|
escape expounded:
She quoted every word you said. And misinterpreted it on purpose. Janet got it, I think you did, too. But because our politics differ, you're playing dumb. Ok. I also don't put people into neat categories, as it seems you feel comfortable doing. Oh, of course you don't. You never talk about conservatives in a general way quote: '...and today I was in the truck and heard some of Hannity's show and he and the former Bush campaign muckity muck was praising god and "the lord" with Hannity that Bush won. Yay.': end quote And before you go into another one of your anti-religion rants, remember who you're talking to. http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm In case you don't understand my point, you quite frequently put people into neat categories. Many people do. It's amazing to me how many claim they don't when caught. But that's okay, you must be very happy now. Now why would I be happy? You must be happy for 'exposing' me. Well, aren't you? I'm not happy at all with the outcome of the election, because there wasn't anyone to vote for. I voted against Kerry and would do it again in a heartbeat. Once again, as I've said many times, hopefully next time around there will be someone worth voting for. -- Ann, Gardening in zone 6a Just south of Boston, MA ******************************** |
"Jim Carlock" expounded:
Next election... Skull and Bones (R) Skull and Bones (D) Unknown Wildcard Independents Oh, I hope not. We've got to break the Republican/Democrat logjam somehow. I wish the Libertarians would get it together somehow. But I'm afraid you're right. MOTS. -- Ann, Gardening in zone 6a Just south of Boston, MA ******************************** |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 05:18:48 -0500, Ann opined:
And misinterpreted it on purpose. Janet got it, I think you did, too. But because our politics differ, you're playing dumb. Ok. I didn't misinterpret it, or interpret it. I read it and it spoke for itself. It's a parrot of what I'm hearing on the conservative talk radio shows. Nothing original. I also don't put people into neat categories, as it seems you feel comfortable doing. Oh, of course you don't. You never talk about conservatives in a general way quote: '...and today I was in the truck and heard some of Hannity's show and he and the former Bush campaign muckity muck was praising god and "the lord" with Hannity that Bush won. Yay.': end quote I didn't mention the word conservative. I was expressing my aghast at how this country is turning into a religious state where masses of people are swaying politics because of their god. That scares me. And before you go into another one of your anti-religion rants, remember who you're talking to. http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm In case you don't understand my point, you quite frequently put people into neat categories. Many people do. It's amazing to me how many claim they don't when caught. I didn't have time or desire to read the website, but I don't think religion has any place in politics or government. No place at all. That is not the same thing as anti-religion ranting. I am a very active practitioner in my tradition, but I would never want to see it govern anyone. It's a personal thing, not something to use against people. But that's okay, you must be very happy now. Now why would I be happy? You must be happy for 'exposing' me. Well, aren't you? No, that wasn't my intention at all. You simply don't sound like a very happy person. It was sarcastic. I'm not happy at all with the outcome of the election, because there wasn't anyone to vote for. I voted against Kerry and would do it again in a heartbeat. Once again, as I've said many times, hopefully next time around there will be someone worth voting for. So you voted for the guy who is against science because we are all embryo's at one time or another? Embryo's which are going to be discarded anyway. You voted for a religious fanatic who is going to possibly appoint the next set of lifetime Supreme Court Justice symbols and you voted for a man who thinks we are on a crusade. Oh good. I'd prefer not to vote in that case. I did vote for Kerry and would vote for him again in a heartbeat. At least he didn't use buzz words in order to sell out and gather his religious right. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
"escape" wrote in message
... ...and today I was in the truck and heard some of Hannity's show and he and the former Bush campaign muckity muck was praising god and "the lord" with Hannity that Bush won. Yay. Just for grins, I'm gonna behave like one of the Bush Borg. Ready? "Got a link that proves what was really said on Hannity's show?" ROFL!!!!! |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:34:11 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
opined: "escape" wrote in message .. . ...and today I was in the truck and heard some of Hannity's show and he and the former Bush campaign muckity muck was praising god and "the lord" with Hannity that Bush won. Yay. Just for grins, I'm gonna behave like one of the Bush Borg. Ready? "Got a link that proves what was really said on Hannity's show?" ROFL!!!!! And like a good liberal democrat, no, I don't have the need to prove it! LOLWY! V Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
|
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:57:19 -0800, "gregpresley"
wrote: Not that anyone cares at this point in the thread, but it's clear that there were 5 main groups voting strongly for Bush. People who earn more than $200,000, people who believe that the only real business of government is defense/(offence), people who think that sticking to one point of view (no matter how discredited) is more indicative of leadership than flexibility is, people who live in small towns with perhaps less access to a variety of news sources, and people who are religious conservatives. There are some overlaps between these groups, notably the religious conservatives and small town groups. What can be said unequivocably is that Bush could not have won this election without the religious conservative vote. Just subtract their numbers (20,000,000 or so) and you get a Kerry over Bush victory 56,000,000 to 39,000,000. So on issues which could be argued on a rational basis, you have a significant, but smaller group of Republicans. Even though I disagree with those voters, at least we could argue political philosophy, numbers, motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you get into the realm of which candidate truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would prove that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion. A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with, that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational? It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people vote based on their personal beliefs? Swyck |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:33:42 GMT, escape
