If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   The president says he is a "practicing Christian." It is difficult to be one while simultaneously holding a low view of the Bible, which his position on several social issues might suggest   (townhall.com) divider line 250
    More: Obvious, Bibles, gospels  
•       •       •

1591 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2012 at 12:32 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



250 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-17 03:31:57 PM

Baz744: A census is a legitimate function of government. Pointing a gun at someone's head, cocking the hammer, and saying "give your money to this worthless layabout over here or I'll blow you away" is not. It is simply a mugging.


Do you not read? That's exactly what happened. Well, except the gun part. Charlton Heston has guns, Moses did not.

God: Hey Mo, get a half-shekel from every man 20-40 in the camp.
Mo: What if they haven't got a half-shekel?
God: It's an almost-worthless denomination, Mo. Everyone has at least a half-shekel.
Mo: Can the rich man give more? Can the poor man give less?
God: No and no.
Mo: And what happens if they don't give this money to me?
God: They are cut off from my community (it's called "spiritual excision", or "karait", and it means you're basically not a Jew anymore in the eyes of god).

So, there was no threat of imprisonment, but there was forced extraction of wealth with a threat behind it. What part of this is not compelled taxation?

// the US government also doesn't say what you think they say
 
2012-05-17 03:33:02 PM

Serious Black: Jesus only had two rules for life: love God with your entire being, and love your neighbor with your entire being. Fark you if that second one is too damn difficult for you.


The bible wasn't written for soundbyte crowds
 
2012-05-17 03:39:51 PM
i think cal thomas would be wise to keep those kinds of opinions to himself.
 
2012-05-17 03:42:18 PM

gimmegimme: Lunaville: gimmegimme: Lunaville: The Lone Gunman: TsarTom: [www.adoremusbooks.com image 249x320]

When I was a kid, I used to have almost the entire collection of these.

Anyway, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh both go on and on about how Christian they are, but they've also said that they NEVER go to church.

The loudest "Christians" don't, but they don't need to and they don't need to read scripture because they are so righteous and knowledgeable, if G-d gets out of line, they can set him straight.

I don't know what is worse:

1) a person believing themselves to be more righteous than their deity or

2) a person worshiping and loving a deity that is so intent on subjugating humanity that it won't even let believers speak its name.

G-d isn't subjugating me. I chose to start writing the word G-d in that manner as a teenager having been influenced by e.e. cummings. I feel comfortable with it. I am comfortable with others including the vowel.

I am entirely too comfortable saying the word. If saying the word G-d, is taking the Lords' name in vain, I do it unthinkingly about 27 times a day. I also slip up and let out a G-d damn it more often than I'd like.

So, I think you need not worry about my welfare.

I'm 100% sure you're a splendid, caring person. And you are certainly welcome to use (or not use) whatever words you like. I'm just pointing out that the hyphen thing and not taking the name in vain are indicative of the strange dichotomy represented by the god of the Judeo-Christian Bible.

Jehovah/Yahweh/God/Jesus (take your pick) loves you soooooo much. He wants to help you learn how to be the best you can be. He wants to guide you on the path of loving others and treating them with respect.

But he'll subject you to eternal torment if you say his name or use a naughty word in its place.


Hmm, I don't really believe in eternal torment or hell. I know a sizable portion of Christians do ... maybe most Christians.

I think we can create a hell on earth by failing to "love one another"; by being over eager to "cast the first stone"; by failing to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Actually, I don't think G-d gives a rats' ass whether I use the vowel, drop the vowel, or walk around chanting Yehovah, Yehovah, Yehovah. But it means something to me and the personal integrity I would like to achieve to try be mindful when I write or speak.
 
2012-05-17 03:44:10 PM

s2s2s2: The Apostle John warns in Revelation 22:18-19 about the punishment awaiting anyone who adds to, or subtracts from Scripture. Deuteronomy 4:1-2 has a similar warning. The consequences aren't pretty. There are also warnings not to preach "another Gospel" (Galatians 1:8, 2 Corinthians 11:4, among others).

