the anti-Christ, that being said, I have tremendous respect for Angel's adherence to the morality and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament.






And again DR, your own acknowledgement of being ignorant and close-minded about Scripture precedes you, and having admitted that, you are certainly among the least qualified in this forum to express an opinion of substance regarding what is written therein.

[AntiChrist]

Good morning my chidren. Sleep well?

http://www.watchingamerica.com/images/JesusObama.jpg

[Findog]

This thread has made my head explode. First I hear that Veronica thinks Obama may be the AntiChrist. Then the thread pops up on a blog of one of - IMO - the smartest conservative minds on the net. THEN we get all kinds of crazy posters going on in here including a bad ass troll. THEN we get some awesome posters like MaryAnnKilledGinger who may very well be the female equivlant of Extra Stout. Then this thread shows up on twoplustwo and FINALLY someone gets what my title is about.

Seriously. Head. Exploding.

What is twoplustwo?

[Mr. Peabody]

What is twoplustwo?

Four.

No, really, it's a poker forum. Someone posted a link in the last page where they were discussing this thread.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

This thread has made my head explode. First I hear that Veronica thinks Obama may be the AntiChrist. Then the thread pops up on a blog of one of - IMO - the smartest conservative minds on the net. THEN we get all kinds of crazy posters going on in here including a bad ass troll. THEN we get some awesome posters like MaryAnnKilledGinger who may very well be the female equivlant of Extra Stout. Then this thread shows up on twoplustwo and FINALLY someone gets what my title is about.

Seriously. Head. Exploding.

That's EXACTLY what I was just thinking. I love it! This forum is going in the right direction if we start getting more posters of the quality of MaryAnnKilledGinger and Extra. Granted, it is her/his first post, but what a first post :tu

[Findog]

Four.

No, really, it's a poker forum. Someone posted a link in the last page where they were discussing this thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41/politics/

Got a link? I can't find anything

[Findog]

I think Wonkette should know about this thread.

[Mr. Peabody]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41/politics/

Got a link? I can't find anything

Link to Two Plus Two - McCain/Obama Thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41/politics/obama-vs-mccain-general-election-chatter-october-3-a-324766/index21.html)

[ElNono]

This thread is so full of win, I had to register and post. As a rabid Hornets fan, it hurts me to post here and yeah, I was at Game 7. This thread beckoned me like a Chris Paul lob to the basket....

My problem with the fundamentalist attitude is not the belief structure itself but its conflict with our form of government. Representative democracy requires compromise to affect the best outcome for the most people. That is entirely possible using Christian principles, but not possible if following the Bible literally and inputting that into your politics. A Bible literalist can't compromise on anything as that would be going against God's Will. When applied to politics, there is only One Way. The Founding Fathers were big on rational debate, but that's not a viable option if your religious belief is tied directly to your voting habits. Christian principles have been the basis for many of this country's greatest triumphs. Christian literalist theology has not.

What confounds me is the literlists' desire to legislate their belief system. Faith is a personal relationship with the Almighty. When actively pushing for laws that mandate active fealty to matters of Faith, you remove that option from the non-believers/unbeleivers. Forcing people by writ of law to ACT in a manner 'pleasing to God' without the underlying belief structure is a wasted effort and a defeat of the theology. It cheapens Faith.

See yall in the playoffs. We wont choke next time ;)

Welcome. Well thought out first post. :tu

[ElNono]

That's EXACTLY what I was just thinking. I love it! This forum is going in the right direction if we start getting more posters of the quality of MaryAnnKilledGinger and Extra. Granted, it is her/his first post, but what a first post :tu

Some conservative posters will tell you this forum is going in the left direction. :lol

[Bitch]

It is just a thought that has stayed in the back of my mind

Well there's certainly a lot of goddamn room in there for it. Jesus H. Christ.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Angel may have found Jesus but she hasn't found common sense.

[SpursWoman]

Or the part about stoning your teenagers if they talk back.


Please, please let this be true .... http://www.modernmorph.com/ys/63.gif

[DarrinS]

This thread is so full of win, I had to register and post. As a rabid Hornets fan, it hurts me to post here and yeah, I was at Game 7. This thread beckoned me like a Chris Paul lob to the basket....

My problem with the fundamentalist attitude is not the belief structure itself but its conflict with our form of government. Representative democracy requires compromise to affect the best outcome for the most people. That is entirely possible using Christian principles, but not possible if following the Bible literally and inputting that into your politics. A Bible literalist can't compromise on anything as that would be going against God's Will. When applied to politics, there is only One Way. The Founding Fathers were big on rational debate, but that's not a viable option if your religious belief is tied directly to your voting habits. Christian principles have been the basis for many of this country's greatest triumphs. Christian literalist theology has not.

What confounds me is the literlists' desire to legislate their belief system. Faith is a personal relationship with the Almighty. When actively pushing for laws that mandate active fealty to matters of Faith, you remove that option from the non-believers/unbeleivers. Forcing people by writ of law to ACT in a manner 'pleasing to God' without the underlying belief structure is a wasted effort and a defeat of the theology. It cheapens Faith.

See yall in the playoffs. We wont choke next time ;)



Good post. I agree. You can't legislate morality.

Too bad there aren't any fiscally conservative secularists. That would get my vote.

McCain and Obama are both socialists -- Obama moreso.

[Phil E.Buster]

I'm going to church to pray for Angelluv.

[Extra Stout]

The basis of your argument on this issue is centered upon the premise that life begins at conception. You believe that a fetus at every stage is an "innocent human life." You consider this a given. May I ask what you personally base this presumption on if not your faith?
From conception, the child is a separate human life with its own unique DNA.


This is exactly my point. We deal with the world we have. In the world we have, outlawing abortion will not stop abortions anymore than the "war on drugs" has stopped drug use. So you either have a sincere interest in preventing abortion, or you're just looking for the easy scapegoat of making it illegal and taboo. To earnestly end abortion you have to fight the good fight at the root and deal with the world we have. Given the myriad reasons women have to seek abortions, you first need to target those causes and eliminate them.
I am on the same page here.


You, like many others, consider a fetus a human being. I consider it a lump of cells that behaves very much like a parasite. Many would not use that exact language, but share my basic view. A lot of people in the middle don't know what they think and get brain freeze trying to figure it out. The truth is that none of us can know for certain. Not yet. Maybe not ever. Until then, telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body is the ultimate in arrogance (although many religions think that imposing will over the body of another - especially a woman - is just fine).
If I consider a fetus a human being (which I do) then it is not arrogance to oppose killing that fetus. It is moral consistency. I do not believe that I have to wait for a consensus in order to have strong moral beliefs. I do have to wait for some kind of a consensus in order to effect real change.

I do have a question: what in your mind marks the transition between a fetus being a lump of cells to being a human being and why?


I'm not exactly sure what your side, but a good reference for Obama's abortion position is here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm

I'm confused as to why you think McCain is on your side. He has repeatedly stated (like BO) that he will not try to repeal RvW:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/John_McCain_Abortion.htm
I'm not primarily interested anymore in overturning Roe v. Wade. That would just make abortions subject to state laws. It would be legal in some and illegal in others. It probably would not stop the behavior as effectively as dealing with the reasons women get into the situation in the first place.

McCain's views do look more like mine. I see hope that if Obama were elected that groups interested in reducing the number of abortions could work with his administration to bring services to women.


This issue gets even more complicated when you factor in stem cell research. How does one apply that from the pro-life standpoint? And, if one is truly pro-life doesn't rape and incest abortion still have to be off the table?
My goal is to have a society where protecting life is a priority. Stem cell research at least has protecting life through better medicine as its purpose. If we can get the same quality of research through things like adult stem cells, then we should do that instead. Otherwise, it is a gray area on which I do not feel as strongly.

With rape and incest, I do not want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Ideally I would want abortion to go away in those instances too, but let's deal first with the 99% of abortions that don't involve those situations.


Also, I'm just curious, and would like to know if you don't mind answering: If neither BO or JM are "on [your] side" of the abortion issue, will you still exercise your rights as an American and cast a ballot based on other issues, or will you abstain?
On pretty much all other issues, I either have changed my mind on who handles them the best right now (such as economics and foreign policy), or I've come to believe that Democrats do a better job at upholding my principles than Republicans do (such as fiscal responsibility). I've also resolved that I cannot be on the side of formerly-respectable acquaintances and colleagues who are hoping Obama gets assassinated. So it's either third-party or Obama at this point.

[Trainwreck2100]

You, like many others, consider a fetus a human being. I consider it a lump of cells that behaves very much like a parasite.

I'd say its more of a symbiotic relationship, the mother feeds the fetus and the fetus propagates the species

[BacktoBasics]

Before I start insulting people today I wanted to point out an Angel Warrior line on page 20


They tell us that we are responsible to vote according to our consciences before God and that what we do is between us and God.

Its hard to swallow that with all the warriors out there that so few if any have refused to utilitize common sense over blind faith. To instruct masses to vote solely based on gods eyes is fucking disturbing and probably has directly attributed to the short-comings and failure of this Country.

If God isn't the Anti-Crist I don't know what is.

- removes your ability to be rational
- affects judgement
- creates bigotry
- incites war
- justifies your short-comings
- removes your ability to exercise free will
- removes your ability to utilize self control

I could go on and on

It disables the true essence of being a human. Cults are an amazing tool for control.

[Trainwreck2100]

If God isn't the Anti-Crist I don't know what is.

- removes your ability to be rational
- affects judgement
- creates bigotry
- incites war
- justifies your short-comings
- removes your ability to exercise free will
- removes your ability to utilize self control

does God do that, or the people who teach his message?

[JoeChalupa]

I believe in God and Jesus Christ and have no problems with those who do not. No forum could ever change that. Vaya con Dios.

[LnGrrrR]

My whole problem with the "Heaven only through me" God is... doesn't that sound a little weird? I mean, assume you are a Christian. what if someone came up to you and said you were going to burn in Hellfire or be placed in limbo or some horrible eternal fate if you didn't believe in his specific God?

It's like having a wife or husband who demands that you're not allowed to go out with your friends. Just a little bit weird.

You would think that the first qualifier for getting into Heaven would be "doing good deeds" or "being a good person", not just faith (or, to be more truthful, submission.)

