Democrats Are Risking Political Damnation

Fine, same difference. The point is that you see a difference in this president's faith.



Is there or is there not a difference? Is Bush's faith different or not?

lurking, and listening

Asked and answered Craven. I refer you to my previous post.

Yes, you did reply but did not answer.

You see a difference in his faith but then minimize the difference that others perceive, saying it's the same as the expression fo faith from the other presidents.

Personally, I think the whole faith criticism of the president is overblown.

I think Christianity is a mental disease but Bush's case of it doesn't realy bother me.

But the point is that if you see a difference in his faith in comparsion to other presidents do you not think that said difference is part of what the others here are talking about?

In some way, Bush has communicated to you your belief that his faith is different.

Is it not possible that he has communicated said difference to the others here and that their interpretation of it is different?

You can't have it both ways, Bush's faith can't be both the same as all the others and different from all teh others.

Craven, I did answer the question when I said that it is not the rhetoric that makes me believe Bush's faith is different, but it is the way he seems to conduct his life. And unless conducting ones life in a moral manner makes him somehow evil, using that to damn him for his faith-based rhetoric makes no sense at all. It is the rhetoric alone by which some attempt to damn him. Most who damn him because of his rhetoric also damn him for being a liar. So anything he says about God, etc. they believe but anything else he says they say are lies? Give me a break.

I believe I have demonstrated with numerous posted verifiable quotes that Bush's faith-based rhetoric is similar to that used by his predecessor. I have challenged others to pull up any verifiable Bush quotes from his speeches and/or press conferences that would challenge my assertion. So far nobody has been able to do so.

I can only conclude then that it is prejudice and/or bigotry that causes some to perceive Bush's faith-based rhetoric as particularly sinister or damning.

You are evading a very basic question.

Again:

You think Bush's faith is different. Do you think there are reasons for others to think Bush's faith is different?



lol, well it takes all sorts. Including the sort that simply writes off the opposite position this way.

The fox said:



But you can't conclude that at all. There are many other possible explanations, not just the attribution of negative personality traits.

I can conclude whatever I choose to conclude just as Craven and Sumac can

I will concede not having the words to explain my point of view any better than I already have and apologize that I can't do a better job of it.

So, let's turn the tables here. What is it that you two see that would make you think GWB's faith and/or rhetoric is different and how is that a good or bad thing?

Like you, I think Bush is more devout in his faith.

Unlike you I think Christianity is idiocy, but insofar as it's his life I don't care.

And I've already said that the "faith" platform that others allege doesn't resonate with me.

foxfrye

I personally give up on this one point.

I have another I want to explore.

You said that you believe that Bush's faith is sincere while others were not. Tell me, what do you base that on? Do you believe that sinners can't be sincere christians? Paul said that all fall short of the glory of God, so the mere fact that one president may have literally got caught with his pants unzipped is not proof that Bush's profession of faith is sincere and others are not. There must be something in Bush that causes you to believe that, what is it?

Revel I am living proof that sinners can be Christians. As Christians go, I'm not a very good one but I try to keep working on it. Referring to my previous post in this thread, I explained why I believe Bush's professions of faith are more sincere than I might think another person's professions are sincere. I always give more credence to what people do than to what they say. Does that mean I think Bush is a saint incapable of sin? No way. I would be amazed if he characterized himself that way.

And it should not be construed from this that I think Christians are somehow more moral than non-Christians. But if a non-Christian does not conform to Christian-defined morality, at least s/he isn't being a hypocrite about it.

I must of miised where you explained why you believe Bush is sincere where others are not. Would you mind telling me again? What has he done that tells you he is a christian?

I explained it again and again Revel. Please reread my most recent posts in this thread. I don't want to have to type all that stuff again. To summarize it, he says he is a Christian and he acts like one. That's good enough for me.

He certainly does act like one and what a second rate performance.

foxfrye

Going by what you just said,



I don't see how that is proof that he is sincere and other presidents were not in their professions of faith. Seems to me to make a judgement like that you would have to do the same kind of private judgement based on your own impressions of him that we make when we claim that Bush's faith crosses the line into messiahism. (may be a made up word)

In other words when you see him you see a sincere Christian who is misunderstood, when I look at him I see someone who is nuts.

I think those who want to see the devil in Bush will see the devil. Nothing I can say will change their mind. ("Devil" can be translated into any negative characterization here of course.) And wouldn't one have to do a form of judging in order to form a negative opinion?

I do not presume to judge the heart of any man or woman. I gave that up a long time ago. I do judge behavior as I think we all should do. My view of how a sincere Christian conducts himself/herself may be totally unique. Being Christian myself, I no doubt apply a different standard to other Christians than would a non- Christian. I don't know. Will have to think about that some more.

At any rate, GWB demonstrates behavior that is consistent with my view of a sincere Christian, and as he is not improperly using his faith in any way, I just don't see that it should be a problem or an issue. Which is what this whole thread was about anyway

I would not care whether he were a Christian, Moslem, Buddhist or whatever. My only concern is that he keep it out of government.

That can be turned around to become even more chilling:

Those who can see God in Bush will see God.

foxfyre said

You realize, of course, that this is subjective? That there are others (even other Christians) who do not see him as a particularly good christian, including in deed?

As to not judging character, you do differentiate Clinton and Bush, and suggest the former behaved less Christian-like, but that too is subjective. Both of these are fine, as subjective preferences, but when you extend them into objective claims, you'll get the sort of arguments you've had here. For example, you claimed that "Clinton had made a show about being a Christian much more than Bush had". I doubt very much that you would be able to demonstrate that with a careful analysis of speeches.

And again, you suggest that any/all dislike or disagreement with the man must stem from irrational hatred. You do this consistently.

So, as a consequence, any substantive disagreement with Bush policies are invalid because they stem from hatred. And any subjective displeasure with the man isn't valid because you don't share the view, thus it is just another example of irrational hatred.

This has a happy coherence and consistency, but it does isolate you from the other views.

ps the tradition in which I grew up (Mennonite) doesn't hold with many of the notions which Bush ascribes to.

For the sake of transparency, I have been for many years an atheist who thinks that christianity has a depth and a value often not well appreciated, but even by many practicing christians. A subjective view.