Which means you shouldn't be using these modern translations/reinterpretations of the original text, you hellbound demon!


While President Obama is all about coolness, Romney is the sober grown-up. Republicans support Romney not because of his personality, but because he credibly addresses our shared critical challenges.


Writing a whole new book, lets say about some guy named Macaroni who distributes golden plates, is acceptable to Cal though, as long as one of it's followers has a chance to beat scary sekrit squirrel.
 
2012-05-17 03:46:44 PM

busy chillin': Fluorescent Testicle

busy chillin': that is one of the dumbest posts I have ever read. And I have been Farking for almost 8 years.

Modern Christians worship Paul, not Jesus. If you disagree, that says more about you than about me.

I lost my religion years ago, so I don't know what you mean about Paul. Maybe this homophobia stuff was Paul's verses?

But Christ is the central figure in Christianity.


I get what he is saying. If there appears to be a conflict between the message of Christ and the Epistles of Paul, there are a lot of people that will start their argument with "But the Apostle Paul said ....". Some people really do seem to give more weight to the words of Paul than the words of Jesus.
 
2012-05-17 03:48:24 PM
I swear, the United States will have a first woman, gay, jew, latino, chinese, native indian, east indian and pothead President before it ever has a first openly atheist President.
 
2012-05-17 03:54:31 PM

Lunaville:
I get what he is saying. If there appears to be a conflict between the message of Christ and the Epistles of Paul, there are a lot of people that will start their argument with "But the Apostle Paul said ....". Some people really do seem to give more weight to the words of Paul than the words of Jesus.


Bible worship is the most ironic form of idolatry there is. They read it like it's statute, and ignore the actual teachings of Jesus.

Abandon everything in the book except for the teachings of Jesus, and you've got a pretty nice model of faith and behavior.
 
2012-05-17 03:54:52 PM

Dr Dreidel: Baz744: A census is a legitimate function of government. Pointing a gun at someone's head, cocking the hammer, and saying "give your money to this worthless layabout over here or I'll blow you away" is not. It is simply a mugging.

Do you not read? That's exactly what happened. Well, except the gun part. Charlton Heston has guns, Moses did not.

God: Hey Mo, get a half-shekel from every man 20-40 in the camp.
Mo: What if they haven't got a half-shekel?
God: It's an almost-worthless denomination, Mo. Everyone has at least a half-shekel.
Mo: Can the rich man give more? Can the poor man give less?
God: No and no.
Mo: And what happens if they don't give this money to me?
God: They are cut off from my community (it's called "spiritual excision", or "karait", and it means you're basically not a Jew anymore in the eyes of god).

So, there was no threat of imprisonment, but there was forced extraction of wealth with a threat behind it. What part of this is not compelled taxation?

// the US government also doesn't say what you think they say


I think I might love you.
 
2012-05-17 03:54:58 PM

Lunaville:

Actually, I don't think G-d gives a rats' ass whether I use the vowel, drop the vowel, or walk around chanting Yehovah, Yehovah, Yehovah. But it means something to me and the personal integrity I would like to achieve to try be mindful when I write or speak.



I'm genuinely curious as to what you mean by "the personal integrity I would like to achieve" in relation to not speaking the name of your deity.
 
2012-05-17 04:05:49 PM

Lunaville: Actually, I don't think G-d gives a rats' ass whether I use the vowel, drop the vowel, or walk around chanting Yehovah, Yehovah, Yehovah. But it means something to me and the personal integrity I would like to achieve to try be mindful when I write or speak.


Each to his own, I guess, although honestly I don't understand why someone who isn't a strict practicing Jew or Old Testament fundie would self-censor when writing the word "God."
 
2012-05-17 04:20:56 PM
Why the hell was one only Farker the only one to post this beside me at this point in the thread?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Again, this is the only thing that is relevant for discussion. Not need for the other 200some posts in this thread.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

How do you Christofascists NOT GET THIS!!!!

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
 
2012-05-17 04:22:22 PM
Without clicking the link, are those "low views" contrary to the front or back half of the Bible?
 