For all those who reply, "Jesus died for your sins!", that conversation is a non-starter. Wow, Jesus died for sins I don't think I committed, when I didn't ask him to? How great! Look, I can say that I didn't eat a muffin this morning to help with the problem of world hunger, but I'm not going to expect Ethiopians to start bowing down to praise me for it.

[DWest30]

Good post. I agree. You can't legislate morality.

Too bad there aren't any fiscally conservative secularists. That would get my vote.

McCain and Obama are both socialists -- Obama moreso.

Welcome to the Libertarian Party :)

[JoeChalupa]

Reading some of the posts in here just crack me up. :lmao And I'm not even talking about Angel's posts.

[BacktoBasics]

does God do that, or the people who teach his message?
If god created everything and everything is gods plan then god did it.

How many times have we heard "if its meant to be then its meant to be" or "if its not meant to be then its not meant to be" or "well I guess it wasn't in gods plan". Faith removes your ability to act with free will and 99% of the warriors out there feel that nothing is random or spontaneous and its all in gods plan.

So yeah their god is effectively taking a first hand approach to breaking down the human genetic makeup. Definitely the Anti-Christ.

[Satan]

If god created everything and everything is gods plan then god did it.

How many times have we heard "if its meant to be then its meant to be" or "if its not meant to be then its not meant to be" or "well I guess it wasn't in gods plan". Faith removes your ability to act with free will and 99% of the warriors out there feel that nothing is random or spontaneous and its all in gods plan.

So yeah their god is effectively taking a first hand approach to breaking down the human genetic makeup. Definitely the Anti-Christ.

I like your way of thinking.

[DWest30]

[quote=Extra Stout;2840584]From conception, the child is a separate human life with its own unique DNA.

I do have a question: what in your mind marks the transition between a fetus being a lump of cells to being a human being and why?
[quote]

I'll give you my answer to that. Viability outside the womb. I'll include in that viability the ability to be kept alive through artificial means. At what exact point this occurs, I dont know. I'll leave that to better minds than mine.

The objective definition of 'life' includes the ability to perpetate itself. It also has other attributes, but the tough part is finding a definition that excludes fire and includes single-cell organisms. Its a pretty thin line.

Having a rational dicussion on this issue is welcome and, considering its gravity, it should continue. What it is, though, is established law that has been upheld in almost every instance. The burden of proof to change that law is now on the pro-life side of the debate. Personally, I wont listen to any argument that boils down to 'sin'. Convince me logically, please.

[Trainwreck2100]

If god created everything and everything is gods plan then god did it.

How many times have we heard "if its meant to be then its meant to be" or "if its not meant to be then its not meant to be" or "well I guess it wasn't in gods plan". Faith removes your ability to act with free will and 99% of the warriors out there feel that nothing is random or spontaneous and its all in gods plan.

So yeah their god is effectively taking a first hand approach to breaking down the human genetic makeup. Definitely the Anti-Christ.

God gave us free will. he has a plan for us, but whether or not we follow it is our choice. So if something random happens maybe you're not following your own vocation

[DWest30]

If god created everything and everything is gods plan then god did it.

How many times have we heard "if its meant to be then its meant to be" or "if its not meant to be then its not meant to be" or "well I guess it wasn't in gods plan". Faith removes your ability to act with free will and 99% of the warriors out there feel that nothing is random or spontaneous and its all in gods plan.

So yeah their god is effectively taking a first hand approach to breaking down the human genetic makeup. Definitely the Anti-Christ.

Exactly. Lets have a nice long conversation about predestination versus free-choice. If 'its all in gods plan', than there is no choice involving either faith or sin! God planned for me to sin. No accountability whatsover, even before God.

[BacktoBasics]

God gave us free will. he has a plan for us, but whether or not we follow it is our choice. So if something random happens maybe you're not following your own vocationWell this is how they should look at it but many don't I'd go so far as to say most don't. Look at their lack of rational thought process. Doing things not based on their own ability to think it out but more on their crutch of faith. Faith based thinking guiding their choices instead of common sense and free will being utilized above and beyond their faith.

[Bartleby]

God gave us free will. he has a plan for us, but whether or not we follow it is our choice. So if something random happens maybe you're not following your own vocation

But because God is not bound by time, God already knows (and in fact has always known) whether or not we will "choose" his plan, so how can it really be considered a free choice?

[ElNono]

God gave us free will. he has a plan for us, but whether or not we follow it is our choice. So if something random happens maybe you're not following your own vocation

Why would god gives us free will if he wanted us to follow his plan for us? I mean, if his will for humans was that we can make a choice to follow his plan or not, aren't we fulfilling his will no matter what choice we make?

[Trainwreck2100]

But because God is not bound by time, God already knows (and in fact has always known) whether or not we will "choose" his plan, so how can it really be considered a free choice?

god knows what we'll choose, but he doesn't make us choose it.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

From conception, the child is a separate human life with its own unique DNA. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but this reads like a circular argument. You're supporting the presumption that life begins at conception by stating it is a separate human life. This would appear to me a "it is because it is" argument. Nearly all our cells contain DNA. What, then makes a fetus more of a "life" than a severed finger?
If I consider a fetus a human being (which I do) then it is not arrogance to oppose killing that fetus. It is moral consistency. I do not believe that I have to wait for a consensus in order to have strong moral beliefs. I do have to wait for some kind of a consensus in order to effect real change. Certainly no one has to have any kind of consensus to hold personal moral beliefs. My reference to arrogance is not referring to consistency, but in the fact that some claim to "know" the stage when life originates in the process and would use such belief to impose law and consequence upon others. Criminalizing people based on belief in lieu of facts is a slippery slope.
I do have a question: what in your mind marks the transition between a fetus being a lump of cells to being a human being and why? The truthful answer is that this is a question I regularly revisit. My current personal reasoning that I have held for several years is that it makes such a transition when the fetus is able to survive absent of the mother and be "born." However, I would not criminalize someone based on this personal conclusion.
Stem cell research at least has protecting life through better medicine as its purpose. If we can get the same quality of research through things like adult stem cells, then we should do that instead. Otherwise, it is a gray area on which I do not feel as strongly. With all due respect to your ability to see the shades of gray in this area, I have to say that I find this contradictory to the moral consistency and conviction you mentioned previously.
With rape and incest, I do not want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Ideally I would want abortion to go away in those instances too, but let's deal first with the 99% of abortions that don't involve those situations. Again, I commend you for seeing the bigger picture, but again, this would seem to contradict the consistency statement. Also your 99% isn't accurate. By defining life at moment-of-conception, you are including morning after pill patients as effectively committing abortion. I assure you, that if morning-after pill recipients are to be included, the number is far below 99%. You'd be criminalizing every women who took a rape kit and a morning after pill.
I'd say its more of a symbiotic relationship, the mother feeds the fetus and the fetus propagates the species I take your point, but the fetus is a true parasite on the mother's body by any medical definition. You are applying a social symbiotic relationship, not a medical one.

[BacktoBasics]

god knows what we'll choose, but he doesn't make us choose it.
If thats true then his plan is for you to completely abandon all rational thought and common sense to follow his word?

You just supported my Anti-Christ theory.

[Trainwreck2100]

If thats true then his plan is for you to completely abandon all rational thought and common sense to follow his word?

You just supported my Anti-Christ theory.

I don't believe just in the Word of God

[LnGrrrR]

If we're going to go down the "God's choice that we can ignore" path, then I want to let you all know right now that I'm omniscient as well. In fact, I can predict the path of life for EVERY ONE of you.

Of course, if exactly what I said doesn't happen, then you took a wrong path.

Let's just take the easy shortcut and point out that it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for God to be both omniscient and omnipotent. If God sees a future, a DEFINITE future, then it must be impossible to change that future. If God is able to change that future, then he can not be omniscient in regards to the future.

Or, to sum it up, God is unable to change his own future if he knows about it ahead of time.

[JoeChalupa]

I believe in voting for the candidate of your choice. The time is now!!

[Trainwreck2100]

If we're going to go down the "God's choice that we can ignore" path, then I want to let you all know right now that I'm omniscient as well. In fact, I can predict the path of life for EVERY ONE of you.

Of course, it exactly what I said doesn't happen, then you took a wrong path.

Let's just take the easy shortcut and point out that it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for God to be both omniscient and omnipotent. if god sees a future, a DEFINITE future, then it must be impossible to change that future. If God is able to change that future, then he can not be omniscient in regards to the future.

Or, to sum it up, God is unable to change his own future if he knows about it ahead of time.

Time is a human concept, how do we know whether of not for God time is then now and tomorrow, but all at once.

[BacktoBasics]

I don't believe just in the Word of God
Then you would be the exception to many.

[tp2021]

I do have a question: what in your mind marks the transition between a fetus being a lump of cells to being a human being and why?
I believe it is when the brain begins functioning, after about 6 weeks.

Here's a contrary Christian take I found, hopefully sparking debate. This place needs it. :p:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/q-life019.html

[Extra Stout]

The excerpts I'm posting are from acknowledged historians Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier with more years research on this subject than you and I have probably been alive.

Doherty’s argument from silence is striking. While I was attending Catholic high school ... dead people walked around the town. But no one wrote about this for 40 years. Or imagine Michael Jordan dazzling the basketball world for years, but no one writing about it . . . for 40 years.
What was the purpose of writing down the Gospels versus writing the epistles? Paul wrote epistles to churches because he could not be there in person, either because he was travelling elsewhere or because he was in prison. The primary method of teaching in the early church was oral, which makes sense, since everyday people would not have their own books like we do today. The purpose of writing the Gospels was that the apostles were growing old, and their accounts needed to be written down so their teaching could continue. So it makes sense that the epistles were written down first, and that they would deal more with specific issues in the churches than with systematic theology.

The Gospels themselves state than even despite the miracles, when Jesus started talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, most people washed their hands of him, and then when he was arrested and crucified, they figured him to be a fraud, mocked him, spat on him. Why would the historians write about him further? Because there was an earthquake in a fault zone? Because some commoners thought that they saw dead Uncle Yitzhak walking around?

The evidence is that a fellowship of his followers persisted and grew. A legend does not appear out of thin air in 40 years. Whatever they thought they saw happened, they believed in.

