43
   

Obama..... not religious?

 
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 03:53 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I find it even more ironic that he would actually put these words into a post.

Here is what I actually wrote on that:

Quote:
Religion has, in my opinion, a net negative impact on humanity. Apparently, Thomas sees things that way, too.


You can't base this opinion on any empirical evidence. So it's a belief that you should be agnostic about if you listen to your own bombast.
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 04:09 pm
@DrewDad,
Actually, I laughed at the irony of that. The bit about "Talking to you about this stuff is like talk to a ******* wall," I mean Smile

Belongs in the sig lines thread...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 04:24 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
When you can't be persuasive, be abusive. Classy.


Worry about being classy with a jackass like you!!!!
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 04:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I suppose if you get put on ignore, you don't have to worry about people challenging your dearly-held beliefs.

(I might add that the classiest people I know are the ones that retain their class even when presented with novel situations, or even jackasses.)
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 04:39 pm
You're all a bunch of jerks.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 04:41 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
You can't base this opinion on any empirical evidence. So it's a belief that you should be agnostic about if you listen to your own bombast.


I WAS AGNOSTIC ABOUT IT, Craven.

But you didn't have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that you fucked up here.

You originally said:

Quote:
I don't know whether religion has been a net positive or a net negative (and I find it ironic that Frank purports to know this) but...


But I never did say that “I KNOW this…”…and I was very clear that I did not know it.

In fact, in my response to that dig, I quoted to you what I actually said, which was:

Quote:
Religion has, in my opinion, a net negative impact on humanity. Apparently, Thomas sees things that way, too.

I understand that decent, intelligent, well-intentioned people can disagree with that to the nth degree.

But those of us who are on this side of that particular line have a right (some of us feel it is an obligation) to oppose religion no matter that it “works” for some people.


That is a FAR CRY from an agnostic pretending he KNOWS something. A very far cry.

I not only acknowledged that I did not know…that it was an opinion…I also mentioned that decent people disagree with that opinion.

Then you portray it as "ironic that Frank purports to know this"...obviously pretending that you had caught the agnostic pretending to know something.

And then you have the audacity to post this latest attempt to make yourself correct when you are dead wrong.

You are just as full of **** as DrewDad, Craven.

When you build up some spine…and develop the ethical capability to own up to your bullshit, then you can give me lectures in this off-handed way your are doing it.


0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 04:42 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:
I suppose if you get put on ignore, you don't have to worry about people challenging your dearly-held beliefs.

(I might add that the classiest people I know are the ones that retain their class even when presented with novel situations, or even jackasses.)


And how the hell would you recognize "class" if it fell on you?
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  6  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 05:07 pm
@nimh,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
Are there any Christians posting here???


Nimh wrote:
Quote:
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.

Exactly - besides the fact that it's futile to try to intellectualize something that can't be intellectualized.

Although it's interesting to me to see how extremely TORTURED Frank seems to be on this whole subject. On the one hand, I ask myself - can he really be an agnostic? He seems so dead set against the idea of a 'piece of **** God' (his words) But on the other hand I think he's really ******* struggling with this - Christian mother whom he professed to love and respect -so yeah- choose agnosticism instead of out and out atheism- okay- sort of fits.

But what's to talk about? As I said, I figured out a long time ago that the Bible was a storybook. I think I was about seven. Its veracity as a piece of written history is not even an issue to me.
But I will not and cannot deny that my Christian upbringing has not vastly enriched my life and given me an outlook and viewpoint toward people and the world that I would never replace with agnosticism or atheism. You can call me stupid, deluded, irrational, insane, an idiot- whatever. I know what it's meant in my life and I feel lucky to have had the upbringing I had and to have retained the valuable lessons I learned.
And you know, as far as being mandated to hate homosexuals or believe that nonbelievers will burn in hell -that's not what I learned.
Maybe you guys were sitting in a different church or something. Or maybe you're just watching videos on youtube or listening to Anita Bryant
I was taught not to hate and not to judge. Period. No exceptions. And that was in a Christian church.
I have absolutely no guilt or embarrassement about my beliefs or daily behavior. I won't apologize for what I believe or defend it to people who cannot and will not try to understand it- or even do me the favor of reciprocal acceptance or respect for my beliefs as I give them for theirs.

And it's incredible to me that people would rather view Obama as an opportunistic liar than believe he's what he says he is.