2012-05-17 04:22:23 PM

Mearen: The Lone Gunman: TsarTom: [www.adoremusbooks.com image 249x320]

When I was a kid, I used to have almost the entire collection of these.

Anyway, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh both go on and on about how Christian they are, but they've also said that they NEVER go to church.

You do know they're not mutually exclusive right? No, of course you didn't. That would require a working brain.


Well, at least you showed no signs of insecurity when someone does your interpretation of criticizing your particular lords and masters.
 
2012-05-17 04:25:35 PM

Lunaville: Dr Dreidel: Baz744: A census is a legitimate function of government. Pointing a gun at someone's head, cocking the hammer, and saying "give your money to this worthless layabout over here or I'll blow you away" is not. It is simply a mugging.

Do you not read? That's exactly what happened. Well, except the gun part. Charlton Heston has guns, Moses did not.

God: Hey Mo, get a half-shekel from every man 20-40 in the camp.
Mo: What if they haven't got a half-shekel?
God: It's an almost-worthless denomination, Mo. Everyone has at least a half-shekel.
Mo: Can the rich man give more? Can the poor man give less?
God: No and no.
Mo: And what happens if they don't give this money to me?
God: They are cut off from my community (it's called "spiritual excision", or "karait", and it means you're basically not a Jew anymore in the eyes of god).

So, there was no threat of imprisonment, but there was forced extraction of wealth with a threat behind it. What part of this is not compelled taxation?

// the US government also doesn't say what you think they say

I think I might love you.


Well, I love you in Purple 3. So there.
 
2012-05-17 04:46:44 PM

Dr Dreidel: bugontherug: There's a reason Jehovah Elohim forbade Adam and Eve to learn the difference between good and evil...

Because having the moral debate externalized (in the form of a snake) makes it easier to draw battle lines between the opposing opinions/positions, and an internal moral debate is fraught with hazard and logical fallacy, subject in a much more obvious way to the biases and motivations (because those biases are not externalized/shared with the world) of the moral hazard-er in question?


That sounds somewhat right. Maybe saying the same thing the New Testament says, but in different words.

But really, in the Christian context, it's because Jehovah Elohim is evil, and wants to keep humanity ignorant of that. If you can read the Old Testament, and walk away believing Jehovah is anything but a petty, jealous, vindictive, cruel, tyrannical SOB who plays with human beings like they're ants in his antfarm, then truly, your eyes are closed.

The serpent came to open Adam and Eve's eyes to Jehovah's real nature. S/he began by exposing the first lie, that if they ate from the tree of knowledge, they would die.1 They ate the fruit, and contrary to what Jehovah said, they didn't die. In fact, Genesis suggests Adam lived for several centuries after eating it. Consistent with what the serpent said, "their eyes were opened." Genesis 3:7.

Don't take my word for it. The author of the Book of John agrees with me. John's story of Christ healing the blind man parallels the story of Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden. After Christ heals the blind man, the blind man proclaims "To open the eyes of a man born blind--it is unheard of since time began2. If that man had not come from God, he could have done nothing." John 9:32-33.

Then, take a look at John 10:21. Some Jews claim Christ is an evil spirit. Christ's defenders reply "could an evil spirit open blind men's eyes?" The rhetorical logic of this question is unmistakable: no, an evil spirit could not open blind men's eyes. Therefore Christ was not an evil spirit.

Now, given that the whole story parallel's Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden, and given that John 9:32-33, clearly alluding to Genesis, proclaims that Jesus would not be able to open a blind man's eyes had he not come from God, and given that John 9:32-33 rhetorically rules out the possibility that an evil spirit could open blind men's eyes, the conclusion is inescapable:

The serpent, not Jehovah, was from God. The serpent opened Adam and Eve's eyes. An act impossible for any evil spirit. An act impossible for one not from God. To say otherwise blasphemously suggests that Christ was not from God, and may have been an evil spirit.

1Jehovah, having told the first lie, is the Father of Lies...

