1
   

Any serious Christians left?

 
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 11:23 pm
maporsche wrote:
Arella Mae wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
For me personally, I'm not trying to paint anyone into a corner. In fact, I'm trying to reach into that corner and pull them out so we can better understand each other's viewpoints.


I think I understand what she thinks her viewpoints are, but I also understand that they don't make any sense. I'm trying to point out the nonsense in her POV.


Oh you mean like try to tell me I am WRONG? Why can't you just accept we have different views and leave it at that?


Because you are voting to TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS.


She is quite within her rights to do so. You are acting like a spoiled child that cannot get their way. I thought you lived in a free country where rights and freedoms had been fought for and won. You seem to want to take away those things that do not agree with what you want. I guess it is your right to do so. If things were not about choices....there would be no need for a vote.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 11:38 pm
hephzibah wrote:
LOL Good one intrepid!


C.I. doesn't seem to think so. I guess he has no sense of humour.


C.I. wrote:
Quote:
Speak for yourself, Intrepid. You belong to that ilk, I don't.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 02:04 am
Arella Mae wrote:
echi wrote:
Quote:
Echi,

You can start with this article. If there had been no gambling casinos then there would have been no one for the Governor to extort money from for gambling licenses.


Arella,

I don't understand your logic, here. In this example the casinos did not break the law. In fact, the casinos were the victims. By your logic, wouldn't you also be against banks and 7-11's?


Echi, please go back and read what I posted. I said crime had increased and I didn't believe that it was possible that none of the increase could be attributed to the gambling or the crime rate increased and I'm sure some of the crime had to do with gambling, something like that. And if you will remember I never said that it was THEE reason for the increase. Then I said I could give you some evidence of crimes related to gambling during the increase, which is what I did.


And I sincerely appreciate the effort. My post was in response to the article that you said was evidence of gambling-related crime. I'm telling you that the only way this relates to gambling is by the fact that the VICTIMS in this case happen to be in the gambling business.

Why are you in favor of punishing the victim?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 03:28 am
echi wrote:
And I sincerely appreciate the effort. My post was in response to the article that you said was evidence of gambling-related crime. I'm telling you that the only way this relates to gambling is by the fact that the VICTIMS in this case happen to be in the gambling business.

Why are you in favor of punishing the victim?


Echi, I really feel you are putting words in my mouth here. All I said was that since gambling came to Louisiana the crime rate increased. I said I was sure there were some crimes that had to be related to gambling that were in that increase. I did not say a thing about who the victims were, etc. I painted with a wide brush here and I don't deny that. It was related to gambling and was a crime. That was the basis of my statement.

I am never in favor of punishing victims of a crime Echi.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 06:52 am
Arella Mae- I was thinking about this thread last night. I was wondering why so many people are involved in it, and why it seems to have caught fire. It is not really much of a discussion, because apparently you seem to have your mind made up, and no amount of facts that are thrown before you, apparently will cause you to change your mind. The other thing that is interesting, is that but for a few exceptions, the thread seems to be Arella Mae, vs. the other people on the thread.

Then I realized. This thread is not about you at all, personally. What I believe is that it is about the creeping religiosity that is insinuating itself more and more into the public life of the U.S. Your role in this is simply a symbol of the kinds of people, who don't think through issues, but simply extract their interpretation of the bible, and use it as a way of life.

In the past, people with radical religious views, the kind who thought that the bible was more important than the Constitution, were a bit of an anomaly on the political scene. They "did their thing", which is fine with me, but their views had little impact on the running of the government.

George Bush has changed all that. (I know that I voted for him. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. ) He has opened the floodgates for those individuals who would, little by little, turn the freest, most democratic society into one that is governed not by people, but by a ghost.

I think that this is a very dangerous trend, and needs to be stopped. When I compared radical Christianity to the Taliban, I was not being facetious............I meant every word that I said. I think that Timber summed up the issue quite nicely in a later post.