Your dating on the Gospels is a bit late. John is from about A.D. 90. The date for Mark has been pushed up as early as the destruction of the temple in 70, and it stops there only because critical scholars don't believe Jesus could have prophecied its destruction. There is a fragment in the caves at Qumran that appears to be from Mark, which could be dated A.D. 68, but this is not certain.

And I'll see your Michael Jordan and raise you an Elgin Baylor (who did great things on the court which are largely forgotten).


I find these discussions of Doherty and Carrier to be fascinating. In fact, these sorts of discussions should really be one of the starting points for any thoughtful Christian’s education. Shouldn’t anyone who wants to follow the truth consider even those things that might appear inconvenient or even hostile to those beliefs? In the same vein, shouldn’t those who want to use the Bible itself as the starting point for their beliefs, consider the origin of the Bible writings, including the undeniable fact that numerous biblical writings have been tampered with over the years?
The evidence of tampering would be why I prefer the Alexandrian family of manuscripts to the Byzantine, and why most modern translations use the Alexandrian critical text as the basis for Greek translation.


I’m not disparaging the teachings of Jesus. Many of those teachings are challenging, humanitarian, even revolutionary. We don’t need to believe in a flesh and blood Jesus in order to find value in those teachings that have value, right? Nor do we need to believe in a physical reality of Atticus Finch to be inspired by the kind of man he was portrayed to be. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am raising the issue of the existence of a flesh and blood Jesus, but not contesting that many of his teaching were inspirational.
Christian moral philosophy is great. It laid the basis for most of the notions of human rights we take for granted as true. I hope we can hold that in common. But moral philosophy is not the same thing as faith, and my reading of the text is not just "do these things" but rather "you need Me in order to do these things."


But I also think that beliefs should always be thoughtful, striving, humble and willing to consider all serious opposing views and consider where and when they don’t know what they don’t know.
I have no problem with epistemic humility, but I am still going to be vigorous in my apologetics. I don't believe that Cartesian certainty has anything to do with faith. Rather than certainty, what I have is trust. Sometimes in real life you still choose to trust in people even when you have doubts.


I would just end this diatribe in asking what do you honestly believe is more likely given the facts we know? I'd wager if most people knew the facts about the origins of the Bible and Jesus we'd have a lot less Christians in this world.
I believe N.T. Wright's treatise on the matter captures the available evidence best and concludes that the resurrection is historical.

I think the Western mind is predisposed to reduce something like faith to a set of facts, so that when a text like the Bible fails to be systematic according to modern standards, sometimes the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

I wonder if your Catholic upbringing was like some of my wife's aunts, where the teachers just drilled dogma into your head and allowed no questions. That made them doubt for a while too when they gained the freedom to learn for themselves.

[Satan]

This thread makes my day!!

[LnGrrrR]

Time is a human concept, how do we know whether of not for God time is then now and tomorrow, but all at once.

Hence, why I said LOGICALLY impossible. If you want to say that God is "beyond our comprehension" or whatever, feel free. I obviously won't be able to argue against something that is an illogical (or alogical) position.

[DWest30]

Show of hands: who thought a thread about who to vote for would end up being a philosophical discussion on that nature of God?

[Findog]

Show of hands: who thought a thread about who to vote for would end up being a philosophical discussion on that nature of God?

I came for the Anti Christ jokes, I stayed for the metaphysical debate!

[ElNono]

Time is a human concept, how do we know whether of not for God time is then now and tomorrow, but all at once.

O RLY? Do you have evidence of that, or just guessing?

[romad_20]

Show of hands: who thought a thread about who to vote for would end up being a philosophical discussion on that nature of God?


It was so much more fun when we were just making fun of the fact that people actually believe Obama might be the Anti-Christ. Philosophical discussion of God is sooooo old news.

[lurker23]

A lot of good stuff in this thread. I don't want to get into all the gory details of the arguments that have been presented, but I figured I'd make a few general points. I'll preface it by saying I am a person of faith, and so that is the world view I come in with, and am not a completely objective observer (of course, I doubt any of us really are, despite our best efforts).

*I wish more people would be respectful and tolerant of others' religious beliefs. However, I fully understand not being tolerant of religious extremism in all its forms. My general thought that covers most of these situations is this: Faith that gives people hope, compassion, and optimism is generally a good thing. Religion that causes intolerance, closed-mindedness, and paranoia is generally a bad thing. Obviously many subjects are much more nuanced than this, but as a general rule, I think this covers a lot of what creates clashes between religious and non-religious groups, as well as many accusations of hypocrisy.

*In addition to being a person of faith, there was also an extended period of time when biology was my major focus of study in a university. Despite this background, I often tell people that I still don't know "when life begins," and I doubt I ever will. So, I agree with MaryAnnKilledGinger in this regard, in that there is no way that anyone "knows for sure" about when life begins. You are entitled to your opinion on it, and I respect that opinion, but please realize that others' opinions are usually just as valid and well-thought-out as yours, even if they disagree with you.

*Finally, I'd like to say welcome to all the new people to the board! I hope all of you stick around and give the board a try, as it has an active community and a lot to offer. This especially goes to people who are interested in basketball or sports, as that is what a lot of this board is devoted to. Even if you're not a Spurs fan, you're more than welcome to join in our discussions about the NBA; we have a lot of non-Spurs fans here, so you should feel welcome.

[tp2021]

Manu doesn't believe in God thread
Angel is suspicious that Obama is the Anti-Christ thread

These are good times at ST.
These 2 might be my favorite threads since the Spork thread!
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86790&highlight=Face+spork+fans
I also enjoyed the Unpopular Opinion thread.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101540&highlight=unpopular+opinion

Thank you, ST. :toast

[angel_luv]

Be careful with that religious stuff. There is not only one way to the promised land.

Thank you for phrasing that, that way! That illustrates what I feel is so dangerous about Senator Obama.
He strives to incorporate religions as one, as shown on the video.


Angel_luv, I wonder what you think of this speech of Obama on the topic of religion
(http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1358313999/bclid933143286/bctid416343938)
It may increase or decrease your concern.

The one world religion is something I have always believed is going to be a pet tatic of the Anti Christ and so Senator Obama's tendency to subscribe to " all religions are the same" type thinking is what red flagged me.

My problem yesterday was that I focused on establishing and ended up rehashing the fact that I do not trust Obama farther than I can throw him,but gave no reason why.
I can see how that was counterproductive and why so many of you found that intolerable.


Senator Obama may not be the actual Anti Christ.
But I believe it is important to take a strong stance against his "all in on; all is okay" attitude because if people will accept it in part from Obama, they will all the more easily accept the whole lie when the actual AntiChrist comes on the scene.

After reflecting, I still don't trust Obama.

I still will not vote for him.
And I am still going to proceed cautiously in all that concerns him- will listen carefully to his speeches and am interested to learn his policy proposals with interest.

While this was not my best thread, debate argument wise, I do not regret having posted because it was worth it to help facilitate important discussion and raise awareness.


Most importantly, I absolutely stand by all I said about the world needing Jesus and that Jesus Christ is the ONE and ONLY way to salvation.

[Findog]

Goddamn idiots who think they're smart are fucking annoying.

Ahem:


McCain will win. Landslide.
Over 300 Electoral Votes.
More votes than Bush.
Obama will get fewer than Kerry.
NY goes to McCain.
Penn goes to McCain.
NH goes to McCain.
Minn goes to McCain(it's in the 270 thread and trending).
WI goes to McCain.

Nobody named Hussein will ever be elected President of this country.

[tp2021]

The one world religion is something I have always believed is going to be a pet tatic of the Anti Christ and so Senator Obama's tendency to subscribe to " all religions are the same" type thinking is what red flagged me.Would it bother you if he said 1)"All religions are equal?" or 2)"As President, I will treat all religions as equal?"

[AntiChrist]

I still will not vote for him.
And I am still going to proceed cautiously in all that concerns him- will listen carefully to his speeches and am interested to learn his policy proposals with interest.


Why Angel? Why?


I need your vote.


Go see my good friends at ACORN. They'll set you up with a few hundred votes.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

But I believe it is important to take a strong stance against his "all in on; all is okay" attitude because if people will accept it in part from Obama, they will all the more easily accept the whole lie when the actual AntiChrist comes on the scene.

I'm going to regret this.

So, are you saying that you are suspicious of Obama for trying to unite a bitterly divided and partisan country? And we should be suspicious of anyone who tries to unite us and have us seek common ground with one another?

I can understand (well, almost) why you might take this view in your place of worship, but how, from a civil perspective, would you have someone lead such a diverse country as ours if not by attempting to unite us to one American cause?

[Extra Stout]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but this reads like a circular argument. You're supporting the presumption that life begins at conception by stating it is a separate human life. This would appear to me a "it is because it is" argument. Nearly all our cells contain DNA. What, then makes a fetus more of a "life" than a severed finger?
The fetus has unique DNA different from that of the mother. It is a separate organism. The skin on your finger has your DNA. A zygote is not just a collection of cells like a polyp. It grows into what we all easily recognize as a separate person.


Certainly no one has to have any kind of consensus to hold personal moral beliefs. My reference to arrogance is not referring to consistency, but in the fact that some claim to "know" the stage when life originates in the process and would use such belief to impose law and consequence upon others. Criminalizing people based on belief in lieu of facts is a slippery slope.
As I've already stated, my goal is to stop abortions from happening. The goal is not to criminalize the act. The goal is not to punish women. I live in the real world. I'm not interested in being a judge. I want society to place a priority on protecting and advancing life.


The truthful answer is that this is a question I regularly revisit. My current personal reasoning that I have held for several years is that it makes such a transition when the fetus is able to survive absent of the mother and be "born." However, I would not criminalize someone based on this personal conclusion.
The infant does not cease to be physically dependent on the mother when it is born, so in my opinion that distinction is arbitrary.


With all due respect to your ability to see the shades of gray in this area, I have to say that I find this contradictory to the moral consistency and conviction you mentioned previously.
Remember that for the purposes of public policy, I am looking for a society that protects and advances life. Stem cell research protects and advances life. Not killing embryos protects and advances life. So both sides have a claim on upholding that basic philosophy. So being dogmatic here is not as conclusive.