2Clearly alluding to Genesis.
 
2012-05-17 04:56:26 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Why the hell was one only Farker the only one to post this beside me at this point in the thread?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


Faith in their own beliefs trumps reality.
 
2012-05-17 05:00:04 PM

bugontherug: The serpent came to open Adam and Eve's eyes to Jehovah's real nature. S/he began by exposing the first lie, that if they ate from the tree of knowledge, they would die.1 They ate the fruit, and contrary to what Jehovah said, they didn't die. In fact, Genesis suggests Adam lived for several centuries after eating it. Consistent with what the serpent said, "their eyes were opened." Genesis 3:7.


Well, they did die when they ceased to be alive.
 
2012-05-17 05:00:38 PM

bugontherug: Dr Dreidel: bugontherug: There's a reason Jehovah Elohim forbade Adam and Eve to learn the difference between good and evil...

Because having the moral debate externalized (in the form of a snake) makes it easier to draw battle lines between the opposing opinions/positions, and an internal moral debate is fraught with hazard and logical fallacy, subject in a much more obvious way to the biases and motivations (because those biases are not externalized/shared with the world) of the moral hazard-er in question?

That sounds somewhat right. Maybe saying the same thing the New Testament says, but in different words.

But really, in the Christian context, it's because Jehovah Elohim is evil, and wants to keep humanity ignorant of that. If you can read the Old Testament, and walk away believing Jehovah is anything but a petty, jealous, vindictive, cruel, tyrannical SOB who plays with human beings like they're ants in his antfarm, then truly, your eyes are closed.


Well, I happen not to think so. But then, I also studied the OT for 16 years as a Jew. I have no idea why my opinion might be very nuanced on the topic. I'm also an agnostic now, so take from that what you will.

I see god more as a disappointed parent. Think of it this way: a kid lives in foster care from age a few months until age 15. At 15, the biological parent shows up and says "I want you to move back home, but I have to make sure that arrangement works for both of us." The parent gives the kid food, shelter and support, and at every turn, the kid biatches and moans about how put-upon he now feels by this guy who came out of nowhere and wants to be a parent.

The kid doesn't appreciate how good he's got it, and perhaps the parent expects too much of the kid.

The serpent came to open Adam and Eve's eyes to Jehovah's real nature. S/he began by exposing the first lie, that if they ate from the tree of knowledge, they would die.1 They ate the fruit, and contrary to what Jehovah said, they didn't die. In fact, Genesis suggests Adam lived for several centuries after eating it. Consistent with what the serpent said, "their eyes were opened." Genesis 3:7.

The interpretation is that Adam was subject to death, whereas before, he'd have moved directly from the earthly plane to paradise without the pain of death.

Don't take my word for it. The author of the Book of John...

Skipping this because, like John, I'm a Jew. The NT doesn't really fly.

Now, given that the whole story parallel's Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden, and given that John 9:32-33, clearly alluding to Genesis, proclaims that Jesus would not be able to open a blind man's eyes had he not come from God, and given that John 9:32-33 rhetorically rules out the possibility that an evil spirit could open blind men's eyes, the conclusion is inescapable:

The serpent, not Jehovah, was from God. The serpent opened Adam and Eve's eyes. An act impossible for any evil spirit. An act impossible for one not from God. To say otherwise blasphemously suggests that Christ was not from God, and may have been an evil spirit.


Here is another point of distinction between Christians and Jews. In Judaism, the Satan is the prosecutor in the heavenly court. He operates under god's purview, and it's his job to paint humanity as undeserving of god's mercy. The Jewish Satan is an angel like any other, with no free will of his own, existing only as an expression of god's will for a specific purpose. In Christianity, Satan (and the snake) operate of their own accord.

Of course the snake is from god. Who else would have put it there? It fits with the whole narrative - if the snake's purpose was to be the external embodiment of the (now-familiar) internal struggle between good and evil, it is god's test of man's fortitude of will.

You can call god mean and petty and whatever else you like. I think the text is open to so much interpretation that anything you can spin negatively can be spun positively, too. You can choose to find fault or you can choose to learn a lesson.