I just enjoy feeling hopeful and grateful. I like having something to attribute my gifts to. I KNOW I did not do it all by myself. It has nothing to do with fear. It has everything to do with the awe that I feel at what I see everywhere I look.


I'm sorry

nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 05:48 pm
@joefromchicago,
But I'm a sexy jerk.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 05:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
stuff that should be embraced by a “Christian”...


and your right to decide what should be embraced by a Christian is based on what? your own personal god?

Silliness.

Buh bye.


JPB
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I saw this earlier this morning, Frank, but didn't have time to reply...

Quote:
Let's see if I can make my point a different way, Nimh.

Suppose a person here in A2K asserted: “I am a practicing and devote Roman Catholic. However I do not think the Pope really is the head of the Church; I think the college of Cardinals is a farce; I do not “believe” in the Immaculate Conception of Mary; nor in the virgin birth; nor in the resurrection of Jesus; nor in the ascension of Jesus; nor in the assumption of Mary into heaven; nor in the trinity. I also do not “believe” in transubstantiation; I do not “believe” there is a Hell...and the doctrine of infallibility of the Pope when proclaiming ex cathedra is absurd as far as I am concerned. But I do consider myself a devoted Roman Catholic.

My contention is that anyone not calling that person a hypocrite...is, de facto, a liar him/herself.

What if he said one, or two, or six (pick a number) of those things but not all of them? Is it all or nothing? Profess to Frank's list or be damned? Nah -- I wouldn't call him a hypocrite. However, someone professing all of those things and still considering themselves a devoted RC really wants to consider himself a devoted RC for reasons of his own. Who are we to judge?

If this person's belief system lets him sleep at night, and there's nothing in his beliefs that would keep me awake worrying that he was conniving to make sure I professed similar beliefs, then I have no problem with him calling himself whatever he chooses.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:20 pm
@JPB,
My personal opinion is that a Christian either accepts what's in the Bible, or picks the part the like and discard the rest. If the latter, they're basically making up their own religion as they go. Again, that's a personal opinion. I'm not following this closely, but I think that's what Frank has been saying.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:21 pm
@aidan,
Quote:
And you know, as far as being mandated to hate homosexuals or believe that nonbelievers will burn in hell -that's not what I learned.


Yes, I think probably this is true. But…since the Christian god…which of course, is the god Jesus worshiped and directed you folks to love…informs you via the Bible that homosexual behavior is an abomination….

…you’ve really got to wonder why the church you went to didn’t teach you that!

I KNOW THAT HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY FROM HETEROSEXUALS, Aiden…and I do not do otherwise. I have friends of both sexes who are homosexual.

But that does not detract from the fact that a purported Christian feeling that same way….is hypocrisy. A Christian should be honoring the sensitivities of the god they supposedly love and worship.

Why is that so ******* hard to understand????

Why are you people still fighting this obvious truth???

The church leaders who taught you, Aiden, were hypocrites! That is a fact!

They cannot teach acceptance and tolerance for homosexual behavior if they claim that Jesus is the son of the god of the Bible…and if they teach that the Bible tells us what the god of the Bible expects of humans…UNLESS THEY ARE HYPOCRITES.

I know that truth stings…but it is the truth. It cannot be any other way.



Quote:
I won't apologize for what I believe or defend it to people who cannot and will not try to understand it- or even do me the favor of reciprocal acceptance or respect for my beliefs as I give them for theirs.


How the hell can you stand there bare faced and suggest that you have “respect” for my “beliefs.?” How do you dare to do that…in a sentence filled with the demand that I “respect yours!!!!”

You DO NOT IN ANY WAY RESPECT MY “BELIEFS.” I don’t even fault you on that…because you cannot!

My “beliefs” (which I do not call beliefs, I prefer “my view of right and wrong”) are that I should be doing everything in my power to eliminate your “beliefs” from the face of the planet!

Are you telling me you “respect” that…in any sense of that word?

It is my opinion that religion demeans humanity…and that the people getting benefit from it should simply find another way to get that benefit, because the cost to humanity of having religion around for their use…simply is not worth it.

That is my opinion. I understand you are not of like opinion…AND I DEFINITELY RESPECT YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION. (There is a difference!)

Anyway, “my view of what is right and wrong” includes “finally eliminating religion from the face of the planet”…as the ultimate “right!” I am obliged by my conscience to aim in that direction!