Again, I commend you for seeing the bigger picture, but again, this would seem to contradict the consistency statement. Also your 99% isn't accurate. By defining life at moment-of-conception, you are including morning after pill patients as effectively committing abortion. I assure you, that if morning-after pill recipients are to be included, the number is far below 99%. You'd be criminalizing every women who took a rape kit and a morning after pill. I take your point, but the fetus is a true parasite on the mother's body by any medical definition. You are applying a social symbiotic relationship, not a medical one.
The most current research I have read said that EC's work by preventing ovulation rather than implementation.

I think I am saying for the third or fourth time that I do want to criminalize anybody. I want abortions not to happen. If education and social services to women cut the number from 1.2 million to 600,000, I'll take it. If there's another step that can cut that to 300,000, I'd be for that. If I can't get that, then at least that's 600,000 fewer violent acts per year. I'm not going to stand with my arms crossed waiting for an all-or-nothing ban and throw women in prison so I can be content in my flawless moral thinking. What does that accomplish? Pragmatism is the way to go here. If there is something your side and my side agree on doing that reduces the number of abortions, I would want to cooperate with you, without giving up my moral conviction that I wish there were zero.

[nkdlunch]

I thought stupidity had limits. I guess I was wrong.

[DWest30]

The one world religion is something I have always believed is going to be a pet tatic of the Anti Christ and so Senator Obama's tendency to subscribe to " all religions are the same" type thinking is what red flagged me.

With all due respect, he is running for President, not Pope. He will be representing an increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-religious population. With that in mind, no religion has ever been proven to be the 'correct' religion. As the leader of an earth-bound institution, the laws must apply and protect everyone equally. The only way to do that is to be nuetral to matters of faith, approving none and condemning none. Hence the 'separation of church and state'.

So, for the leader of a secular government, he has no reasonable choice but to treat all religions the same in the eyes of the law.

[Findog]

I'm going to regret this.

So, are you saying that you are suspicious of Obama for trying to unite a bitterly divided and partisan country? And we should be suspicious of anyone who tries to unite us and have us seek common ground with one another?

I can understand (well, almost) why you might take this view in your place of worship, but how, from a civil perspective, would you have someone lead such a diverse country as ours if not by attempting to unite us to one American cause?

Sorry for the double post, but the first attempt messed up the formatting on the page.

[Findog]

I'm going to regret this.

So, are you saying that you are suspicious of Obama for trying to unite a bitterly divided and partisan country? And we should be suspicious of anyone who tries to unite us and have us seek common ground with one another?

I can understand (well, almost) why you might take this view in your place of worship, but how, from a civil perspective, would you have someone lead such a diverse country as ours if not by attempting to unite us to one American cause?

Basically, the Anti Christ will supposedly be smart, charismatic and handsome, but he WON'T be a Republican:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/ronaldreagan.jpeg

http://suburbanconservative.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/rt_mitt_romney_070425_ms.jpg

[JoeChalupa]

Ahem:

:lmao

[hater]

Thank you for phrasing that, that way! That illustrates what I feel is so dangerous about Senator Obama.
He strives to incorporate religions as one, as shown on the video.



The one world religion is something I have always believed is going to be a pet tatic of the Anti Christ and so Senator Obama's tendency to subscribe to " all religions are the same" type thinking is what red flagged me.

My problem yesterday was that I focused on establishing and ended up rehashing the fact that I do not trust Obama farther than I can throw him,but gave no reason why.
I can see how that was counterproductive and why so many of you found that intolerable.


Senator Obama may not be the actual Anti Christ.
But I believe it is important to take a strong stance against his "all in on; all is okay" attitude because if people will accept it in part from Obama, they will all the more easily accept the whole lie when the actual AntiChrist comes on the scene.

After reflecting, I still don't trust Obama.

I still will not vote for him.
And I am still going to proceed cautiously in all that concerns him- will listen carefully to his speeches and am interested to learn his policy proposals with interest.

While this was not my best thread, debate argument wise, I do not regret having posted because it was worth it to help facilitate important discussion and raise awareness.


Most importantly, I absolutely stand by all I said about the world needing Jesus and that Jesus Christ is the ONE and ONLY way to salvation.


you do realize its a job Obama is applying to right? He is not running to be head priest of the country. He is applying to run the country.

It is illegal to discriminate somebody applying for a job based on his/her race, religion or phylosophical thoughts.

I am pretty sure it is illegal to discriminate an applicant for beleiving he is the antichrist as well.

You are basically going against everything this country stands for.

If you were a boss interviewing somebody for the job and denied him because of those reasons, you are breaking the law.

Newsflash. You live in a country where there is freedom of religion.

Advice. If you are really looking for an antichrist in the USA, look for someone that will be in the supreme court.

[2centsworth]

Why Angel? Why?


I need your vote.


Go see my good friends at ACORN. They'll set you up with a few hundred votes.

:lmao

[JoeChalupa]

This kind of discussion happens all the time.

[hater]

Even if Obama was an open satan worshiper, I'd still pick him over Palin/Mccain

[AntiChrist]

Angel food cake?

http://cookies-n-cakes.com/wp-content/gallery/cakes/angel-food-cake.jpg

or

Obama's food cake?
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/recipes/1125001180_old-fashioned-devils-food-cake-recipe.jpg


Discuss.



Obama's food cake black by accident? I think we all know the answer.

[01.20.09]

I'd rather have some of that Palin pie.

[tp2021]

I'd rather have some of that Palin pie.

+69

[MannyIsGod]

Veronica,

I basically think that you are cherry picking what you see out of Senator Obama in ways to substantiate your feelings. I wonder if you have scrutinized the things John McCain has said in the same manner you have with regards to Barack Obama. Early on in this thread you asked for proof of Obama's christianity and such proof has been provided to you.

I wonder why it is exactly you distrust him and I come to my own conclusions because you're not able to substantiate your feelings. Obama is a christian and this has been proven time and time again. While you take others words for it (like your boyfriend) you refuse to acknowledge the same in the Senator even when presented with several items of proof. You simply keep moving the goalposts in order for the current situatoin to fit what you want to view.

I don't doubt for one second that you won't cast a vote for Senator Obama. But where you see a gut feeling I see a psycological and sociological fear based upon teh color of the mans skin. And while you make think I'm calling you a racisist - and I may very well be although I don't mean it in the same sense as someone who is a memeber of the KKK - I feel as though this is a basic fear that many people have. I do not think it is possible for society to paint the black man as a phsyically strong, larger, intimidating figure who commits more crimes than the smaller, smarter, more noble white man and for there not to be an effect on the subcouncious of society.

I know its a horrible thing to consider being racisist, but the truth is that the vast majority of us associate black men with pretty negative traits until proven otherwise. When you're unable to substantiate your feelings of fear for the black candidate this is where I come back to. I come back to a way I can substantiate it for you because even for someone of your belief system feeling that Barack Obama has even the slightest chance to be the Anti-Christ is a fringe belief and should in no way - in my opinion (although I'm pretty sure in most others as well - be the main deturrent in how you decide your vote.

You admitidly acknowledge that your thought process here is not based on rational though and I have to admit that troubles me because I'm fairly certain that you believe God gave us our minds and our brains in order to use them to make the appropriate decisions when weighing all things equally and I don't believe thats something you've done in this case. And while I am a hardcore Obama supporter, I promise you I would be saying the same things (although I woudln't have a reason for why you thought it) if you believed Senator McCain to possibly be the AntiChrist.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

The fetus has unique DNA different from that of the mother. It is a separate organism. The skin on your finger has your DNA. A zygote is not just a collection of cells like a polyp. It grows into what we all easily recognize as a separate person.

So, it would be fair to say that you believe life is created at some point between cortical reaction and mitosis? Or do you use embryo implantation as the standard? Given the state of science today this would have implications for parents using modern fertilization methods that keep fertilized emrbyos in status or discard them, wouldn't it?


As I've already stated, my goal is to stop abortions from happening. The goal is not to criminalize the act. The goal is not to punish women. I live in the real world. I'm not interested in being a judge. I want society to place a priority on protecting and advancing life.

You questioned that I used the word arrogance in relation to your moral consistency. I was merely pointing out that I didn't use the word arrogance to characterize your consistency. I am not attacking your motives of social responsibility which I agree with. However, since you had mentioned consistency, I brought it up where I felt (and still feel) your beliefs contradict themselves. Please understand, I commend you for applying practicality to your personal belief system, I just pointed it out for debate's sake.


The infant does not cease to be physically dependent on the mother when it is born, so in my opinion that distinction is arbitrary.

You are applying a social standard to a matter of biology. Many babies have survived without mothers, although mothers certainly increase the odds. However, I do not necessarily refer to birth as passing through the birth canal. I believe life occurs when the entity can survive outside the mother's body and sustain it's own functions (breathing, taking in food, etc). The exact moment when this happens is not arbitrary, but as it is likely different for each case, it would certainly be tricky to legally define.


The most current research I have read said that EC's work by preventing ovulation rather than implementation.

This varies case to case and given how things happen in that 72 hour window often there is no way to know. ECs are believed to operate before, during, or immediately after fertilization, but, in most cases prior to implantation. I know a lot of people look at rape as an excuse for abortion, but 1 in 6 women in the US are likely to experience a rape or sexual assault (the estimated number is much larger) and approximately 5% of female rape victims become pregnant.

I appreciate your goal is not to criminalize. But when people start talking about selecting politicians based on how they will further a pro-life agenda (and cite it as their main concern), this is the kind of fine print that makes people like me want to keep the choice between a woman and her physician. Period.

[LnGrrrR]

Wait, Angel_Luv, does this mean you'd feel BETTER about him running for President if he said, "America, I'm here to tell you that the only true God is the Christian God. And if you don't like that, you're going to burn in hell.

PS. I'm not the Antichrist."

And, as has been said before... will VOTING for OBama turn him into the AntiChrist? I'm pretty sure that if Obama is the antichrist, voting for/against him will not undo that fact lol.

I mean, your logic is like if I said I was pretty sure that 2+2=5, then everyone gave cogent answers and proofs on why 2+2=4, and I responded with, "Yeah, thanks for all the evidence, but I'm still going to believe 2+2=5."

[hater]

I mean, your logic is like if I said I was pretty sure that 2+2=5, then everyone gave cogent answers and proofs on why 2+2=4, and I responded with, "Yeah, thanks for all the evidence, but I'm still going to believe 2+2=5."

pretty much. I beleive it's just due to limited intelligence unfortunately.