// I'm done learning my lessons, which is why I quit in the first place
 
2012-05-17 05:01:50 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Why the hell was one only Farker the only one to post this beside me at this point in the thread?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Again, this is the only thing that is relevant for discussion. Not need for the other 200some posts in this thread.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

How do you Christofascists NOT GET THIS!!!!

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


No shiat. Why does Obama feel the need to lie about it. He should just come out and say he isn't a practicing christian, or an atheist or whatever he is. Or he shouldn't answer any questions about it.
 
2012-05-17 05:20:47 PM

I alone am best: bugontherug: The serpent came to open Adam and Eve's eyes to Jehovah's real nature. S/he began by exposing the first lie, that if they ate from the tree of knowledge, they would die.1 They ate the fruit, and contrary to what Jehovah said, they didn't die. In fact, Genesis suggests Adam lived for several centuries after eating it. Consistent with what the serpent said, "their eyes were opened." Genesis 3:7.

Well, they did die when they ceased to be alive.


Yes. As I said--about 900 years later. Jehovah says "in that day you shall surely die."
 
2012-05-17 05:36:57 PM

I alone am best: Crotchrocket Slim: Why the hell was one only Farker the only one to post this beside me at this point in the thread?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Again, this is the only thing that is relevant for discussion. Not need for the other 200some posts in this thread.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

How do you Christofascists NOT GET THIS!!!!

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

No shiat. Why does Obama feel the need to lie about it. He should just come out and say he isn't a practicing christian, or an atheist or whatever he is. Or he shouldn't answer any questions about it.


I know you are just trolling, but do you have any evidence that he does not consider himself a christian and believe that Jesus is God?
 
2012-05-17 05:41:39 PM

Dr Dreidel: Well, I happen not to think so. But then, I also studied the OT for 16 years as a Jew. I have no idea why my opinion might be very nuanced on the topic. I'm also an agnostic now, so take from that what you will.

I see god more as a disappointed parent. Think of it this way: a kid lives in foster care from age a few months until age 15. At 15, the biological parent shows up and says "I want you to move back home, but I have to make sure that arrangement works for both of us." The parent gives the kid food, shelter and support, and at every turn, the kid biatches and moans about how put-upon he now feels by this guy who came out of nowhere and wants to be a parent.


Your view of a "disappointed parent" differs substantially from mine. Jehovah halted man's efforts to achieve his potential, starting in the Garden of Eden, and extending to the Tower of Babel. Drowned every man, woman, and child alive, including babies, except for one family. Had she bears tear 42 children to shreds because they called a priest "baldy." Played games with people ranging from destroying all of a man's love and work to test his faith, to psyching out a father by ordering him to murder his son. And that's just sh*t I can think of without skimming the OT.

Me, when I get disappointed in my boy, I sigh and shake my head. I guess things were different in your family.

The interpretation is that Adam was subject to death, whereas before, he'd have moved directly from the earthly plane to paradise without the pain of death.


Your interpretation is, as you admitted, positive spin. That would be okay, if the spin adhered to the reality of what Jehovah said: "in that day you shall surely die." It doesn't. And it doesn't say anything about "spiritual death."

Skipping this because, like John, I'm a Jew. The NT doesn't really fly.


Hence, as I began, "in the Christian context." Using the Book of John's reasoning, if the serpent was an evil spirit, so might have been Christ. If the serpent was not from God, then so was not Christ. Obviously, that reasoning is less compelling if you don't acknowledge the legitimacy of the Book of John.

Of course the snake is from god. Who else would have put it there? It fits with the whole narrative - if the snake's purpose was to be the external embodiment of the (now-familiar) internal struggle between good and evil, it is god's test of man's fortitude of will.


I guess I'd be more okay with God playing games with us if his books didn't claim our eternities were at stake. Your view of God seems consistent with my view that he's a kid with an ant farm. Maybe like a kid with an ant farm and a magnifying glass, he gets a kick out watching some of us fry.

