Obama..... not religious?

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Frank, you put people into pockets.
Not all who believe in the christian concept of god would argue with you on this - that the book is absolutely useless as an indicator of anything divine.
At least they would argue they'd see much of it awry, but explainable as a kind of purchase for their own concepts.

This is a windmill that moved, I think, Mr. Tilter

.

Not sure what you are saying here, Ossobuco. If you think I am "putting people into pockets"...or tilting at windmills...provide a specific example of what you are talking about so I can defend myself what I said....and show it not to be an example of putting people into pockets.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

JPB wrote:

Quote:
The christian who believes that the Word of Jesus is the Word of God can easily make the case that Leviticus no longer applies.
Sorry -- I don't see how any of the New-Testament quotes you cite translate into "God is now cool with homosexuality, cool wish shellfish, and no longer cool with slavery. These are moral doctrines that liberal Christians made up by themselves, in defiance of the Bible. I applaud them for that -- don't get me wrong -- but I just don't understand their denial of the fact that this is what they were doing.

On one level...if they want, they can claim white is black...or up is down.

But it is such bullshit...it makes you sick to think that intelligent people will go thought this nonsense for no other reason than to acknowledge that the best possible guess about the Bible is that it has as much to do with the Reality of existence...as does Alice in Wonderland.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Nonsense. I don't take the Bible for the direct expression of God's truths, because I don't think there is a god whose truths or lies the Bible could express. When I say "God hates gays", I am telling the plain and simple truth in the exactly the same way as if I was saying "Athena admires Odysseus", or "Romeo and Juliet are in love with each other", or "Ebenezer Scrooge is a miser". Each of these statements is a truth, an objective truth, about a character in a book. No more, no less.

Of course you are. And I take it a step further and use the expression "the god of the Bible" as opposed to God...so that there can be no misunderstandings about that. (Although that doesn't stop people like DrewDad or Nimh from pretending otherwise.)

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Quote:

There seems to be an element of the convert here -- the ex-smoker who's way more anti-smoking than anyone else, the deaf person who was raised in a hearing environment and is way more militantly Deaf than the deaf person who was raised in a Deaf environment...

I just don't see religion as inherently evil. I was never religious but I've had many good friends who are, have gone to various churches and temples, etc. Several of these communities were really wonderful for the participants, really a force for good in their lives. I get it. Not for me, but I get it.

My mother, a person I loved, was a daily church goer. I have dozens of friends whom I love dearly who are church goes. What does that have to do with it?

As for "religion does a lot of good and that has to be taken into consideration"...

...well, Mussolini made the trains run on time...Hitler got Germany out of its worst depression/run away inflation economy ever...Nero built beautiful buildings.

Yes...religion does lots of good! So did Hitler, Mussolini and Nero.

Did I make my point?

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

No.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Open your eyes, because I did!

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Same to you.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

My eyes are open.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

I suspect they are not...otherwise you would have seen the point I was making.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Yes

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Thanks! I figured most people would!

0 Replies

reading this topic confirms my belief in the remaining residuals inherent in the human bicameral mind.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I suspect they are not...otherwise you would have seen the point I was making.

This is something that really bothers me about engaging you in conversation. You are so awestruck with yourself that you can't conceive of being unclear, confused, muddled, vague, imprecise, ambiguous, or just plain wrong.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Well, thankfully he wasn't any of these things in the post we're talking about.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

No, instead he pursued an ad hominem logical fallacy: because people are capable of bad things, then religion is bad. (Yes, yes, I got his point about "bad people do good things, too"; it's still a logical fallacy.)

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Quote:

No, instead he pursued an ad hominem logical fallacy: because people are capable of bad things, then religion is bad. (Yes, yes, I got his point about "bad people do good things, too"; it's still a logical fallacy.)

Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

You really aren’t very bright, are you.

This whole thing started when Sozobe mentioned that religion is not inherently evil (not that I ever said religion is evil, let alone inherently evil)…and then mentioned some good things that have come from religion.

To which I replied:

“As for "religion does a lot of good and that has to be taken into consideration"...

...well, Mussolini made the trains run on time...Hitler got Germany out of its worst depression/run away inflation economy ever...Nero built beautiful buildings.

Yes...religion does lots of good! So did Hitler, Mussolini and Nero.”

Yes…religion does good things. But considering the horrible things that come from it, who really gives a rat’s ass. IN MY OPINION, religion is a net negative for society. IN MY OPINION, although they did some good things also, Hitler, Mussolini, and Nero were net negatives for society.

I thought I made that point using the wording I did.

Now what is all this horseshit about strutting, preening, over-inflated ego, “awestruck with yourself?”

Only a punk…who hasn’t the courage or intellectual ability to actually debate….would pull that ****!

If you’ve got he balls, DrewDad (not that I am accusing you of having any at all) debate the issue. Let's see you defend the “ad hominem logical fallacy” beauty!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

debate the issue

1. I'm afraid you're the one straying from the issue. The issue is religion. Not Hitler, not Mussolini, not Nero. Those are red herrings, in addition to ad hominem fallacies.

2. Let's see, Sozobe says "religion isn't inherently evil". You say that you don't believe religion is inherently evil.... What is it you're trying to debate?

Another word of advice: If you find yourself resorting to using Hitler to make your point, perhaps you should take a moment and rethink your example before hitting "reply".

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I searched a bit for a reference that would attempt to explain the concept of liberal chrisianity. There are tons of them out there and I didn't spend forever reading through them but I found a site that has some interesting articles. I'll link a couple pages (they aren't short) and suggest some further reading if you're interested.

http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/cauthen-bibleinterpret.shtml

http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/cauthen-homosexuality.shtml

Thomas wrote:

Sounds like guilt by association to me. Since when is it fundamentalist to insist that a text means what it says-- whether you like the meaning or not?

Huh? Since those who defined the classifications gave them names, I guess.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Quote:

1. I'm afraid you're the one straying from the issue.

Don't be afraid. You cannot be arrested for being stupid.

Quote:

The issue is religion. Not Hitler, not Mussolini, not Nero. Those are red herrings, in addition to ad hominem fallacies.

Sozobe raised an issue that was peripheral to the topic...I posted a response to that slight deviation. The examples I used were appropriate...and are not red herrings or ad hominem fallacies.

In fact, you were further off topic in this last post of yours...than I was in that one.

Nice try! Grow a brain, then try again.

Quote:

2. Let's see, Sozobe says "religion isn't inherently evil". You say that you don't believe religion is inherently evil....

Yes I did. I was not sure why Sozobe said that to me...I had never claimed that religion is inherently evil. Do you have a problem with that?

Quote:

What is it you're trying to debate?

A whole bunch of things. How about you?

Quote:

Another word of advice:

Take “advice” from you??? Don't flatter yourself. You are way out of your league here.

Quote:

If you find yourself resorting to using Hitler to make your point, perhaps you should take a moment and rethink your example before hitting "reply".

I do...I did on that occasion...I thought it appropriate. I hit “reply.”

Obviously you've got a problem with that.

Go tell that to the chaplain--not me!

1 Reply

Obama..... not religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know