[BacktoBasics]

I mean, your logic is like if I said I was pretty sure that 2+2=5, then everyone gave cogent answers and proofs on why 2+2=4, and I responded with, "Yeah, thanks for all the evidence, but I'm still going to believe 2+2=5."
I presented that logic pages ago and it fell on deaf ears. If this discussion was about anything other than god warrioring she'd be considered insane and her friends and family would seek help but because its about god it can't possibly be bad.

[Extra Stout]

If we're going to go down the "God's choice that we can ignore" path, then I want to let you all know right now that I'm omniscient as well. In fact, I can predict the path of life for EVERY ONE of you.

Of course, if exactly what I said doesn't happen, then you took a wrong path.

Let's just take the easy shortcut and point out that it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for God to be both omniscient and omnipotent. If God sees a future, a DEFINITE future, then it must be impossible to change that future. If God is able to change that future, then he can not be omniscient in regards to the future.

Or, to sum it up, God is unable to change his own future if he knows about it ahead of time.

If God is God, then he is a first cause. If he is a first cause, then there is nothing that comes before him. If nothing comes before him, then time cannot come before him. If God comes before time, then he is not necessarily subject to it.

We define causality in terms of causes coming before effects. To say that a cause comes before an effect is to make a statement in time. If God is not subject to time, then a statement in time does not necessarily apply to him.

If God is a first cause, then all other things are effects of that cause. But if statements in time do not apply to time, then we cannot conclude that effects come after his causation in time. Ergo, temporal causality does not apply to God.

If temporal causality does not apply to God, then the effects of his causation can be in the past, present, or future.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

If God is God, then he is a first cause. If he is a first cause, then there is nothing that comes before him. If nothing comes before him, then time cannot come before him. If God comes before time, then he is not necessarily subject to it.

God cheats at solitaire.

[angel_luv]

Would it bother you if he said 1)"All religions are equal?" or 2)"As President, I will treat all religions as equal?"




You asked me a political question.


My fear is that it is a downward slope we are heading down- that it will go from:
Step one: all religions have equal rights ( everyone having a choice to worship as they will),

- that is where we are now in America & as God Himself gave all men free will, I cannot begrudge anyone that, even as I hope and pray that everyone chooses Jesus.

The concern I have is that America seems to be trying to transition into step two- the beginning of a downward spiral.

to Step two:all religions being categorized as the same.

- I feel Senator Obama already began this with the speech of his that was posted. His saying that we are no longer a Christian nation, but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation.
I feel like we are being conditioned now for things to be implemented later.
( Finish reading my post)

to Step three: A one world faith as an ideal

I think if you try to combine religions committed Muslims and Jews are going to have a problem with it along with committed Christians.
Those committed understand that like oil and water, religions don't mix.

Therefore, faith as an ideal is not going to work thus ushering in...

to Step four: a one world faith as a requirement.

It could take years for all these steps to happen- which is even more dangerous I think because people will find themselves in the midst of step four without realizing how it happened to them.

[TheMadHatter]

What was the purpose of writing down the Gospels versus writing the epistles? Paul wrote epistles to churches because he could not be there in person, either because he was travelling elsewhere or because he was in prison. The primary method of teaching in the early church was oral, which makes sense, since everyday people would not have their own books like we do today. The purpose of writing the Gospels was that the apostles were growing old, and their accounts needed to be written down so their teaching could continue. So it makes sense that the epistles were written down first, and that they would deal more with specific issues in the churches than with systematic theology.

The Gospels themselves state than even despite the miracles, when Jesus started talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, most people washed their hands of him, and then when he was arrested and crucified, they figured him to be a fraud, mocked him, spat on him. Why would the historians write about him further? Because there was an earthquake in a fault zone? Because some commoners thought that they saw dead Uncle Yitzhak walking around?

The evidence is that a fellowship of his followers persisted and grew. A legend does not appear out of thin air in 40 years. Whatever they thought they saw happened, they believed in.

Your dating on the Gospels is a bit late. John is from about A.D. 90. The date for Mark has been pushed up as early as the destruction of the temple in 70, and it stops there only because critical scholars don't believe Jesus could have prophecied its destruction. There is a fragment in the caves at Qumran that appears to be from Mark, which could be dated A.D. 68, but this is not certain.

And I'll see your Michael Jordan and raise you an Elgin Baylor (who did great things on the court which are largely forgotten).


The evidence of tampering would be why I prefer the Alexandrian family of manuscripts to the Byzantine, and why most modern translations use the Alexandrian critical text as the basis for Greek translation.


Christian moral philosophy is great. It laid the basis for most of the notions of human rights we take for granted as true. I hope we can hold that in common. But moral philosophy is not the same thing as faith, and my reading of the text is not just "do these things" but rather "you need Me in order to do these things."


I have no problem with epistemic humility, but I am still going to be vigorous in my apologetics. I don't believe that Cartesian certainty has anything to do with faith. Rather than certainty, what I have is trust. Sometimes in real life you still choose to trust in people even when you have doubts.


I believe N.T. Wright's treatise on the matter captures the available evidence best and concludes that the resurrection is historical.

I think the Western mind is predisposed to reduce something like faith to a set of facts, so that when a text like the Bible fails to be systematic according to modern standards, sometimes the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

I wonder if your Catholic upbringing was like some of my wife's aunts, where the teachers just drilled dogma into your head and allowed no questions. That made them doubt for a while too when they gained the freedom to learn for themselves.

Isn't it funny how in Paul's epistles or in any of the early Christian texts nobody mentions anything about Jesus's birth, resurrection, miracles, etc? I mean this is a man who supposedly walked on water, turned water into wine, dazzled crowds with his magic, and yet we have absolutely no record of it until nearly 40 full years after his death. Don't you think his earliest followers would have thought it important to mention SOMETHING about this historical man named Jesus who apparently existed in their lifetimes? NONE of the early Christian writings make any reference to the kind of Jesus that is now portrayed in the New Testament Gospels. That is indisputable fact, we don't start hearing about Jesus the way he is thought of today until the NT Gospels came about.

Again no respectable historian can argue definitively the resurrection ever took place as the only evidence to support it exists in the NT Gospels, which we know to be fabricated in many instances. If we can't even argue that Jesus existed historically, it logically follows that we can't say anything definitively about his supposed resurrection. Furthermore the conflicting stories WITHIN the Gospels about the ascension of Christ make it even more baffling that someone with a functioning brain would believe them. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove to ME that Jesus really lived, died, and was resurrected. You need to make a convincing argument to me that all of this really happened before I ever consider the Christian faith.

The bottomline is that you CAN'T. You can't explain what you believe rationally, in order to rationalize Christianity one must make so many ad hoc assumptions that it puts into question your mental health. So quit hiding behind "historical" facts which simply do not exist about your religion. It is just as likely, if not more, that everything you believe about Jesus was completely fabricated by the NT Gospel writers and that the followers of Jesus, if they existed, died out early on and took his real faith with them.

I'm so glad this thread came about and forced me to do this research. So many things we just accept about Christianity today simply aren't true. The historical evidence and proof just isn't there, when it comes down to it the story of Jesus is as ridiculous to believe as the Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic faiths are.

[angel_luv]

I'm going to regret this.

So, are you saying that you are suspicious of Obama for trying to unite a bitterly divided and partisan country? And we should be suspicious of anyone who tries to unite us and have us seek common ground with one another?

I can understand (well, almost) why you might take this view in your place of worship, but how, from a civil perspective, would you have someone lead such a diverse country as ours if not by attempting to unite us to one American cause?

As a Christian, I believe there is one way we should all be united in following and that is Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul said it best when he said, " Follow me as I follow Christ." ( 1 Corinthians 11:1)

I would love it if the whole country united under obedience to Jesus and the Bible.

An attempt at lasting peace through any means other than Jesus is going to ultimately fail and that is why I am against, on all points, looking to anyone else first.

[Findog]

http://www.stlouisreview.com/article.php?id=16247


Judgment Day is on its way. For many, this coming election may very well be judgment day, for this election will measure us. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells us in 10:32-33: "Everyone who acknowledges Me before others, I will acknowledge before My heavenly Father. But whoever denies Me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father."

Judgment Day is on its way. When my time comes, I will be measured by my Savior for the decisions I have made. I will either be acknowledged by Jesus or denied by Him in the presence of our heavenly Father. The question I need to ask myself is this: What kind of witness will I give to Him when I go into the voting booth this election day?

The decision I make in the voting booth will reflect my value system. If I value the good of the economy and my current lifestyle more than I do the right to life itself, then I am in trouble. Pope John Paul II, in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation Christi fideles laici tells us: "Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination."

The right of our children to be protected from destruction is greater than my right to a thriving economy. I am living proof of this, since I am here because my parents believed this priority and lived it. My desire for a good economy cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion. My desire to end the war in Iraq cannot justify my voting to remove all current restrictions on abortion.

[G.Q.]

Who cares....Obama has style!

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.styledash.com/media/2008/01/barackobama.jpg

[hater]

As a Christian, I believe there is one way we should all be united in following and that is Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul said it best when he said, " Follow me as I follow Christ."

I would love it if the whole country united under obedience to Jesus and the Bible.

An attempt at lasting peace through any means other than Jesus is going to ultimately fail and that is why I am against, on all points, looking to anyone else first.

you do realize there's millions of Muslims, Buddhist, Hinduist which are all american citizens and have as much rights as you right?

they don't follow Jesus and never will. and their children never will either.

what do you propose we do with them?

[Findog]

what do you propose we do with them?

In her world view, convert to Christianity or perish. You're either "with us" or you're "with them."

[Trainwreck2100]

you do realize there's millions of Muslims, Buddhist, Hinduist which are all american citizens and have as much rights as you right?

they don't follow Jesus and never will. and their children never will either.

what do you propose we do with them?

Hire them to answer phones for customer service issues

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

As a Christian, I believe there is one way we should all be united in following and that is Jesus Christ.

The Apostle Paul said it best when he said, " Follow me as I follow Christ." ( 1 Corinthians 11:1)

I would love it if the whole country united under obedience to Jesus and the Bible.

An attempt at lasting peace through any means other than Jesus is going to ultimately fail and that is why I am against, on all points, looking to anyone else first.

Is there any American politician, past or present who fits this criteria of achieving this in your estimation?