You can call god mean and petty and whatever else you like. I think the text is open to so much interpretation that anything you can spin negatively can be spun positively, too. You can choose to find fault or you can choose to learn a lesson.


I need not rely on spin to convey the horror the Old Testament objectively describes. Having bears rip apart 42 kids for calling a priest "baldy?" Were there no babies alive when he drowned everyone but 7 people? What if Job lost his faith?

Your insinuation that I've chosen not to learn a lesson is pure projection. For your 16 years of study, it doesn't sound like you've ever really thought about what the book actually says. I don't fault the Bible alone for the systems of tyranny, oppression, and cruelty which have dominated almost all human lives for almost all of human existence. But when the Bible's "malign thug"1 is one of our models for "just," "loving," and "righteous" behavior by authority figures, it sure as hell hasn't helped the situation.

1Mark Twain's words on Jehovah.
 
2012-05-17 05:56:43 PM
img52.imageshack.us
 
2012-05-17 05:57:30 PM
Yeah, because I got mine, so fark the poor and the sick is what Jesus taught.
 
2012-05-17 06:00:34 PM
As several of my colleagues, and others of my fellow-citizens of France, have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

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

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.


RIP Thomas Paine
 
2012-05-17 06:07:49 PM
What? No Supply-side Jesus links?

Link
 
2012-05-17 06:15:59 PM

keylock71: *shugs* Seems Obama has a better understanding of Christian principles than most of the bible thumping Republicans if we're judging by actions and words.

Ozzy farking Osbourne

has a better understanding of Christian principles than the average dominionist, dear :D
 
2012-05-17 06:17:55 PM

gimmegimme:
I know you are just trolling, but do you have any evidence that he does not consider himself a christian and believe that Jesus is God?



Nay! I do not, I am just assuming he is trying to appeal to a subset of voters. If he is indeed a christian and his most ardent followers are constantly professing how evil Christians are how can they vote for him again? Do they know something that Obama does not? Do they believe he is not actually a christian and just trying to appeal to christians to get their vote?
 
2012-05-17 06:30:54 PM

I alone am best: gimmegimme:
I know you are just trolling, but do you have any evidence that he does not consider himself a christian and believe that Jesus is God?


Nay! I do not, I am just assuming he is trying to appeal to a subset of voters. If he is indeed a christian and his most ardent followers are constantly professing how evil Christians are how can they vote for him again? Do they know something that Obama does not? Do they believe he is not actually a christian and just trying to appeal to christians to get their vote?


Okay, so you have no proof for the assertion you made.

Nice strawman, by the way. Many of his followers are constantly professing that Christians are doing evil and are trying to eliminate it. Big difference, even though many of the words are the same.

///And if we're talking religious pandering, RMoney is the master.
 
2012-05-17 06:32:22 PM
Hits down today, Drew?
 
2012-05-17 07:15:36 PM
bugontherug

All of that presupposes any of it is real, and happened as described. Once you think of the OT stories as no more real than Heinlein or Stephen King, you'll realize that there are positive lessons and negative ones.

If the lesson is "God is cruel", why and how could that be the basis for religion? If the lesson is "Don't cross god", I'd say it's fairly spot-on in that sense.
 
2012-05-17 07:58:07 PM

I alone am best: Crotchrocket Slim: Why the hell was one only Farker the only one to post this beside me at this point in the thread?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Again, this is the only thing that is relevant for discussion. Not need for the other 200some posts in this thread.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

How do you Christofascists NOT GET THIS!!!!

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

No shiat. Why does Obama feel the need to lie about it. He should just come out and say he isn't a practicing christian, or an atheist or whatever he is. Or he shouldn't answer any questions about it.


Or tell nosey assholes to bugger off.
 
2012-05-17 08:10:20 PM

I alone am best: If he is indeed a christian and his most ardent followers are constantly professing how evil Christians are how can they vote for him again


Because either Obama or Romney will be the next President.
The only logical vote, at least in the American system, is to vote for the lesser of two evils.
If Obama is better than Romney, then it is logical to vote for Obama. Even though he is a Christian and even though you understand how stupid Christianity is.
 
