43
   

Obama..... not religious?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 12:14 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Well, it certainly is a good laugh to see you claim, Frank, that nobody at this site is more willing to admit he is wrong than you are, or that nobody at this site is more in control of his temper than you are. No one is ever free of self-delusion, and you just prove the point.


**** you once more, Set.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 12:16 pm
Go ahead, Frank, say it as many times as you like. It won't change the glaring fact that you have reached a point at which you cannot reasonably discuss this subject with people. And that's your fault, not anyone else's.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 12:19 pm
@Setanta,
Okay...**** you again.

Of all the insults that have come my way in this thread, the greatest is YOU instucting me on deportment.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 12:21 pm
It was sarcasm, Frank, it was ridiculing those who would describe you that way. If that had been my real opinion, why would i both have stated that your case is correct, and then gone to that much trouble to support the contention?

As i say, you've lost your sense of proportion.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 12:33 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
For you to suppose doctors would not participate in more humane endings to life is absurd. Many already do...but they do so at great risk.

I'm quite aware, thank you, and I've actually encountered this in my personal life. I think they made the right choice when they did so.


Frank Apisa wrote:
Tell me, ******* mastermind, just how many conversations on this very issue have I ever had with my mother-in-law before she deteriorated into Altzheimer's...so that this idiotic statement of yours makes any sense.

What has my mother-in-law said to me over the years about this very thing? How often....and with how much fervor?

You and your family have all of my sympathy for what you're having to endure. I've endured it in my times as grandson and family friend, but never on the front line like ya'll are having to do now. I did not choose to bring your personal tragedy into this discussion, and I will happily abandon this derailment at any time.

All I'm saying is, it was her choice to make. It was her choice to prepare for it, or not, but never was it your choice. Maybe it's her husband's choice at this point. Maybe it's her children's choice at this point. Your choice is in how you choose to support your wife, and how you and she prepare for such eventualities.

Frank Apisa wrote:
How about me? How do I feel about ending up in this kind of condition...versus deciding to end it more humanely for myself and the people who love me? Or if I become incapacitated, what do I feel about what I would want Nancy to do...except that she probably can't do it because the ******* religious hypocrites of this country have made consideration of humane ends with the aid of doctors anathema?

So tell me genius...what do you know about these things?

I don't know, what about you? Are you moving to Oregon, where they have laws on the books about this? But stop blaming all your woes on Christians, 'cause that don't fly.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 12:42 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
I don't know, what about you? Are you moving to Oregon, where they have laws on the books about this? But stop blaming all your woes on Christians, 'cause that don't fly.


I am not blaming ANY of my woes (such few as I have), let alone "all" of them, on Christians.

Most so-called Christians are nothing by a bunch of hypocritical pretenders...and blaming them for anything would be taking advantage of the disabled.

I AM blaming the Christian influence for preventing our cowardly politicians from exploring this area...an area that ought to be explored extensively. I am decrying the fact that a sect with so many hypocrites as members should have such an inordiante say in how we do things.

By the way, I'm not even sure how I'd come down on some ideas I've seen floated...and I have no problems with the kinds of concerns about the notion that I've heard articulated.

BUT ONE ARGUMENT I DON'T APPRECIATE AT ALL...is that "life is sacred" or that "only Zeus can say when life should end."

Which of course, brings us back to Christianity intruding its ugly head into the overall political process.

DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 01:53 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I think you're underestimating the amount of effort that doctors have necessarily put into this. Doctors have their own guidelines, and I'm certain that they and medical ethicists have had input on the laws that are in place.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:00 pm
@DrewDad,
I understand your reluctance to acknowledge the disgusting influence your cult has had on freedom to discuss this issue openly...but what the hell. You guys are able to make "you may own slaves" mean "slavery is immoral" and "homosexual activity is an abomination" to mean "nothin' wrong with homosexual activity."

And you profess to love a god who directs you into places you wouldn't go on a bet.

Yep, I can understand it.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:15 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Since I'm not a Christian, it wouldn't be "my cult".

Further, you're falling into a logical fallacy of ascribing actions to an idea. Christianity is not responsible for anything. Now if you want to argue that people who call themselves Christians are not all saints (to say the least, or perhaps most), then I have no disagreement with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_reification

Quote:
Reification (also known as hypostatisation or concretism) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea. For example: when one person "holds another's affection", affection is being reified.


Finally, your attempts to reduce the Bible into a simplistic set of rules is rather sad, really.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:20 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
BUT ONE ARGUMENT I DON'T APPRECIATE AT ALL...is that "life is sacred" or that "only Zeus can say when life should end."

As an agnostic, I'd think you'd be neutral on the matter. I, for one, would not expect you to be persuaded by such an argument, but similarly you cannot argue that life is not sacred.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:34 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
Since I'm not a Christian, it wouldn't be "my cult".


I stand corrected...and I apologize.

Quote:
Further, you're falling into a logical fallacy of ascribing actions to an idea. Christianity is not responsible for anything. Now if you want to argue that people who call themselves Christians are not all saints (to say the least, or perhaps most), then I have no disagreement with you.


Okay, I will accept that correction also.


Quote:
Finally, your attempts to reduce the Bible into a simplistic set of rules is rather sad, really.


I have not been talking about any rules...in the Bible or out of it. I have been talking about what the Bible tells us the god of the Bible finds offensive...or not offensive.

Try to finally wrap your mind around that.

As an example: I have noted that the Bible tells us that the god of the Bible thinks there is absolutely nothing immoral about owning and trading in slaves. And the Bible tells us that the god of the Bible thinks homosexual activity is an abomination.

