43
   

Obama..... not religious?

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:18 am
@nimh,
Nimh, I'm sure I speak for Frank when I say that we'd both love you to to come to New York and hang out at the Pan with us, Joe, Kicky, and the rest. You could hash out all your differences with Frank, and I could just sit back and watch.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:22 am
@Thomas,
And thus we arrive at moral relativism.

Keeping defeated enemies as slaves is morally superior to killing them.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:27 am
@DrewDad,
True -- but what makes you think these were the only choices in the ancient Middle East?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:30 am
@sozobe,
Well...let me say some things about myself.

As nearly as I can determine, I am as decent an individual as anyone else in this discussion. I am as moral, as empathetic, as willing to give solace; as interested in what happens in the world; as interested in trying to change it for the better...as anyone else in this discussion.

I did not start the name-calling here...the "preening, strutting, over-inflated ego bullshit!" That came from DrewDad and Nimh.

Yes I did call a certain type of Christian “hypocrites”....and I did that because they ARE hypocrites. And I have given arguments for why that is my opinion.

I'm still waiting for a response to my post about what you would think of the “Catholic” in my illustration story.
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:34 am
@Frank Apisa,
Haven't been following this closely since yesterday -- just scanned and didn't see a likely candidate for the "Catholic story" you had in mind. Can you point me to it?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:35 am
@Thomas,
Well, I don't think that I claimed those were the only choices. Perhaps you can tell me best choice, though, for making sure one isn't attacked again next week? That doesn't involve killing or enslaving. With options that were available in the ancient Middle East.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:39 am
@Thomas,
Not necessarily. In fact, sailors are legendary for their drunken antics, for the good and sufficient reason that if they go ashore without any money, there's nothing for them to do, but if they've got a pocket full of prize money, they are very likely to get "as drunk as lords," because that's usually about all they have to do.

In his meticulously kept log, the pirate Blackbeard bemoans the lack of rum and the sullenness of his crew. ""Such a day, rum all out: -- Our company somewhat sober: -- A damned confusion amongst us! -- Rogues a-plotting:-- Great talk of separation -- so I looked sharp for a prize: -- Such a day took one, with a great deal of liquor on board, so kept the company hot, damned hot; then all things went well again." Of course, pirate crews were usually the "losers" of the maritime profession, but in that matter they did not differ from their more legally punctilious brethren.

This was particularly true in the United States Navy, which prohibited alcohol aboard U.S. naval vessels, and very obligingly kept a record of a sailor's pay on the books, to be issued to them when they were given shore leave. In the Royal Navy, sailors were paid precious damned little, and had the cost of their "slops" (clothing and cloth for making clothing) stopped from their pay, but who received prize money, in gold and silver, within hours of making port after taking prizes. Here is an illustrative passage from Patrick O'Brian's novel Master and Commander:

Quote:
He [Dr. Stephen Maturin] was not, indeed, inattentive; but his attention was not so wholly taken up that he did not hear Jack cry, "Oh yes, yes! The rest of them are certainly coming ashore--they are lining the rail in their shore-going rig, with money in their pockets, their eyes staring out of their heads and their pricks a yard long.' He could scarcely have avoided hearing it, for Jack had a find carrying voice, and his remark happened to drop into one of those curious silences that occur even in very numerous assemblies.


"Fleet's in!" has been the battle cry of whores, publicans and taxi drivers for many centuries.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:40 am
@sozobe,
http://able2know.org/topic/128492-16#post-3558727
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:43 am
@Frank Apisa,
Ah. You're waiting for my response... to something you addressed to nimh?

OK.

I just can't get het up about that. If a person wants to call him or herself a Roman Catholic, he or she is welcome to it. No skin off my nose.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:50 am
@DrewDad,
You appear to be assuming that the enslavers were the attackees not the attackers. Historically there was no correltation between who started the war and who enslaved enemy warriors. With that in mind, one morally superior choice would have been to not start the war in question in the first place. Independent of who started the war, enslaving women and children does nothing to deter attacks. And of course, yet another morally superior choice would have been to not make slavery hereditary.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:52 am
The issue of slavery in the OT pales in comparison to the injunctions of the OT god that the enemy be slaughtered out of hand.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 08:59 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
You appear to be assuming that the enslavers were the attackees not the attackers.

You appear to be assuming that the enslavers were the attackers and not the attackees....