2012-05-17 08:15:30 PM
Just wondering how many other presidents (besides that "filthy papist", JFK) have been anally probed by the opposing party over their religious beliefs? It will be hilarious to see if the Evangelical fundies can bring themselves to defend Mormonism, though.

In other news, Cal Thomas still thinks he's ever been relevant and/or correct.
 
2012-05-17 08:25:11 PM

Dr Dreidel: bugontherug

All of that presupposes any of it is real, and happened as described.


Less so than you suppose. My argument is both secular and theological. The Bible--all of it, not just the Old Testament--whether construed literally or figuratively does not provide a sound basis for moral behavior. All of it, whether construed literally or figuratively, does provide a sound basis for authoritarian tyranny masquerading as morality.

Once you think of the OT stories as no more real than Heinlein or Stephen King, you'll realize that there are positive lessons and negative ones.


There may be some "positive lessons" somewhere. But whatever those are are overwhelmed by the message of "blindly obey capricious, cruelly exercised authority." Yes, I selected the word "blindly" here to allude to the lesson suggested in the orthodox reading of Genesis.

Pretend you have a lightly sweet, delicious chocolate mousse. Those are your positive lessons. Now pretend someone pours runny diarrhea on it. That's the Bible's authoritarian lessons. Unfortunately, once our mousse has been so thoroughly desecrated, there's no saving it. It's ruined.

If the lesson is "God is cruel", why and how could that be the basis for religion?


Because the Bible was written by ridiculous, ruthless men as a moral fig leaf for tyranny. As a Christian might say, "this is Satan's world." Just look at the book of morals he gave us.

If the lesson is "Don't cross god", I'd say it's fairly spot-on in that sense.

Yes. Blindly obey capriciously exercised, cruel authority. When the boss tells you what to do, don't dare ask questions about right and wrong. You just don't know how good you have it, you little ingrate. Keep it up, and we'll fix you up right good.
 
2012-05-17 08:35:33 PM
Yup. I am Canadian.
 
2012-05-17 09:01:53 PM

bugontherug: Yes. Blindly obey capriciously exercised, cruel authority. When the boss tells you what to do, don't dare ask questions about right and wrong. You just don't know how good you have it, you little ingrate. Keep it up, and we'll fix you up right good.


So what you're telling me is that religion is a tool that people use to control and subjugate others? Welcome to the realization I had at 14.

What I'm telling you is that there are positive things to learn about religion. Community, for one. Humility, for another. There are morals in the text, and if you care to learn anything other than that, there is a world of Jewish knowledge beyond the OT. The Talmud itself is a 5,000 page compendium of civil law argumentation that often strays into the metaphysical. Pirkei Avot, which is literally a book of morals - many are of the Ben Franklin thrift-and-fairness stuff, but some are a bit dated.

Maybe you have to have seen the positive role models I had to really get it, but even as firmly agnostic (apatheist, really - go look it up in the wikis) as I am, I don't have antipathy toward religion. Like you, I resent when it's used to control and subjugate others, but what is it to you or anyone else if my parents choose not to eat bacon or drive on Saturday?
 
2012-05-17 10:33:02 PM
Dr Dreidel:So what you're telling me is that religion is a tool that people use to control and subjugate others? Welcome to the realization I had at 14.

Not only that, but that in the case of Judaism and Christianity, it was specifically crafted by evil men for that purpose. Fair reading of the text leads to no other plausible conclusion.

What I'm telling you is that there are positive things to learn about religion. Community, for one. Humility, for another. There are morals in the text,


Religion is necessary neither for community, nor for humility, nor for morals. What I'm telling you is that whatever real morals are buried in the text are overpowered by the false morals it promotes, and which dominates contemporary American culture.

To be totally fair, the Jews I've met tend toward sanity. This in contrast to the Christians.

and if you care to learn anything other than that, there is a world of Jewish knowledge beyond the OT. The Talmud itself is a 5,000 page compendium of civil law argumentation that often strays into the metaphysical. Pirkei Avot, which is literally a book of morals - many are of the Ben Franklin thrift-and-fairness stuff, but some are a bit dated.