wrote: I didn't mention the word conservative. I was expressing my aghast at how this country is turning into a religious state where masses of people are swaying politics because of their god. That scares me. And before you go into another one of your anti-religion rants, remember who you're talking to. http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm In case you don't understand my point, you quite frequently put people into neat categories. Many people do. It's amazing to me how many claim they don't when caught. I didn't have time or desire to read the website, but I don't think religion has any place in politics or government. No place at all. That is not the same thing as anti-religion ranting. I am a very active practitioner in my tradition, but I would never want to see it govern anyone. It's a personal thing, not something to use against people. You are an ignorant bigot. Its fine for you to vote for what you think is right, but not for religious people. For your information religion has always been influential in politics in this country. Swyck |
wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:57:19 -0800, "gregpresley" wrote: Not that anyone cares at this point in the thread, but it's clear that there were 5 main groups voting strongly for Bush. People who earn more than $200,000, people who believe that the only real business of government is defense/(offence), people who think that sticking to one point of view (no matter how discredited) is more indicative of leadership than flexibility is, people who live in small towns with perhaps less access to a variety of news sources, and people who are religious conservatives. There are some overlaps between these groups, notably the religious conservatives and small town groups. What can be said unequivocably is that Bush could not have won this election without the religious conservative vote. Just subtract their numbers (20,000,000 or so) and you get a Kerry over Bush victory 56,000,000 to 39,000,000. So on issues which could be argued on a rational basis, you have a significant, but smaller group of Republicans. Even though I disagree with those voters, at least we could argue political philosophy, numbers, motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you get into the realm of which candidate truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would prove that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion. A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with, that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational? It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people vote based on their personal beliefs? Swyck Some people don't know where to draw the line, and THAT'S the problem. Hey...spend a week on google and try to find some examples IN THE UNITED STATES of Jews electing a slew of public officials because they think everyone should observe THEIR religious practices. See...some religions have a missionary tradition. You know what THAT means: Stick your nose in everybody else's business. These sects got away with destroying entire civilizations. Nowadays, they'd never get away with it, so they're trying to flex their muscles by voting. There's nothing wrong with having one's own beliefs. It's a whole different story when you try and impose them on others. |
In article , "gregpresley"
wrote: Not that anyone cares at this point in the thread, but it's clear that there were 5 main groups voting strongly for Bush. People who earn more than $200,000, people who believe that the only real business of government is defense/(offence), people who think that sticking to one point of view (no matter how discredited) is more indicative of leadership than flexibility is, people who live in small towns with perhaps less access to a variety of news sources, and people who are religious conservatives. There are some overlaps between these groups, notably the religious conservatives and small town groups. What can be said unequivocably is that Bush could not have won this election without the religious conservative vote. Just subtract their numbers (20,000,000 or so) and you get a Kerry over Bush victory 56,000,000 to 39,000,000. So on issues which could be argued on a rational basis, you have a significant, but smaller group of Republicans. Even though I disagree with those voters, at least we could argue political philosophy, numbers, motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you get into the realm of which candidate truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would prove that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion. But as I wrote to my Republican brother recently, the Democrats faced internal disunity for over 100 years between the northern Democrats and the southern Democrats. The northerns were anti-slavery, the southerns pro, the northerns willing to assist the implementation of Amendments XIII and XIV, the southerns to obstruct them, the northerns to pass civil rights legislation in the 50's and 60's, the southerns to obstruct them, the northerns to encourage scientific knowledge and debate, the southerns to vote on public officials depending on their stand on evolution. Now the Republicans have "inherited" the south, and with that inheritance come a lot of problematical issues and potential divisions down the road. Barry Goldwater spent the last years of his life warning his fellow Republicans that there would be tremendous trouble in store for them if they allowed the Christian right to become dominant in their party, and I would say that we've arrived at that point. Excellent comment. -paggers -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