[JoeChalupa]

I never question another person's religious beliefs nor do I hold it against them if they are not a "Christian". I believe and let others believe or not to believe.

[nkdlunch]

I never question another person's religious beliefs nor do I hold it against them if they are not a "Christian". I believe and let others believe or not to believe.

that is not the point. She is saying that only lead by a true christian president will this country prosper. Led by any other leader from other religions, and this country will go to chaos. Not only chaos, but end of the world.

do you agree with her?

Scare tactics at it's finest. Mcain campaign should definitely hire her right away.

[DWest30]

You asked me a political question.


My fear is that it is a downward slope we are heading down- that it will go from:
Step one: all religions have equal rights ( everyone having a choice to worship as they will),

- that is where we are now in America & as God Himself gave all men free will, I cannot begrudge anyone that, even as I hope and pray that everyone chooses Jesus.

The concern I have is that America seems to be trying to transition into step two- the beginning of a downward spiral.

to Step two:all religions being categorized as the same.

- I feel Senator Obama already began this with the speech of his that was posted. His saying that we are no longer a Christian nation, but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation.
I feel like we are being conditioned now for things to be implemented later.
( Finish reading my post)

to Step three: A one world faith as an ideal

I think if you try to combine religions committed Muslims and Jews are going to have a problem with it along with committed Christians.
Those committed understand that like oil and water, religions don't mix.

Therefore, faith as an ideal is not going to work thus ushering in...

to Step four: a one world faith as a requirement.

It could take years for all these steps to happen- which is even more dangerous I think because people will find themselves in the midst of step four without realizing how it happened to them.

My first response to this was "you gotta be kidding me". The likelihood of this even being contemplated is lower than being struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket. But thats unfair and I'll explain.

I beleive your steps one and two are identical and are a distinction without a difference. Please recall that this country was founded on the premise that a national religion is fundamentally inequal and that was burned into the Constitution in the form of the Establishment Clause. To the framers, this wasnt a christian nation any more than it was a hindu nation. It was one nation with the freedom to worship how you see fit. Or, in the alternate, to not worship at all.

Steps 3 and 4 appear to me to be entirely fear-based and would have no traction to you if your own faith wasn't so deep. If your faith is everything to you than any threat to that faith is the most pressing issue in your life. Your concerns about Step one and two have led you to the fear of steps 3 and 4. As a non-christian, I can tell you that I would be manning the barricades right beside you if the things you describe were to come to pass. My relationship with God is my business, not the government's.

[BacktoBasics]

If God is God, then he is a first cause. If he is a first cause, then there is nothing that comes before him. If nothing comes before him, then time cannot come before him. If God comes before time, then he is not necessarily subject to it.

We define causality in terms of causes coming before effects. To say that a cause comes before an effect is to make a statement in time. If God is not subject to time, then a statement in time does not necessarily apply to him.

If God is a first cause, then all other things are effects of that cause. But if statements in time do not apply to time, then we cannot conclude that effects come after his causation in time. Ergo, temporal causality does not apply to God.

If temporal causality does not apply to God, then the effects of his causation can be in the past, present, or future.One coming before the other does not equate to the later not being relative.

[angel_luv]

Manny,

I just wrote a reply to you and lost the whole thing. :pctoss

Let me try again. One second, please.

[DarkReign]

Show of hands: who thought a thread about who to vote for would end up being a philosophical discussion on that nature of God?


Ha...welcome to Spurstalk. You could start a thread about the latest episode of Sponge Bob Squarepants and it would have a 60% chance to end in a conversation just like this one.

[SpursFanFirst]

Damn, MaryAnnKilledGinger with a hard hitting first post.

I'm not sure what is more noteworthy -- that there is a literate Miami Heat fan or this guy may know a way to get rid of Bonner . . .

Welcome :tu

:lmao

Welcome, MaryAnnKilledGinger
Nice first post.

[BacktoBasics]

Ha...welcome to Spurstalk. You could start a thread about the latest episode of Sponge Bob Squarepants and it would have a 60% chance to end in a conversation just like this one.Thats why there are so many members here. BTW I love that cartoon.

[Extra Stout]

Again no respectable historian can argue definitively the resurrection ever took place as the only evidence to support it exists in the NT Gospels, which we know to be fabricated in many instances. If we can't even argue that Jesus existed historically, it logically follows that we can't say anything definitively about his supposed resurrection. Furthermore the conflicting stories WITHIN the Gospels about the ascension of Christ make it even more baffling that someone with a functioning brain would believe them. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove to ME that Jesus really lived, died, and was resurrected. You need to make a convincing argument to me that all of this really happened before I ever consider the Christian faith.

The bottomline is that you CAN'T. You can't explain what you believe rationally, in order to rationalize Christianity one must make so many ad hoc assumptions that it puts into question your mental health. So quit hiding behind "historical" facts which simply do not exist about your religion. It is just as likely, if not more, that everything you believe about Jesus was completely fabricated by the NT Gospel writers and that the followers of Jesus, if they existed, died out early on and took his real faith with them.
One of the earliest Christian writings is Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, composed in the mid-to-late 50's. Chapter 15 reads as follows:


Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
The question I ask is, how can scholars claim that only the Gospels mention the resurrection and that the early epistles do not? Is 1 Corinthians missing from their Bibles? Is it some esoteric, hidden work? How can anybody with a shred of scholarly integrity make that claim when the countervailing evidence is so obvious?

[DWest30]

Ha...welcome to Spurstalk. You could start a thread about the latest episode of Sponge Bob Squarepants and it would have a 60% chance to end in a conversation just like this one.

:lol

I suddenly feel like being a vandal.

Chris Paul is the Second Coming! :)

[Extra Stout]

One coming before the other does not equate to the later not being relative.
If God existed before time, it cannot follow that God must exist in time.

[JoeChalupa]

that is not the point. She is saying that only lead by a true christian president will this country prosper. Led by any other leader from other religions, and this country will go to chaos. Not only chaos, but end of the world.

do you agree with her?

Scare tactics at it's finest. Mcain campaign should definitely hire her right away.

No, I don't agree with that thinking at all.

[TheMadHatter]

One of the earliest Christian writings is Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, composed in the mid-to-late 50's. Chapter 15 reads as follows:


The question I ask is, how can scholars claim that only the Gospels mention the resurrection and that the early epistles do not? Is 1 Corinthians missing from their Bibles? Is it some esoteric, hidden work? How can anybody with a shred of scholarly integrity make that claim when the countervailing evidence is so obvious?

Bullshit. You are a clever one, and if I had not done my research I would have conceded this point to you.



Actually, for quite some time, biblical scholars of all stripes have divided even the Pauline epistles into the "authentic" and the "inauthentic", the litmus test being the "unique and powerful voice" said to speak through the genuine article. Perhaps as few as four, or as many as seven, of the whole collection are deemed "authentic".

Scholars around the world are in agreement that indeed many of the epistles of Paul that Christians cite today have been doctored to support the NT Jesus.

I repeat, the burden of proof is on you....not me.

[Findog]

Chris Paul is the Second Coming! :)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/series?series=dalnor

:bang :bang :bang :bang

[angel_luv]

Manny,

First of all, you do realize I am half black, right?

If TD Jakes, or any candidate with his strong Christian convictions, were to run for president, while sticking to those convictions, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

If said candidate were green, I would vote for him.

I have a problem with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain because neither of them have stood up and consistently said this election, " I am a Christian and this is how my Christianity is going to effect the way I run the country."

My beliefs may not always be popular or even respected but I am always consistent and emphatic in my statements about my beliefs.
As such I have no qualms in seeking the same in the men asking me to elect them president.

You and others have compared the election process to a job interview.
Well I want to elect a sold out Christian as my president and I am within my rights to vote or not vote along those standards.
For someone to attempt to regulate why or how I vote would undermine the whole process.

Unfortunately for me, neither Senator has impressed me. I wish there was a third party candidate with a viable chance of being elected that I could consider voting for.

But since there is not, I have to go with the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

McCain may not stand up for my faith the way I wish he would. But of the two candidates, I think he is least likely to undermine my faith.
How will Senator Obama undermine my faith? I tried to explain it above.
Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.
The fact that people do compare Senator Obama to being a messiah and more so, that I have never heard of him saying, " There is no way I am the Messiah because Jesus is"- again giving credit where credit is due- concerns me as well.
If Senator Obama had said such a thing, my guess is it would have been all over the news.
Since I watch the news and have not heard it, I am assuming no such comment has been made.
If I am wrong, correct me.

Am submitting this before I lose it again.

[CuckingFunt]

God cheats at solitaire.

Second best newbie poster ever.

[Shastafarian]

Manny,

First of all, you do realize I am half black, right?

If TD Jakes, or any candidate with his strong Christian convictions, were to run for president, while sticking to those convictions, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

If said candidate were green, I would vote for him.

I have a problem with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain because neither of them have stood up and consistently said this election, " I am a Christian and this is how my Christianity is going to effect the way I run the country."

My beliefs may not always be popular or even respected but I am always consistent and emphatic in my statements about my beliefs.
As such I have no qualms in seeking the same in the men asking me to elect them president.

You and others have compared the election process to a job interview.
Well I want to elect a sold out Christian as my president and I am within my rights to vote or not vote along those standards.
For someone to attempt to regulate why or how I vote would undermine the whole process.

Unfortunately for me, neither Senator has impressed me. I wish there was a third party candidate with a viable chance of being elected that I could consider voting for.

But since there is not, I have to go with the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

McCain may not stand up for my faith the way I wish he would. But of the two candidates, I think he is least likely to undermine my faith.
How will Senator Obama undermine my faith? I tried to explain it above.
Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.
The fact that people do compare Senator Obama to being a messiah and more so, that I have never heard of him saying, " There is no way I am the Messiah because Jesus is"- again giving credit where credit is due- concerns me as well.
If Senator Obama had said such a thing, my guess is it would have been all over the news.
Since I watch the news and have not heard it, I am assuming no such comment has been made.
If I am wrong, correct me.

Am submitting this before I lose it again.

Those are the juicy parts.

[CuckingFunt]

You asked me a political question.


My fear is that it is a downward slope we are heading down- that it will go from:
Step one: all religions have equal rights ( everyone having a choice to worship as they will),

- that is where we are now in America & as God Himself gave all men free will, I cannot begrudge anyone that, even as I hope and pray that everyone chooses Jesus.