So you want to please the god of the Bible...you are better off making a man your slave than your lover.

Do you finally understand that--or are you going to continue the horseshit???

nimh
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Four, trying to get through to some of these people on this issue using reasonable, courteous arguments...is like trying to get through to H2OMan using that tactic in the political forums.

And how is your alternative approach of shouting at them and calling them variations of 'idiot' working? Is that any more successful in getting through to them?

Way I see it, 90% of people posting on an internet forum, at least when it concerns politics or religion, cant be gotten through to. They're the most opinionated and set in their ways of thinking you can get. They might concede on the occasional detail (and even that definitely not when you're busy shouting at them), but you're not going to "open their eyes" to the "fact" that, well, you're right and they're all wrong.

So that leaves you with a choice, as forum poster. Accepting that this is the case, what are you gonna do? Since you're not likely to actually bring people round to your side, what do you feel more comfortable behaving like yourself? Using reasonable, courteous arguments, or yelling at people and insulting them?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:45 pm
@nimh,
Quote:
So that leaves you with a choice, as forum poster. Accepting that this is the case, what are you gonna do? Since you're not likely to actually bring people round to your side, what do you feel more comfortable behaving like yourself? Using reasonable, courteous arguments, or yelling at people and insulting them?


I would think that my posts for the last two days pretty much answer that for themselves, wouldn't you?

I do appreciate the effort you are making here, Nimh. I honestly, honestly do.

I'm not through here yet.

Who are the Christians involved here???

Are there any Christians posting here???
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Are there any Christians posting here???

I think they ran off (well, Aidan posted just a couple of pages ago).

You'll probably chalk that up to them being wusses, or being afraid or unwilling to face their own hypocrisy. Unwilling to honestly examine their own assumptions and risking finding out they're irrepairably flawed.

I'd chalk it up to common sense. There's no dialogue to be had here for them: just someone who's trying to open their eyes about how wrong they are. I've been in that position when having conversations with Jehovahs; I decided quickly enough not to bother continuing the conversation and got the hell outta Dodge.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 02:55 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I have not been talking about any rules...in the Bible or out of it. I have been talking about what the Bible tells us the god of the Bible finds offensive...or not offensive.

Try to finally wrap your mind around that.

As an example: I have noted that the Bible tells us that the god of the Bible thinks there is absolutely nothing immoral about owning and trading in slaves. And the Bible tells us that the god of the Bible thinks homosexual activity is an abomination.

So you want to please the god of the Bible...you are better off making a man your slave than your lover.

Do you finally understand that--or are you going to continue the horseshit???

I understand that you want it both ways. You want to be able to talk about "the God of the Bible" like a character in a story, and then you want people to be morally bound by what this character likes or dislikes.

When you speak of "pleas[ing] the god of the Bible", how exactly is one supposed to please a character? You're obviously trying to conflate "the god of the Bible" with the god that people believe in and worship.

I'm not the one peddling horseshit here, Frank.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 03:12 pm
@DrewDad,


Quote:
I understand that you want it both ways. You want to be able to talk about "the God of the Bible" like a character in a story, and then you want people to be morally bound by what this character likes or dislikes.


You really are a ******* moron! Talking to you about this stuff is like talk to a ******* wall.

The Bible tells us what the god of the Bible expects of humans. It doesn't matter at all what I think about the god, you ******* moron...what matters is that the people who call themselves Christians are supposed to love and honor this piece of **** god. Yes...they are expected to be bound by what pleases and offends the god. Christ almighty, grow a brain so that you can understand this stuff.


Quote:
When you speak of "pleas[ing] the god of the Bible", how exactly is one supposed to please a character?


Beats the **** out of me, you ******* moron. I am merely saying that the Christians who suppose this is actually GOD...should try to please it. And it seems to me that one way to please it would be not to define something the god considers an abomination"to be something not even immoral...and not to condemn something that the god says is perfectly moral--like slavery.


Quote:
You're obviously trying to conflate "the god of the Bible" with the god that people believe in and worship.
Are you ******* kidding me...or are you actually that ******* stupid?

They...the Christians, think the god of the Bible is their god. Jesus prayed to that god; Jesus worshiped that god. What the hell are you talking about?

Quote:

I'm not the one peddling horseshit here, Frank.


Yeah you are, DrewDad...major league horseshit!

Man you are really a ******* dipshit!
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 03:23 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Nobody in this forum says the words "I do not know" as often as I. And by no means am I the least informed or the least intelligent.


It's not mutually exclusive to say "I do not know" and to be preening and arrogant. In fact, one could easily make this the basis of the preening itself.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 03:44 pm
@aidan,
aidan wrote:
In its own way, that's as insulting as Frank's bombast toward people who've embraced a religion.


Well, it's certainly not as avoidable. I think religion is good for many people, I happen to think religion is based on lies, and for those who believe them this belief is inherently offensive but that's just how talking about religion works. After all, their beliefs that the non-believers will burn forever aren't exactly pleasant either.

I can easily see how someone might take as much offense to this as Frank's method of "debate" but unlike Frank I don't take any pleasure in that.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 03:44 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
They...the Christians, think the god of the Bible is their god. Jesus prayed to that god; Jesus worshiped that god.

No, Frank. That's what you think. Not what they think.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 03:47 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
You really are a ******* moron! Talking to you about this stuff is like talk to a ******* wall.

Man you are really a ******* dipshit!

When you can't be persuasive, be abusive. Classy.
 

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 © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/01/2023 at 08:13:41