In article , wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:33:42 GMT, escape wrote: I didn't mention the word conservative. I was expressing my aghast at how this country is turning into a religious state where masses of people are swaying politics because of their god. That scares me. And before you go into another one of your anti-religion rants, remember who you're talking to. http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm In case you don't understand my point, you quite frequently put people into neat categories. Many people do. It's amazing to me how many claim they don't when caught. I didn't have time or desire to read the website, but I don't think religion has any place in politics or government. No place at all. That is not the same thing as anti-religion ranting. I am a very active practitioner in my tradition, but I would never want to see it govern anyone. It's a personal thing, not something to use against people. You are an ignorant bigot. Its fine for you to vote for what you think is right, but not for religious people. For your information religion has always been influential in politics in this country. Swyck You make religious people sound like morons. But as escape & greg are by no stretch of the imagination bigots, I'm sure neither will draw the conclusion that christians are morons merely because of one pitifully hate-filled sod who angrilly pretends to worship a god of love. Most of us hang out with christians a great deal even if we're not christians. So we well know you represent only a crazy-ass fringe & not the real deal. If anyone thought you personally represented christianity, THEN we'd be bigots. As someone who has for many years studied comparative religion, whose personal library includes everything from the Babylonian Talmud to the Zohar and Targums and Midrash Rabbah, to the Upanishads to the the Devi Mahatmya to Kojiki: The Record of Ancient Matters, to the complete works of the AnteNicene fathers, five translations of the Bible, the Ng Hammadi texts & every conceivable scrap of Pseudepigrapha, to the Koran and the complete works of Rumi, ad infitum, & having read this entire library more than one time through, I can say that my interest in religion goes as deep or deeper than yours. Good chance I even know more about your faith than do you, unless you too have Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria within arm's reach. And I know this: At the mystic end of all religions there is common ground, there is poetic philosophy, & there is wisdom devoid of divisive hatred. You've only gotten as far as the divisive, damaging, hate-justifying part of what it means to be relgious. I may not see in you the capacity to ever become spiritual, but who knows, maybe you'll have more than one life to work it through, & you'll become a credit to your faith to everyone's great amaze. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
"gregpresley" wrote in message ... wrote in message motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you get into the realm of which candidate truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would prove that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion. A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with, that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational? It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people vote based on their personal beliefs? Swyck First of all, I consider myself Christian, so I don't look in the mirror every morning and say "gosh, what an irrational creature you are".....LOL But belief is private and acceptance of fine points of dogma, an individual matter - not a matter for politics. . Over 2/3rds of the world's Christians (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians) believe that the defnition of Christian is "follower of Christ" - embedded in that definition is, of course, a belief that Jesus is the Savior, but also strong in that tradition is the answer to the biblical question, "how will you know they are Christians? You will know they are Christians by their love". In that tradition of Christianity, people are not going to accept a statement of "I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior" from a public official (or from any individual) for that matter, as being significant. They are going to look for the acts, or the works, if you will, which translate belief into action. And those acts, if a person has digested the new Testament, will necessarily have to be fully living out the Beatitudes and similar suggestions of Jesus on how to live a holy life. From a public policy perspective, I have no interest in a politician's political beliefs, but if he/she consistently votes in favor of policies that ease the lives of the poor and downtrodden, whether for school lunch programs, or making sure that children have shelter, on in international policies, if he/she votes for sustained diplomacy for peace-making efforts above war, I have all the "moral-values" information I need on that candidate - who could be Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist , or atheist for all that I care. How do you deal with the business about the end of the world, when unfortunate Jews, Buddhists, etc will be toast because they don't believe in Jesus? |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:24:31 -0500, opined:
A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with, that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational? It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people vote based on their personal beliefs? Swyck A Christian is not JUST someone who accepts Christ as their savior. They also believe God created the heavens and earth, things possible and impossible. Christians do not believe in evolution, as they are guided by the bible, who is written by God and interpreted by man. Yes, Christians can be reasoned with, but when it comes to things of science, no, they cannot. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:35:52 -0500, opined:
You are an ignorant bigot. Its fine for you to vote for what you think is right, but not for religious people. For your information religion has always been influential in politics in this country. Swyck Yeah, that's the new teachings, ain't it. I am not ignorant nor am I a bigot of any sort. You calling me a bigot is pretty funny, though. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:28:13 -0800, "gregpresley"