Religion really isn't necessary for choice words for daily living, either.


Maybe you have to have seen the positive role models I had to really get it,


I went to an Episcopal church when I was very young. I really liked our priest. Just in the past 60 days or so, I learned he confessed to molesting several acolytes, some of whom I surely knew. Happily, my family stopped attending when I was too young to be an acolyte.


but even as firmly agnostic (apatheist, really - go look it up in the wikis) as I am, I don't have antipathy toward religion.


I just think it's done more harm than good on balance.

Like you, I resent when it's used to control and subjugate others, but what is it to you or anyone else if my parents choose not to eat bacon or drive on Saturday?

I don't care what or why your parents eat or don't eat the things they do and don't. I do care that their holy texts have throughout history rationalized tyranny, and justified the persecution of everyone from Jews, to Christians, to Palestinians, to homosexuals, and more. I've nothing against your parents personally, but I do find serious fault with their holy books.
 
2012-05-17 10:40:53 PM
If Obama's claims to be a practicing Christian are false, I guess he couldn't have been a disciple of Rev. Jerremiah Wright, right?
 
2012-05-17 10:48:05 PM

Vodka Zombie: Christians in America have a much lower opinion of the Bible. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you could take their Bibles, remove the insides and replace it with the 1978 Sears Catalog, and they'd never know the farking difference.


To be fair, the 1978 Sears Catalog was frickin' AWESOME with all those Star Wars toys.
 
2012-05-17 10:48:57 PM
Render that which is Caesar's unto those who have much, and it will trickle down onto the least among you.
 
2012-05-18 12:23:02 AM

Vodka Zombie: Christians in America have a much lower opinion of the Bible. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you could take their Bibles, remove the insides and replace it with the 1978 Sears Catalog, and they'd never know the farking difference.


Was that the one where you could see the dudes dong poking out of his boxers?

/got nothing
 
2012-05-18 12:32:40 AM
What a practicing Christian looks like to Cal Thomas.

www.inquisitr.com
 
2012-05-18 01:24:31 AM
It's ridiculous that candidates are forced to pretend that they are interested in organized religion. They are interested in power so they play along in order to get elected.
 
2012-05-18 02:17:13 AM

make me some tea: WHO THE F*CK GIVES A RAT'S ASS


You must since you commented on it ;P
 
2012-05-18 03:32:10 AM
Really? Several? Name three...

/three REAL ones
//not "gut" ones
 
2012-05-18 05:55:15 AM

The Numbers: Always fun to watch Obama fans contort their way through the tricky proposition of their man being just another deluded believer in the invisible sky wizard


I can only speak for myself, but my problem isn't the delusion. It's the a) trying to shove the delusion into legislation and *my* life when I have chosen not to subject myself to it, and b) using the delusion as a cudgel to hate and oppress others.

Baz744: Pointing a gun at someone's head, cocking the hammer, and saying "give your money to this worthless layabout over here or I'll blow you away" is not. It is simply a mugging.


I love this, is it going to be a new thing?

When's the last time someone in this country was executed solely for refusing to pay taxes?

(And, separate gripe: speaking of execution, why are the people who hate government the most, so goddamn gung-ho about giving the government the power to take the lives of its own citizens?)
 
2012-05-18 06:01:09 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: Why the hell was one only Farker the only one to post this beside me at this point in the thread?

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Again, this is the only thing that is relevant for discussion. Not need for the other 200some posts in this thread.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

How do you Christofascists NOT GET THIS!!!!

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


Area Republicans passionate defenders of what they believe the Constitution to be?
 
2012-05-18 08:06:57 AM
Ok, how about people read the Bible and verify the concepts and takeaways with others before defending it.

It takes a bit of rigor to take on a book that thick and old for comprehension. Take the challenge. Read it. Understand it. Then walk away from those who believe that every line is true.
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report