Anyhow, the election is a week away. Let us have the expectation, that people who love the United States, and treasure democracy, will vote for those candidates who know the difference between the bible and the Constitution, and where each is appropriate.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 07:12 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Arella Mae- I was thinking about this thread last night. I was wondering why so many people are involved in it, and why it seems to have caught fire. It is not really much of a discussion, because apparently you seem to have your mind made up, and no amount of facts that are thrown before you, apparently will cause you to change your mind. The other thing that is interesting, is that but for a few exceptions, the thread seems to be Arella Mae, vs. the other people on the thread.

Then I realized. This thread is not about you at all, personally. What I believe is that it is about the creeping religiosity that is insinuating itself more and more into the public life of the U.S. Your role in this is simply a symbol of the kinds of people, who don't think through issues, but simply extract their interpretation of the bible, and use it as a way of life.

In the past, people with radical religious views, the kind who thought that the bible was more important than the Constitution, were a bit of an anomaly on the political scene. They "did their thing", which is fine with me, but their views had little impact on the running of the government.

George Bush has changed all that. (I know that I voted for him. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. ) He has opened the floodgates for those individuals who would, little by little, turn the freest, most democratic society into one that is governed not by people, but by a ghost.

I think that this is a very dangerous trend, and needs to be stopped. When I compared radical Christianity to the Taliban, I was not being facetious............I meant every word that I said. I think that Timber summed up the issue quite nicely in a later post.

Anyhow, the election is a week away. Let us have the expectation, that people who love the United States, and treasure democracy, will vote for those candidates who know the difference between the bible and the Constitution, and where each is appropriate.


So now you imply that I don't think through the issues and I don't love the United States, etc.? YOU have rendered me speechless. Crying or Very sad

Oh, and I knew you meant every word you said. I got the message loud and clear.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 07:18 am
Somehow I doubt you'll remain speechless for long, Arella. The point, to those of us who see a Christian theocracy in the same light as a Muslim theocracy, is that the heavy hand of man in the name of his god is only a matter of degree. You don't see how an American christian theocracy can be seen in the same light as the Taliban. I don't see how they are different. I'm not talking about the medieval Christians, I'm talking about fundamentalist Christians of today gaining enough control in our government that democracy is lost in favor of a christian agenda. You might think that's a great idea. I think it's abominable.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 07:22 am
I don't know - maybe I'm not reading the same thread...

All I've seen AM say is that she should be able to vote her mind and conscience just like anyone else, regardless if her vote is informed or influenced by her christianity or not.

I haven't seen her favor some kind of theocracy takeover.

But like I said, maybe I ain't readin between the lines right, or something...
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 07:28 am
snood wrote:
I don't know - maybe I'm not reading the same thread...

All I've seen AM say is that she should be able to vote her mind and conscience just like anyone else, regardless if her vote is informed or influenced by her christianity or not.

I haven't seen her favor some kind of theocracy takeover.

But like I said, maybe I ain't readin between the lines right, or something...

And I'm thinking that AM keeps on saying that her god is what should determine the law of the land regardless of simple human rights of simple self determination sans harm to others. I have a problem with that.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 07:33 am
And she chooses to remain ingnorant of the dangers of the inroads that have been made towards a theocracy in this country, primarily IMO because the inroads made support her christian agenda. I don't care which genre of theocracy we're talking about, they all should be equally challenged by Americans who support democracy.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 07:42 am
JPB wrote:
And she chooses to remain ingnorant of the dangers of the inroads that have been made towards a theocracy in this country, primarily IMO because the inroads made support her christian agenda. I don't care which genre of theocracy we're talking about, they all should be equally challenged by Americans who support democracy.


The theocracy routine was needed to create the oligarchy.

All the pieces are starting to fit together for the neocons and their new world order.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 07:53 am
gus, we certainly have an administration in this country that is insular and is comprised of people who will only agree with a President who gets his direction from his god. I'd say they're doing pretty well on their agenda.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 08:43 am
That was beautifully stated, Phoenix.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 08:53 am
JPB wrote:
gus, we certainly have an administration in this country that is insular and is comprised of people who will only agree with a President who gets his direction from his god. I'd say they're doing pretty well on their agenda.


From what I have seen of the direction of your President, I would not think that he gets his direction from God.