wrote: wrote in message motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you get into the realm of which candidate truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would prove that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion. A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with, that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational? It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people vote based on their personal beliefs? Swyck First of all, I consider myself Christian, so I don't look in the mirror every morning and say "gosh, what an irrational creature you are".....LOL But belief is private and acceptance of fine points of dogma, an individual matter - not a matter for politics. . Over 2/3rds of the world's Christians (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians) believe that the defnition of Christian is "follower of Christ" - embedded in that definition is, of course, a belief that Jesus is the Savior, but also strong in that tradition is the answer to the biblical question, "how will you know they are Christians? You will know they are Christians by their love". In that tradition of Christianity, people are not going to accept a statement of "I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior" from a public official (or from any individual) for that matter, as being significant. They are going to look for the acts, or the works, if you will, which translate belief into action. And those acts, if a person has digested the new Testament, will necessarily have to be fully living out the Beatitudes and similar suggestions of Jesus on how to live a holy life. From a public policy perspective, I have no interest in a politician's political beliefs, but if he/she consistently votes in favor of policies that ease the lives of the poor and downtrodden, whether for school lunch programs, or making sure that children have shelter, on in international policies, if he/she votes for sustained diplomacy for peace-making efforts above war, I have all the "moral-values" information I need on that candidate - who could be Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist , or atheist for all that I care. Well said, and that's how it should be. You vote for those that are applying and acting on your beliefs, as well as they can. My contention was with your statement that you cannot have a rational discussion with someone who considers "Jesus Christ as their savior." Though I don't agree with their point of view, and don't follow it, I also don't believe that the people making those distinctions when voting are being unreasonable. There are many people that vote entirely on the basis of Roe-Wade, the environment, the economy, how the candidate looks or some other single issue. The politician they are supporting may just be a vote grubber that will promise anything to get elected. How is that any different or better? I'd like to see your analysis of Kerry's voting groups for comparison. Swyck |
"gregpresley" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" How do you deal with the business about the end of the world, when unfortunate Jews, Buddhists, etc will be toast because they don't believe in Jesus? I don't concern myself with judgment day. The bible has many specific injunction against doing that, most of which have been ignored by Christians of all denominations ever since. As a matter of fact, I'm personally more interested in how I can make the world a better place while I'm alive than what's going to happen to me after death. I would be astounded if God were as "judgmental" as a lot of folks think he ought to be - (of course, always assuming that they themselves will be among the elect, and those they don't like will be hell-bound). But that point of view is not going to be heard from any Christian pulpit anytime soon, I don't expect......LOL You might get a kick out of the movie "Dogma", especially when god appears at the end. :-) Great movie. |
wrote in message motives, cost/benefit, etc. Once you get into the realm of which candidate truly believes "Jesus Christ is my personal Savior", and how you would prove that, you've lost the ability to have a rational political discussion. A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with, that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational? It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people vote based on their personal beliefs? Swyck First of all, I consider myself Christian, so I don't look in the mirror every morning and say "gosh, what an irrational creature you are".....LOL But belief is private and acceptance of fine points of dogma, an individual matter - not a matter for politics. . Over 2/3rds of the world's Christians (Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians) believe that the defnition of Christian is "follower of Christ" - embedded in that definition is, of course, a belief that Jesus is the Savior, but also strong in that tradition is the answer to the biblical question, "how will you know they are Christians? You will know they are Christians by their love". In that tradition of Christianity, people are not going to accept a statement of "I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior" from a public official (or from any individual) for that matter, as being significant. They are going to look for the acts, or the works, if you will, which translate belief into action. And those acts, if a person has digested the new Testament, will necessarily have to be fully living out the Beatitudes and similar suggestions of Jesus on how to live a holy life. From a public policy perspective, I have no interest in a politician's political beliefs, but if he/she consistently votes in favor of policies that ease the lives of the poor and downtrodden, whether for school lunch programs, or making sure that children have shelter, on in international policies, if he/she votes for sustained diplomacy for peace-making efforts above war, I have all the "moral-values" information I need on that candidate - who could be Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist , or atheist for all that I care. |
escape expounded:
I didn't have time or desire to read the website, but I don't think religion has any place in politics or government. No place at all. You did read the website once, Victoria, when we were exchanging our view. And I didn't say that religion had a place in politics, if you actually read and comprehended what other people say (especially those with differing views than you) you would have known that. But you are so busy firing off at 'conservatives' you no longer comprehend what they are saying. As for this snipe: No, that wasn't my intention at all. You simply don't sound like a very happy person. It was sarcastic. You have no idea of my state of mind, and actually couldn't be further from the truth. You, my dear, are the one who is perennially unhappy. Bitter, too. I've been around here for a long time, Victoria, I remember nice exchanges with you, and I remember when you were the one many of us were defending. That's been gone a long time..... -- Ann, Gardening in zone 6a Just south of Boston, MA ******************************** |
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "gregpresley" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" How do you deal with the business about the end of the world, when unfortunate Jews, Buddhists, etc will be toast because they don't believe in Jesus? I don't concern myself with judgment day. The bible has many specific injunction against doing that, most of which have been ignored by Christians of all denominations ever since. As a matter of fact, I'm personally more interested in how I can make the world a better place while I'm alive than what's going to happen to me after death. I would be astounded if God were as "judgmental" as a lot of folks think he ought to be - (of course, always assuming that they themselves will be among the elect, and those they don't like will be hell-bound). But that point of view is not going to be heard from any Christian pulpit anytime soon, I don't expect......LOL You might get a kick out of the movie "Dogma", especially when god appears at the end. :-) Great movie. That was a cool movie, & God was hot. On the opposite extreme from that lovely comedy is the first Prophesy movie, in which Christopher Walken plays the archangel Gabriel, to whom God will no longer speak, & who has become the evil urge of god much more menacing than Lucifer who only wants to tempt us but Gabriel is out to destroy all the ugly mud-monkeys, who are us, believing as he does that if he can destroy everything God loves, God will love him instead. The two sequels aren't bad but don't stand up to the original which has a creepy believability, since this wacked out Gabriel so greatly resembles many fundamentalists who likewise believe the way back to God is by hating & destroying things. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
"Doug Kanter" How do you deal with the business about the end of the world, when unfortunate Jews, Buddhists, etc will be toast because they don't believe in Jesus? I don't concern myself with judgment day. The bible has many specific injunction against doing that, most of which have been ignored by Christians of all denominations ever since. As a matter of fact, I'm personally more interested in how I can make the world a better place while I'm alive than what's going to happen to me after death. I would be astounded if God were as "judgmental" as a lot of folks think he ought to be - (of course, always assuming that they themselves will be among the elect, and those they don't like will be hell-bound). But that point of view is not going to be heard from any Christian pulpit anytime soon, I don't expect......LOL |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:57:42 GMT, escape
wrote: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:24:31 -0500, opined: A Christian is by definition someone who believes that Jesus Christ is their savior. Are you saying that Christians can't be reasoned with, that they can't understand complex topics? Are Christians irrational? It sure does sound like you're a religious bigot, though that seems to be a politically correct form of bigotry these days. Shouldn't people vote based on their personal beliefs? Swyck A Christian is not JUST someone who accepts Christ as their savior. They also believe God created the heavens and earth, things possible and impossible. Christians do not believe in evolution, as they are guided by the bible, who is written by God and interpreted by man. I know that many Christians believe in evolution, though there are some that do not. Yes, Christians can be reasoned with, but when it comes to things of science, no, they cannot. Yet there have been plenty of scientists that were Christians, some of them deeply religious. I'm sure we could discuss science with them. Again it comes down to what kind of Christians we're talking about. How many fundamentalists are there that are really unwilling to listen to other points of view? Listening is not the same thing as being convinced or converted. Are there really 20 million of them, and is that number really higher then other blocks of unreasonable people? Swyck |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:43:46 -0500, Ann opined:
escape expounded: I didn't have time or desire to read the website, but I don't think religion has any place in politics or government. No place at all. You did read the website once, Victoria, when we were exchanging our view. And I didn't say that religion had a place in politics, if you actually read and comprehended what other people say (especially those with differing views than you) you would have known that. But you are so busy firing off at 'conservatives' you no longer comprehend what they are saying. As for this snipe: No, that wasn't my intention at all. You simply don't sound like a very happy person. It was sarcastic. You have no idea of my state of mind, and actually couldn't be further from the truth. You, my dear, are the one who is perennially unhappy. Bitter, too. I've been around here for a long time, Victoria, I remember nice exchanges with you, and I remember when you were the one many of us were defending. That's been gone a long time..... In the case you haven't noticed, I don't have many bad words with anyone here. That's why you don't come to my defense any more. I no longer get into the shit flinging, but this particular subject was something I was a bit interested in. My country has been hijacked in the name of Christ and republicans. Our president is not a true republican, or Christian. He's a dummard. Everyone is flying the coop. Oh well. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
|
|
"gregpresley" wrote in message ...