My meta-point, however, is that taking certain passages in isolation and then attempting to discredit the entire work is a pretty ridiculous thing to do. I understand people need to thin-slice things, but just because you (or Frank, or anyone else has issues with Christianity) latched onto this (or any other) one passage doesn't mean that I, or JPB, or anyone else has to share your fixation.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 09:13 am
@sozobe,
Quote:
Ah. You're waiting for my response... to something you addressed to nimh?

OK.


Sorry! I honestly forgot I addressed it to Nimh, Sozobe...but the truth is, I meant it for all of the people involved here. Anything I write in A2K is addressed to everyone in A2K...but I do apologize for forgetting that the post itself had been addresses specifically to Nimh.

Quote:

I just can't get het up about that. If a person wants to call him or herself a Roman Catholic, he or she is welcome to it. No skin off my nose.


Wow! Well, then I think I see why we are disagreement here, Sozobe.

Even in an illustration like this you are unable to look at the facts...and say that the person is a hypocrite. This is as innocuous as it gets...no person like this even exists on A2K. You would not be calling anyone here a hypocrite...you would simply be commenting on the notion of "hypocrisy."

And you do not do it. Rather you just brush it off as,"no skin off my nose."

Why would you even be in these kinds of conversations then?

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 09:17 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
...or Frank, or anyone else has issues with Christianity...


I'm not really sure I "have issues with Christianity." I prefer to think I have issues with hypocrisy.

Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 09:18 am
Ooo . . . Ooo ooo . . . i have issues with Christianity . . . pick me, pick me ! ! !
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 09:19 am
@Frank Apisa,
Which kind of conversations?

That's pretty much exactly when I entered THIS conversation -- when I thought it was obnoxious for you to be telling JPB that she wasn't a Christian when she calls herself a Christian. Why do you care? Why is it skin off your nose?
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 09:23 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
You appear to be assuming that the enslavers were the attackers and not the attackees....

No I'm not. That's why I wrote this, in the very next sentence:

Thomas wrote:
Historically there was no correlation between who started the war and who enslaved enemy warriors

On to your actual point:

DrewDad wrote:
My meta-point, however, is that taking certain passages in isolation and then attempting to discredit the entire work is a pretty ridiculous thing to do.

I'm not discrediting the entire work. I did acknowledge that you can cherry-pick some good stuff out of its 2000 pages -- just as you could cherry-pick some good stuff out of seven Soprano seasons. But I am saying that when you read the Bible, unfiltered, from cover to cover, the general character of the "god" figure it describes is inhumane, petty, cruel, pathetically obsessive, and just generally awful.

If the god of the Bible showed up on your wife's couch, she most certainly wouldn't worship him like fundamentalist Christians do. She most certainly wouldn't take his flickers of charm, his occasional moments of clarity, as a starting point for something modern humans could selectively worship. On the contrary: I bet she would immediately send him to a closed mental institution. And she would be right!

You don't like the citations I gave so far? Fine. What kind of evidence do you require for the claims I'm making?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 09:30 am
Anyway...to anyone who thinks that it is unreasonable, boorish, or inappropriate to consider an individual to be a hypocrite for going through the contortions some people go through to consider themselves to be “Christians”...when in fact, they reject much stuff that should be embraced by a “Christian”...

...Isay, you really have a much bigger problem than the problem you think I have.

There are people here I consider to be hypocrites...laughable hypocrites at that.

I don't think I am a boor to call their hypocrisy to their attention.

I gave ample reasons for my considerations in the “homosexual” instance...and I did it in a reasonable, logical, and courteous way.

Here is that first post:

Quote:

Actually, JPB...

...an argument can be made that any “Christian” who condones homosexual behavior, is a hypocrite...which is equivalent to saying that the person is not really a Christian.

The Bible is unambiguous about how the god of the Bible...the god Jesus worshiped...feels about homosexual conduct. It is, in the opinion of that god...an abomination...an insult to the god.

And the opinion of the god of the Bible should matter to Christians...should it not?

So from that perspective, he is not a Christian...and quite honestly, it sounds as though you are not either.

Can we discuss this?


The fact that I had this opinion...sent some people into a frenzy.

Nothing I can do about that!

I guess I just have to put up with the “preening, strutting, over-blown ego” bullshit, because as far as I am concerned, what I am doing is being honest and giving arguments for why I have the opinion...not any of that other crap.

And I think my critics here are all wet!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 09:31 am
@sozobe,
Well, I think I just answered that question up above.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 09:31 am
@Thomas,
Well said, Thomas!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/02/2024 at 10:54:49