The concern I have is that America seems to be trying to transition into step two- the beginning of a downward spiral.

to Step two:all religions being categorized as the same.

- I feel Senator Obama already began this with the speech of his that was posted. His saying that we are no longer a Christian nation, but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation.
I feel like we are being conditioned now for things to be implemented later.
( Finish reading my post)

to Step three: A one world faith as an ideal

I think if you try to combine religions committed Muslims and Jews are going to have a problem with it along with committed Christians.
Those committed understand that like oil and water, religions don't mix.

Therefore, faith as an ideal is not going to work thus ushering in...

to Step four: a one world faith as a requirement.

It could take years for all these steps to happen- which is even more dangerous I think because people will find themselves in the midst of step four without realizing how it happened to them.

Fuck... seriously?

I don't even know how to argue this because I can't, on any level, relate to the thought process that inspired it.

[Extra Stout]

Bullshit. You are a clever one, and if I had not done my research I would have conceded this point to you.



Scholars around the world are in agreement that indeed many of the epistles of Paul that Christians cite today have been doctored to support the NT Jesus.

I repeat, the burden of proof is on you....not me.
The ones that are most often questioned by some liberal scholars are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus, not 1 Corinthians, which is cited by the earliest patristic sources.

Your remaining argument appears to be that 1 Corinthians cannot truly mention the resurrection because it was interpolated, and it had to have been interpolated because it mentions the resurrection.

[nkdlunch]

Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.

This is a fact and noone with an IQ > 50 should deny it. BTW this nation was founded on freedom of religion. Maybe the USA is not for you?

[angel_luv]

In fairness to you, Manny.

I did not give a reason for my distrust of Obama yesterday as I, obviously, was not able to quantify my feelings in words.

So in that sense I deserve the post from you I just responded to.

However, now that I am able to express my actual concern, I hope you will consider it based on its own merit ( whatever you give it) and take the sum of all I have said into your consideration.

[Extra Stout]

Second best newbie poster ever.
I did enjoy that quip.

[rascal]

But because God is not bound by time, God already knows (and in fact has always known) whether or not we will "choose" his plan, so how can it really be considered a free choice?

Because we chose it with free will. Just because the future is known by God doesn't mean it was not chosen by our free will.

[RandomGuy]

Manny,

First of all, you do realize I am half black, right?

Would that be your left half or your right half?

Or maybe it is a bottom/top half kinda thing...

[DWest30]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/series?series=dalnor

:bang :bang :bang :bang

Youre really going to hate me for this, but....

Scene outside New Orleans Arena after sending the Mavs home. In the full-size version, you can see the Soul Rebels Brass Band in the forground leading the parade.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2154/2472751331_e663056000.jpg

[angel_luv]

This is a fact. BTW this nation was founded on freedom of religion. Maybe the USA is not for you?

As a Christian I am sad that the USA is not a Christian nation but saw no sign that Obama shared any of that concern.

It is my belief that one's faith in Jesus ought to determine one's politics not that politics should define faith.

Senator Obama is not the first (and unfortunately, likely won't be the last) to shy away when a microphone is put underneath his face.

[Shastafarian]

As a Christian I am sad that the USA is not a Christian nation but saw no sign that Obama shared any of that concern.

It is my belief that one's faith in Jesus ought to determine one's politics not that politics should define faith.

Senator Obama is not the first (and unfortunately, likely won't be the last) to shy away when a microphone is put underneath his face.

That's why you scare people.

[CuckingFunt]

Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.

Obama realistically addressing the religious make-up of our diverse country bothers you?

Well... to be honest, it bothers me a bit, too. He forgot Hindu.


The fact that people do compare Senator Obama to being a messiah and more so, that I have never heard of him saying, " There is no way I am the Messiah because Jesus is"- again giving credit where credit is due- concerns me as well.
If Senator Obama had said such a thing, my guess is it would have been all over the news.

Of course it would make the news. The headline would probably read "Illinois Senator Loses Election After Speech Giving Credence To Extremist Claims."

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Manny,

I just wrote a reply to you and lost the whole thing. :pctoss

Let me try again. One second, please.
it's easy. simply reply "get off the race crap!!!"

[DarkReign]

That's more accurately referred to as conviction.

No, its called indoctrination.

Main Entry: in·doc·tri·nate
Pronunciation: \in-ˈdäk-trə-ˌnāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·doc·tri·nat·ed; in·doc·tri·nat·ing
Etymology: probably from Middle English endoctrinen, from Anglo-French endoctriner, from en- + doctrine doctrine
Date: 1626
1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
— in·doc·tri·na·tion \(ˌ)in-ˌdäk-trə-ˈnā-shən\ noun
— in·doc·tri·na·tor \in-ˈdäk-trə-ˌnā-tər\ noun


And again DR, your own acknowledgement of being ignorant and close-minded about Scripture precedes you, and having admitted that, you are certainly among the least qualified in this forum to express an opinion of substance regarding what is written therein.

Oh really, JJ? And in what capacity have you shown open-mindedness in any subject that objects to your worldview? You see, the difference between people like you and people like me, is that in our world there is more than enough room for you.

But in your world, I must accept Jesus to be considered equal in your moral eyes. Sure, you may respect certain portions of m existence, but there will always be that one caveat in the back of your mind that says "Ha, silly heathen. Forgive him, he knows not what he does" or some other condescending shit that youve somehow climbed the "moral ladder" a step or two higher by professing your soul to the Imaginary Man in the Sky.

So I will always be "less" than you in some way. That wouldnt bother me if you could just keep that shit to yourself, but no, you decided to jump in here and try telling me how dumb I am about scripture.

Do you know why? Because people like you cant make your fucking mind about what it says in the first place! Is it all true or is it a metaphor? Tell me! If you say its true and real and that it actually happened as it is written, then I am fucked. So are a lot of other people, unless of course on their deathbed they accept Jesus as their Lord an savior.

My convictions (see that?) about the Bible are moot in this conversation. Yes, I can pick one of the most popular passages in the Bible and present it as a representative tenant of Christianity.

Since I'll assume you havent read the thread, I'll use the same example I gave earlier.

The Bible is either wholly true and to be read as literal, or its an 800+ page metaphor. There is no middle ground on that issue.

So when I read "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." What does that mean?

If the Bible is literal, it means you dont get to meet your maker unless you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior as described in the Bible. No interpretation needed or expected, what is written is exactly what it means. No exceptions, no excuses, period. Fuck the Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Aborigines and the those poor souls who had a bad luck streak being born in an African jungle who have never even heard of the Bible, much less Christ.

Thats a real "all-inclusive" religion you have there, if its meant to be taken literally and as truth (the Bible that is).

If its a metaphor, then someone had mentioned that what Jesus meant was, the path to God is through his teachings, not necessarily thru Him, per say.

I think thats an ultimate stretch of the interpretation of such a simple sentence, but I could accept that if the Bible isnt literal. That it shouldnt be used as empirical historical evidence, that some of the obvious divine miracles Jesus performed might not have actually happened like it says it did.

Its one or the other. Its literal or its a metaphor. Cant have both. Which is it, JJ, since you obviously know so much more about scripture than I do (seriously). Since youve spent a better part of your life studying/learning/adhering to the Bible, you tell me, is it all true or a giant metaphor?

Certainly in your lifetime of piousness you could surely answer such a simple question?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

it's easy. simply reply "get off the race crap!!!"

Manny,

First of all, you do realize I am half black, right?

even better :toast

[Jekka]

As a Christian I am sad that the USA is not a Christian nation but saw no sign that Obama shared any of that concern.

It is my belief that one's faith in Jesus ought to determine one's politics not that politics should define faith.

Senator Obama is not the first (and unfortunately, likely won't be the last) to shy away when a microphone is put underneath his face.

So, you're afraid of a world with a single instituted religion ... but you don't want politics to be without it. You shun the suggestion of any sort of racial/prejudicial influence ... and yet you are prejudiced against any religion other than your own.

Hypocrite much?

This makes no fucking sense to me. And, I am extremely grateful that our forefathers had the good sense to make provisions for people with your line of thinking and made the church and state separate from the beginning.

[clambake]

As a Christian I am sad that the USA is not a Christian nation but saw no sign that Obama shared any of that concern.

It is my belief that one's faith in Jesus ought to determine one's politics not that politics should define faith.

Senator Obama is not the first (and unfortunately, likely won't be the last) to shy away when a microphone is put underneath his face.

holy shit. all of this attention has to be attributed to one batshit crazy, deluded freak.

[angel_luv]

That's why you scare people.

I will never apologize for saying Jesus is the One and Only way.

I may suspect incorrectly about Obama being the anti- christ, but I am ONE HUNDRED percent, without a doubt, never changing my mind sure of who Jesus is.

[nkdlunch]

As a Christian I am sad that the USA is not a Christian nation but saw no sign that Obama shared any of that concern.


that is because he is not concerned. He as president would be speaking for millions of non-christians including Jews, Muslims, etc, etc.


you still have not answered what should be done about the millions of american citizens that are not christians but follow other religions that have nothing to do with Jesus.

Shouldn't their president still speak for them, represent them? or they have no rights?

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I have a problem with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain because neither of them have stood up and consistently said this election, " I am a Christian and this is how my Christianity is going to effect the way I run the country."

But...


Step one: all religions have equal rights

:bang




Well I want to elect a sold out Christian as my president and I am within my rights to vote or not vote along those standards.
For someone to attempt to regulate why or how I vote would undermine the whole process.

On a message board no one has the ability to regulate you or your votes, or to revoke any of your rights, voting or otherwise. Why bring this up?


How will Senator Obama undermine my faith? I tried to explain it above.
Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.

If I'm understanding, the basis of this concern is because you feel Obama could force all Americans to forsake their individual religions and be forced to worship under a single religion that is not your brand of Christianity. You honestly see this as a possibility, just as yesterday you saw it as a possibility that Obama could be the AC? And you believe this based on...your gut feeling?


The fact that people do compare Senator Obama to being a messiah and more so, that I have never heard of him saying, " There is no way I am the Messiah because Jesus is"- again giving credit where credit is due- concerns me as well.

...
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2

"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals."

I'm not sure how much clearer that could be.

[JoeChalupa]

Second best newbie poster ever.

:lmao

[Shastafarian]

I will never apologize for saying Jesus is the One and Only way.