I don't concern myself with judgment day. The bible has many specific injunction against doing that, most of which have been ignored by Christians of all denominations ever since. As a matter of fact, I'm personally more interested in how I can make the world a better place while I'm alive than what's going to happen to me after death. I would be astounded if God were as "judgmental" as a lot of folks think he ought to be - (of course, always assuming that they themselves will be among the elect, and those they don't like will be hell-bound). But that point of view is not going to be heard from any Christian pulpit anytime soon, I don't expect......LOL Here is poem I like and don't know who wrote it. Don't even know it's name. I've had it for years and never know where it is, but It seems to surface about the time I get really smug and self-rightious !!! It seems to know when I need it! I dreamed death came the other night And Heaven's gate swung wide: With kindly grace an Angel Ushered me inside. And there---to my astonishment--- Stood folks I'd known on earth: Some I had judged and labeled as Unfit or little worth. Indignent words rose to my lips But never were set free----- For every face showed stunned surprise--- NO ONE EXPECTED ME !!!! leo/lee |
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:21:23 -0800, Larry Blanchard
opined: In article , get- says... Christians do not believe in evolution, as they are guided by the bible, who is written by God and interpreted by man. Well, we know what end of the "Christian" spectrum you're on :-). And apparently you're not guided by grammar either - "the bible, who is" - really! Sorry about the grammatical error. I'm not on any Christian spectrum at all. I have absolutely no belief in a creator at all. Not on any level. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
"escape" wrote in message
... On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:23:28 -0500, opined: I know that many Christians believe in evolution, though there are some that do not. A person who believes in evolution cannot call themselves a Christian. Christ is not the only thing which mandates firm belief in him. God mandates in the bible that he created all. No pastor, priest, reverend or preacher in Christianity believes in evolution. Two weeks back, PBS aired a Nova show which showed how scientists are piecing together the beginnings of quadrupeds, starting with certain types of fish, and tracking the increments by which a fish finally left the water and walked on land. Assuming several million Christians watched this show, how do you suppose they felt about it? Did they consider it to be in the same category as Star Trek? |
Its been said if Jesus was alive today he would be a big fan of both Nova
and Star Trek. He definitely would have been a big Kerry supporter too! He probably wouldn't be a big fan of Desperate Housewives though. Dubya claims to speak directly to God but his son (God's not Dubya's) says he's really been in cahoots with that other guy. "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "escape" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:23:28 -0500, opined: I know that many Christians believe in evolution, though there are some that do not. A person who believes in evolution cannot call themselves a Christian. Christ is not the only thing which mandates firm belief in him. God mandates in the bible that he created all. No pastor, priest, reverend or preacher in Christianity believes in evolution. Two weeks back, PBS aired a Nova show which showed how scientists are piecing together the beginnings of quadrupeds, starting with certain types of fish, and tracking the increments by which a fish finally left the water and walked on land. Assuming several million Christians watched this show, how do you suppose they felt about it? Did they consider it to be in the same category as Star Trek? |
"escape" wrote in message ... It's unreasonable for people to elect a man who is grossly incompetent merely because he says praise god, and uses terms like "The Lord." The man will go down as being one of, if not THE worst president in American history. People elected him based on something which scares me. The future is dim, in my opinion. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christians. Everyone thinks of W as a religious man, but I've yet to find any reference to him actually talking about his religious beliefs. Can anyone point out an instance when he has stated specifics? Thanks. Karen |
"Anonny Moose" wrote in message ... "escape" wrote in message ... It's unreasonable for people to elect a man who is grossly incompetent merely because he says praise god, and uses terms like "The Lord." The man will go down as being one of, if not THE worst president in American history. People elected him based on something which scares me. The future is dim, in my opinion. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christians. Everyone thinks of W as a religious man, but I've yet to find any reference to him actually talking about his religious beliefs. Can anyone point out an instance when he has stated specifics? Thanks. Karen I cannot provide examples. However, I can offer a suggestion from an acquaintance who shall remain unnamed and undescribed, for security purposes: Perhaps if everyone send W a box of pretzels, one of the snacks will eventually have the desired effect. |