If he did, I can certainly understand the consternation.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 08:54 am
He has said as much, Intrepid. We invaded Iraq because God told him to!!!!
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 08:58 am
Quote:
President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.



In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.



Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"



Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

BBC News
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 08:59 am
JPB wrote:
He has said as much, Intrepid. We invaded Iraq because God told him to!!!!


Lord, have mercy on us all.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 09:14 am
JBP wrote: And she chooses to remain ingnorant of the dangers of the inroads that have been made towards a theocracy in this country, primarily IMO because the inroads made support her christian agenda. I don't care which genre of theocracy we're talking about, they all should be equally challenged by Americans who support democracy.

It's not only AM that doesn't realize the dangers of a christian theocracy in the US, it includes Intrepid and a few others like real life. They wish to impose their christian beliefs on all citizens irregardless of the individual's different religion or atheist belief.

They will never see the danger in their "conscience."
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 09:18 am
From Oct 2004 when the number of casualites was approx 1,000.

Quote:
EAU CLAIRE, Wisconsin (CNN) -- A White House spokesman denied Wednesday that President Bush told Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson that he did not expect casualties from the invasion of Iraq.

"The president never made such a comment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Senior Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes, a longtime confidant of the president, said she was "certain" Bush would not have said anything like that to Robertson.

"Perhaps he misunderstood, but I've never heard the president say any such thing," Hughes said on CNN's "Inside Politics."

Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, told CNN in an interview Tuesday night that he urged the president to prepare the American people for the prospect of casualties before launching the war in March 2003.

Robertson said Bush told him, " 'Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.' "

More than 1,100 American troops have been killed in Iraq since the invasion, most of them battling an insurgency that followed the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic challenger, quickly seized on Robertson's account.

Kerry's campaign issued a statement Wednesday challenging Bush to say whether the "700 Club" founder and 1988 GOP presidential candidate was telling the truth.

"We believe President Bush should get the benefit of the doubt here," Kerry spokesman Mike McCurry said in a news release.

"But he needs to come forward and answer a very simple question: Is Pat Robertson telling the truth when he said you didn't think there'd be any casualties, or is Pat Robertson lying?"

McClellan said Bush did meet with Robertson in Nashville before the invasion, as Robertson recounted. But McClellan said Bush always has recognized that war "requires sacrifice" and that there would be American casualties.

In a statement issued Wednesday afternoon, Robertson restated his "100 percent" support for Bush's re-election and said he began and ended his CNN interview "with my warm endorsement and praise of President Bush." But he did not back away from his comments.

"I emphatically stated that, 'I believe 'the blessing of heaven is upon him,' and I am persuaded that he will win this election and prevail on the war against terror in order to keep America safe from her avowed enemies," Robertson said.

In his CNN interview, the religious leader described Bush on the eve of the invasion as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."


"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on CNN's "Paula Zahn Now."

"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "

He said that's when the president told him he did not expect casualties from the invasion.

In the interview, Robertson also said he wishes Bush would admit to mistakes made.

"I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him about casualties."

Asked why he thought Bush has refused to admit to mistakes on Iraq, Robertson said, "I don't know this politics game. You know, you can never say you were wrong because the opposition grabs onto it: 'See, he admitted he screwed up.' "

Even as Robertson criticized Bush for downplaying the potential dangers of the Iraq war, he heaped praise on Bush, saying he believes the president will win the election.

"Even if he stumbles and messes up -- and he's had his share of stumbles and gaffes -- I just think God's blessing is on him," Robertson said.

CNN's John King contributed to this report.Source
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 09:22 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
JBP wrote: And she chooses to remain ingnorant of the dangers of the inroads that have been made towards a theocracy in this country, primarily IMO because the inroads made support her christian agenda. I don't care which genre of theocracy we're talking about, they all should be equally challenged by Americans who support democracy.

It's not only AM that doesn't realize the dangers of a christian theocracy in the US, it includes Intrepid and a few others like real life. They wish to impose their christian beliefs on all citizens irregardless of the individual's different religion or atheist belief.

They will never see the danger in their "conscience."


I wouldn't include Intrepid in that description, CI. I think THIS post from earlier in this thread clearly shows that Intrepid is not of the same mind.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 01:53:19