I may suspect incorrectly about Obama being the anti- christ, but I am ONE HUNDRED percent, without a doubt, never changing my mind sure of who Jesus is.

That's fine (kinda) but saying that you don't like people because they want to bring religions together in peace is fucking insane. I find it hard to believe you can be 100% sure of anything. Hell, I'm not 100% sure I'm not adopted. Maybe you could say this if you've been dead for several minutes and saw Jesus. But I doubt that's the case. I suspect you've been taught that you are 100% sure. Am I right?

[DWest30]

Manny,


I have a problem with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain because neither of them have stood up and consistently said this election, " I am a Christian and this is how my Christianity is going to effect the way I run the country."

Thats because no one can be popularly elected saying such a thing. And rightly so, I might add.

You and others have compared the election process to a job interview.
Well I want to elect a sold out Christian as my president and I am within my rights to vote or not vote along those standards.
For someone to attempt to regulate why or how I vote would undermine the whole process.

No one is attempting to say youre wrong for your vote. They are trying to make you a more informed voter. Voting based on the religion of the candidate is not substantially more solid of a reason than voting onwhat shows they wear. It has no bearing on whether they can do their Constitutionally appointed duties.

McCain may not stand up for my faith the way I wish he would. But of the two candidates, I think he is least likely to undermine my faith.
How will Senator Obama undermine my faith? I tried to explain it above.
Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.

OK, in reading your posts and responding (youve never engaged my arguments with you, I might add), you have never said directly that the United States should and must be a christian nation. Why not? It clearly is your belief.
The fact that people do compare Senator Obama to being a messiah and more so, that I have never heard of him saying, " There is no way I am the Messiah because Jesus is"- again giving credit where credit is due- concerns me as well.

Ive never heard John McCain say "I'm not Herman Munster" either even though I call him that daily. Politicians dont respond to species arguments because they have no value.

If Senator Obama had said such a thing, my guess is it would have been all over the news.

And anyone who supports the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution would have immediately disqualified him for the Presidency.

Since I watch the news and have not heard it, I am assuming no such comment has been made.
If I am wrong, correct me.

Am submitting this before I lose it again.

In bold above.

[SpursFanFirst]

Angel food cake?

http://cookies-n-cakes.com/wp-content/gallery/cakes/angel-food-cake.jpg

or

Obama's food cake?
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/recipes/1125001180_old-fashioned-devils-food-cake-recipe.jpg


Discuss.



Obama's food cake black by accident? I think we all know the answer.

:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Manny,

First of all, you do realize I am half black, right?

If TD Jakes, or any candidate with his strong Christian convictions, were to run for president, while sticking to those convictions, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

If said candidate were green, I would vote for him.

I have a problem with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain because neither of them have stood up and consistently said this election, " I am a Christian and this is how my Christianity is going to effect the way I run the country."

My beliefs may not always be popular or even respected but I am always consistent and emphatic in my statements about my beliefs.
As such I have no qualms in seeking the same in the men asking me to elect them president.

You and others have compared the election process to a job interview.
Well I want to elect a sold out Christian as my president and I am within my rights to vote or not vote along those standards.
For someone to attempt to regulate why or how I vote would undermine the whole process.

Unfortunately for me, neither Senator has impressed me. I wish there was a third party candidate with a viable chance of being elected that I could consider voting for.

But since there is not, I have to go with the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

McCain may not stand up for my faith the way I wish he would. But of the two candidates, I think he is least likely to undermine my faith.
How will Senator Obama undermine my faith? I tried to explain it above.
Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.
The fact that people do compare Senator Obama to being a messiah and more so, that I have never heard of him saying, " There is no way I am the Messiah because Jesus is"- again giving credit where credit is due- concerns me as well.
If Senator Obama had said such a thing, my guess is it would have been all over the news.
Since I watch the news and have not heard it, I am assuming no such comment has been made.
If I am wrong, correct me.

Am submitting this before I lose it again.

Being half black in no way would make you impermeable to societies views and the associations derived from those views. While it would be less likely had you been raised (and I'm assuming from what little I know about your background this is not the case) in an environment filled with African American men who didn't fit the stereotype portrayed by society today because then you would have a completely different association to work with.

While you have no given more reasoning behind your thought process, you have yet to explain why you feel McCain would be less likely to undercut your core beliefs? I could easily see a case being made for Obama being by far the more Christian candidate considering the pasts of both men and the policies they believe in. In fact, outside of abortion and gay marriage I would have extreme difficulty in finding a single McCain stance that would comply with Christian beliefs.

Now that being said, I have serious problems with the content in your post simply because the thought process behind your post is a thought process that has show itself many times in history almost always with disastrous results. The choice to use government as a tool of the church has enabled many of the worst events of modern history and I believe this to be a major reason to avoid what you seek to implement. I respect your honesty but I hope you keep an open mind to the lessons of history and whether or not God would need the government of man to carry out his wishes or even lay out a framework for how we live.

Personally, when exploring my Christianity I always felt as I was given a free will and it was never God's wish for me to deny others that free will through the use of government. I never gathered through any of my Catholic teachings that it was my duty to prevent sin through the use of force.

[RandomGuy]

Fuck... seriously?

I don't even know how to argue this because I can't, on any level, relate to the thought process that inspired it.

The problem is that crazy people have been allowed to define what it means to be "Christian".

Most good Christians don't know this, but kinda go along, because it is emotionally appealing groupthink.

Not that Angel is one of those crazy people, but people like her have their opinions shaped as to what it means to be a Christian or what one must believe in order to be a "good" Christian, by people who are just a little not-sane.

I am not saying faith=not sane. There are plenty of sane faithful people.

I am saying that extreme fundamentalists are at least a little unsane. They read what they read, and come to truly bizarre conclusions about what their faith is, and what is required to be a "good" Christian.

Nobody who follow's Christ's teachings wants to think that they aren't a "good" Christian, and the crazy people pointing to X or Y and saying "that is unChristian" or "You have to believe Y to be a good Christian" cause a lot of good people to start wondering if the crazies aren't right about that. So they kinda go along with it.

It is the same with any ideology. Often the most radical elements are the ones that seem to drive it.

[spurster]

So many threads in a thread, so here are some random comments

Those who believe Biblical inerrancy give Christianity a bad name. The writers of the Bible were not trained scientists, historians, or journalists. Treating them that way is foolish. God gave us brains to think, not to be blind followers.

If human life starts at conception, are human eggs and sperm half-human? In the future, if cloning can take one of my cells and create another human being, then does that make every cell death a human death?

Anyone who believes lies such as Obama is the AntiChrist needs help. Elections result in all sorts of lies to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt (and because of fear, uncertainty, and doubt), but this is way over the top. www.snopes.com and www.factcheck.com should be regularly consulted.

[Tully365]

Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.

The fact that people do compare Senator Obama to being a messiah and more so, that I have never heard of him saying, " There is no way I am the Messiah because Jesus is"- again giving credit where credit is due- concerns me as well.
.

The first statement is not an opinion, angel_luv, it's simply a comment about the population of our country. There are, in fact, Jewish people, Muslims, Hindus, etc., living in this country, so to express the objective thought that we are a country composed of different religions is not even an opinion with which anyone can disagree. It's like saying there are many rivers and different types of trees in the United States-- a completely true statement.

On the second comment: I think you are wrong to judge Obama based on what others-- many of whom are ridiculing him, not supporting him-- say about him as a person. For him to stand up on a stage and say, "hey I just want to let everybody know that I am in fact not the Messiah" would only make his enemies more angry, and make them write articles saying Can you believe this guy had the nerve to condescend to us and even mention his own name in the same breath with the word messiah?!?! You wanting Obama to publicly address the question of whether he is the messiah or the anti-christ (what a huge scope he has to answer for!) would be the equivalent of George Bush giving twenty minutes of serious discussion during a press conference to answer a question from a democratic partisan who calmly asks if it is true--as many have claimed-- that he has the smallest intellect of any president in history.

[AntiChrist]

This thread is all about me, so that's all that really matters.


Keep up the good work, my children. You know what they say, "idle hands are Obama's workshop".

[JoeChalupa]

This not the United Christian States...but THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA!! We are ALL Americans be us white, black, brown, yellow, red, republican, democrat, independent, green, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Jewish, non-denomination, male or female. THAT is what America is all about and if we pull together we can accomplish great things and the time is now. YES WE CAN!!!!!

[Slomo]

even better :toast

I don't get it.

Being black (or some % of it) automatically means you are not racist?

Do you know what the word racist means?

[RandomGuy]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 172 (23 members and 149 guests)

wows.

[BacktoBasics]

News flash Angel Luv:

Running this country isn't about religion its about putting that very thing aside and doing whats best for the people who reside here. This is where religion has warped your ability to rationally think. THIS ELECTION ISN'T ABOUT RELIGION.

What would stop you from voting for a guy who is hardcore clean as a whistler god warrior who intends to impose a 90% wage tax across the board?

Delegating responsibility and balancing a checkbook aren't based in ones religion.

When you buy something you want to buy something that performs well and is reliable. Purchasing your computer, car or appliances shouldn't have anything to do with religion.

Its like saying I choose the white washing machine over the clearly larger more effective higher quality cheaper black one because black represents bad and white seems more god like. I have no proof though.

[MannyIsGod]

Angel I guess my point is that government can no more make a believer out of an unbeliever than any other form of coercion so I'm not sure what the value in oppressing the beliefs of others would be in our country?

I also wonder if you can think of any of our nations leaders - political in nature - that have met the standards you are currently setting for our 2 presidential candidates?

[Shastafarian]

I'm not sure why you guys are trying to argue with her about the separation of church and state. She already said she'd vote for a religious person without hesitation. No matter what kind of leader they were or what policies they had, she'd vote for him/her. She wants a Theocracy.

[Shelly]

I look at it this way...

I'm not a religious person and don't care what one believes in. However, I'm not a bad person either. I don't murder people, I don't beat my kids, stea, kick puppiesl, or cheat on my taxes. I do everything a moral person should do except worship someone that existed a looooooooooooong time ago.

Since that doesn't make me one of the 'cool' kids and if it gets me turned away from this cool club called Heaven, then that's a club I don't want to belong to.

I would like to think that Jesus can see the good in all of us whether we worship him or not.