In article ,
"Cereus-validus..." wrote: Its been said if Jesus was alive today he would be a big fan of both Nova and Star Trek. But he would've been totally creeped out by Joan of Arcadia and Touched By An Angel. -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
|
In article , "Anonny Moose"
wrote: "escape" wrote in message ... It's unreasonable for people to elect a man who is grossly incompetent merely because he says praise god, and uses terms like "The Lord." The man will go down as being one of, if not THE worst president in American history. People elected him based on something which scares me. The future is dim, in my opinion. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christians. Everyone thinks of W as a religious man, but I've yet to find any reference to him actually talking about his religious beliefs. Can anyone point out an instance when he has stated specifics? Thanks. Karen For an understanding of how Bush applies religion to goverment policy, I recommend Jim Wallis's article on Bush's Theology of Empi http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&ar ticle=030910 This is a Christian take on why Christians should respect the separation of church & state, & the harm Bush does by destroying this separation. He is his own religion. Real quote: "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did." [said to Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen] Less loony if only he could've maintained a separation of church & state: "Reverend Graham planted a mustard seed in my soul, a seed that grew over the next year. He led me to the path, and I began walking. It was the beginning of a change in my life.I had always been a "religious" person, had regularly attended church, even taught Sunday School and served as an altar boy. But that weekend my faith took on a new meaning. It was the beginning of a new walk where I would commit my heart to Jesus Christ." [from Bush's book A Charge To Keep, describing his born-again conversion in 1985 which stopped him from being a full-time drunkard &, by all evidence, part-time coke-head] Of course, A Charge to Keep was ghost-written by campaign speech-writers, & it is a trumped up biography posing as autobiography strictly for The Selling of the President. Billy Graham had very little to do with his deepening interest in religion. But by the mid-1980s Laura was sick of seeing him constantly drunk, as he was borish, loud, & extremely vulgar, & when Laura had the twins, she didn't think they should be permitted to grow up around such a hard-core alcoholic. He had also been involved in a series of shady business deals that had been very profitable for a while but finally collapsed. He hung out with oil tycoons from the Skull & Bones Society (honest to shit!) & in 1984 there was a "bust" period for these rich ****ers. One of these rich ****ers was Don Evans. It was Evans, not Billy Graham, who in his own life-crisis dragged his best friend George W. to non-denominational bible studies in 1984/1985. Evans began to put up barriers to keep Bush's drinking buddies at bay, surrounded Bush with fellow Jesus freaks, & peer-pressured him into giving up smoking & drinking (Bush may already have given up cocaine in the late 1970s; he went AWOL while in the Guard & got his early discharge to avoid the new policy of drug-testing). Due to Evans influence, & under threats from Laura, George stopped drinking in summer of 1986, & by 1987 he was his father's liason to the religious far-right drumming up support for his dad. In 1999 he called to the Texas governor's mansion an assembly of leading conservative preachers, & told them Jesus had called to him, like Paul on the road to Damascus, to become president of the United States. When Bush slipped & admitted early on that his war against the mid-east was a "Crusade" he was being totally honest. His faith-based foreign policy is in fact a Christian crusade against Islam. When you realize that, all the irrationality of this war, & the baseless fabrications from the White House to justify it, fall into place. So I don't think anyone can doubt he's a christian, though certainly not an very honest one. He has claimed that he studies a different bible passage every morning before he brings Laura her cup of coffee. A charming claim very calculated. But when an interviewer attempting to break the ice in a nice way asked him what passage he had read that morning, Bush became angry & gave a guarded interview, because he hadn't read any passages, knows very little about what's in the bible because he does not read ANYthing, let alone a bible passage every morning. What he gets every morning is a summation of leading stories from national newspapers SPOKEN to him. His mornings do often include the Presidental Prayer Breakfast during which he subjects privileged reporters & dignitaries to his own lame-ass sermons which are written for him by his speech-writers & would make nice