Stop suggesting that I should “respect” your “beliefs”, Aiden, because I cannot do that and be true to my view of right and wrong at the same time. And stop pretending that you can respect my view of what is right and wrong…BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT DOING IT!

And neither is Nimh or DrewDad or Craven.

If you want to discuss any of this, I’ll be happy to discuss it. If you want to pretend that I am too irrational to discuss these things...I certainly will understand that also.
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:22 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
On that basis, if one alleges that "scripture" is the inerrant, divinely-inspired revealed word of god, then Christians are bound by "Old Testament" law.

But isnt that the point? Sure there are many Christians, a majority of them, who take the Bible to be literal, inerrant divine truth from cover to cover, every word of it. But that's not whom we've been talking about for the past x pages.

Just to broadly generalise the discussants into camps, 'our side' has been pointing out that there are many Christians, millions of them, who do not take every word of the Bible to be "inerrant"; who see it as a book that is filled with much divinely-inspired wisdom, but also is a contradictory, incomplete and sometimes flawed record of His wisdoms.

Frank and Thomas - generalising, again, here - have been arguing that Christians who look at the Bible as such are hypocrites or, in fact, not real Christians.

You join them in that particular argument when you write:

Setanta wrote:
Personally, i would go as far as Frank and observe that anyone who countenances homosexuality cannot be a true Christian, because they are ignoring the law of which their boy Jesus says not one jot or tittle shall pass away until the end of days.

That's a circular argument, isn't it?

Like ... OK, a liberal Christian might say: look - for me the Bible is a unique fount of wisdom. But it's not something whose content you should take literally as the infallible expression of God's will; that is something you should discover yourself, in your conversations with Him, helped by your church, etc. It's the imperfect and sometimes contradictory work of those who tried to record God's wisdom. In short: the Bible is uniquely valuable, but certainly not imperfect, and not a handbook to be heeded to the letter.

At which you'd say, well, you're wrong - a real Christian should heed it to the letter because ... it says that they should.

That's circular, right? How does this argument, that you have to do it because the Bible tells you to, apply to those who already said that they don't actually take the Bible as the inerrant word of God, whose every instruction you have to follow?

I'm having trouble formulating this, but is it clear what circularity of reasoning I'm trying to point out?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:24 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
and your right to decide what should be embraced by a Christian is based on what? your own personal god?


By logic. If a Christian claims there is a GOD...and the GOD is described in the Bible...the Christian owes an obligation to that GOD...which has got to include accepting what the god is reported to consider moral...and what the god is reported to consider immoral.

If the Bible doesn't fill that bill...the person should stop the "I am a Christian" pretence.

Quote:
Silliness.


Yes, your post was very silly. But, that is you choice.

Quote:
Buh bye.
Whatever!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:27 pm
@JPB,
JPB...you obviously have decided you are not going to acknowledge what is very obvious.

If a person purported to be a Roman Catholic...and said any of those things...ALL OF WHICH ARE ABSOLUTELY INCUMBANT ON A CATHOLIC...the person would be a hypocrite to continue professing being a Catholic.

But you have decided that you will not acknowledge any of that...so...what can I say.

I stand by everything I've said here.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:27 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
If the Bible doesn't fill that bill...the person should stop the "I am a Christian" pretence.

So we're basically down to, "those who do not believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal revelation of God's truth aren't really Christians"?

You and the fundamentalist Christians - yer in perfect agreement with each other there.

EDITED to add:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
and your right to decide what should be embraced by a Christian is based on what? your own personal god?

By logic.

I think it's your logic that's being questioned here.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:28 pm
Frank...

what does respecting another's beliefs mean in New Jersey?

(I think mebbe it is different than in other places after reading along for a bit)
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:32 pm
@nimh,
Quote:
So we're basically down to, "those who do not believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal revelation of God's truth aren't really Christians"?

You and the fundamentalist Christians - yer in perfect agreement with each other there.


Well, since Jesus pretty much said the same thing...the fundamentalists are correct. I am not saying the fundamentalists are hypocrites. They're not, for the most part. They hate where their god tells them to hate...and love where their god tells them to love.

Yes...the so-called Christians who decide what they are going to go along with...and what they are going to throw in the trash...ARE HYPOCRITES for saying they are Christians.

They should pick out some other name...like HYPOCRITES, for instance.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2009 06:33 pm
@Rockhead,
It's no different.

Don't be too cute here, Rockhead. If you've got something to say...just say it.
 

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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 10:15:05