Hallmark Cards about peace & love, good & evil. One of his morning sermons to his captive breakfasters was on the evils of slavery; he's so up-to-date. The evil of telling lies in order to start wars that kill thousands he has apparently never had a sermon about. Unlike, say, Ronald Reagan who only pretended to have religion, Bush always had it. He was dragged to Episcopalian churches as a kid, & after his marriage he converted to Laura's Methodist faith & attended Methodist meetings with her even while still a persistant drunk. He even taught Sunday School before heading out to another drunken binge. He makes regular phone calls to conservative preachers before making political decisions. WHen he comes up with crazy plans like turning social welfare over to churches in his church-delivered welfare policy, that came from no secular source, that was from jabbering on the phone with preachers who are making whatever policies his oil-buddies haven't already made. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
In article ,
(Roger Pearse) wrote: (paghat) wrote in message ... As someone who has for many years studied comparative religion, whose personal library includes everything from the Babylonian Talmud to the Zohar and Targums and Midrash Rabbah, to the Upanishads to the the Devi Mahatmya to Kojiki: The Record of Ancient Matters, to the complete works of the AnteNicene fathers, five translations of the Bible, the Ng Hammadi texts & every conceivable scrap of Pseudepigrapha, to the Koran and the complete works of Rumi, ad infitum, & having read this entire library more than one time through, I can say that my interest in religion goes as deep or deeper than yours. Good chance I even know more about your faith than do you, unless you too have Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria within arm's reach. I'm afraid that this claim to authority must be disallowed by any reasonable person. You are not an authority on a religion of which you are not a member. A devottee of a single Christian sect remains so by being blind to & rejecting the full range of belief. I do not claim to be an authority, though, just have a deeper interest than dunderheads who blame their prejudices & sillier observations on their religion, when they obviously learned only enough about faith to justify hating whatever they already hated. -paggers -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com |
Real quote:
Wrong again: This is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English. |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:06:17 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
opined: Two weeks back, PBS aired a Nova show which showed how scientists are piecing together the beginnings of quadrupeds, starting with certain types of fish, and tracking the increments by which a fish finally left the water and walked on land. Assuming several million Christians watched this show, how do you suppose they felt about it? Did they consider it to be in the same category as Star Trek? I saw the show and it was wonderful. I was thinking about your question as I was watching it, funny enough. I have no idea what a Christian would think about it. I don't know how they can deny evolution, theory or not. My problem is not with Christians believing in creation, but when it comes to the man running the US, it matters to me. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:34:43 -0800, "Anonny Moose"
opined: "escape" wrote in message .. . It's unreasonable for people to elect a man who is grossly incompetent merely because he says praise god, and uses terms like "The Lord." The man will go down as being one of, if not THE worst president in American history. People elected him based on something which scares me. The future is dim, in my opinion. It has absolutely nothing to do with Christians. Everyone thinks of W as a religious man, but I've yet to find any reference to him actually talking about his religious beliefs. Can anyone point out an instance when he has stated specifics? Thanks. Karen A brief search: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep15.html http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...-3-2003_pg7_56 http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2004/11/13213.php Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:52:36 GMT, Janet Baraclough..
opined: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:24:31 -0500, opined: Christians do not believe in evolution, as they are guided by the bible, who is written by God and interpreted by man. God did not write the Bible, men did. Then other men interpreted what men had written. Janet. Hmm, really? I guess you never read the new testament. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
On 17 Nov 2004 18:36:29 GMT, (IntarsiaCo) opined:
Real quote: Wrong again: This is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English. Regardless, I heard the man say God spoke to him and told him he was supposed to be president. He said this when he was the governor of my state of TX. Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend? http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter