Westside Steve Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 I'm not really sure what point you think you're making? Really? So should I now pretend I didn't understand the insult behind Americans voting for a janitor just because he believed in Christian values? Come on. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Of course, I was just continuing with the metaphor. Would you, for example, employ someone who was pro-abortion? Or work for someone with such views? Yes. But here is the other side. I applied for a job once and was told I had to quit being a member of right to life to get the job. I refused and did not get the job. What I'm seeing is the only real opposition to gay rights coming from religious groups; atheists being excluded from holding office; and by far the biggest, anyone running for president would immediately lose if (s)he did not profess all-consuming and life-shaping belief in the bible, whether they actually believe that or not. The US would, it seems, rather have a janitor with a bible for president than a rocket-scientist/economist former major general who didn't happen to believe in god. If you are seeing that Obama would have never gotten elected. We do have a brain surgeon who believes in God and the bible running for president in 16 so it is not always one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Really? So should I now pretend I didn't understand the insult behind Americans voting for a janitor just because he believed in Christian values? Come on. WSS Well I get the hitler reference, sure, but are you really saying that all atheists are like hitler? And if there's some hidden meaning behind suggesting a janitor, I'm not aware of it. I was pointing out that being a christian is a necessary and almost sufficient condition for becoming president, and that the US populace would choose someone wholly unqualified (as if anyone truly is qualified) over some hypothetical person with vast knowledge in every critical area, if the unqualified one (janitor in my example, could equally be garbage collector, fast food worker, or whatever) was a devout christian and the other an atheist. It wasn't a slight against janitors - though I doubt you're actually offended by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 That being said, a quick google shows me: People might not think that a job as a janitor is a career path to the presidency of the United States, but the job certainly helped further the career of two men. James Garfield, the 20th U.S. president, and Lyndon Johnson, the 36th U.S. President, at one time held jobs as janitors. http://firstladyblog.typepad.com/my-year-with-the-first-la/2012/07/two-janitors-who-became-president-of-the-united-states.html I didn't know that - how would I? we're not forced to study US presidents here - and I was genuinely just picking a low-skilled job at random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 A murder 5 states away doesn't affect me either but it doesn't make it right. People can do what they want with their bodies but that baby is a whole new life. Pro choice is just a sanitized word for murdering a baby. That baby is part of the mothers body, end of story. You are right it is potentially new life, but it's up to the mother whether it gets carried to term. That baby can kill the mother, and often does....or cause irreversible damage. If I had a wife and my Dr said if she carries this child through two things are very likely to happen, the child will probably not make and the mother will never be able to conceive again at best and there's a small chance she dies. Guess where I"m going? And that's why the choice can never ever ever leave the mother....because you take it out of her hands and put it in hands of lesser men than I...they'll say life is tough bitch suck it up. And that's how it used to be when women were property. We're not going back to the OT no matter how hard you may yearn for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Of course, I was just continuing with the metaphor. Would you, for example, employ someone who was pro-abortion? Or work for someone with such views? Yes. But here is the other side. I applied for a job once and was told I had to quit being a member of right to life to get the job. I refused and did not get the job. What I'm seeing is the only real opposition to gay rights coming from religious groups; atheists being excluded from holding office; and by far the biggest, anyone running for president would immediately lose if (s)he did not profess all-consuming and life-shaping belief in the bible, whether they actually believe that or not. The US would, it seems, rather have a janitor with a bible for president than a rocket-scientist/economist former major general who didn't happen to believe in god. If you are seeing that Obama would have never gotten elected. We do have a brain surgeon who believes in God and the bible running for president in 16 so it is not always one or the other. If we go with the theory that Obama's not actually religious - it wouldn't shock me - he still had to do the dance of pretending to be religious in order to get elected. If he had outright stated his supposed atheism (or heaven forbid muslim-ness) thenhe would never have won. Also, I'm not stating it's one or the other, I know full well who Ben Carson is, better than 99% of people outside of america I'd imagine. I was putting up some extremely well qualified atheist against an extremely unqualified christian and suggesting that the US would choose the christian every time. At least, for the foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Well I get the hitler reference, sure, but are you really saying that all atheists are like hitler? And if there's some hidden meaning behind suggesting a janitor, I'm not aware of it. I was pointing out that being a christian is a necessary and almost sufficient condition for becoming president, and that the US populace would choose someone wholly unqualified (as if anyone truly is qualified) over some hypothetical person with vast knowledge in every critical area, if the unqualified one (janitor in my example, could equally be garbage collector, fast food worker, or whatever) was a devout christian and the other an atheist. It wasn't a slight against janitors - though I doubt you're actually offended by that. It is your (biased) viewpoint which you show in your illustration. You could say the same about others on the left who would immediately disqualify voting for any candidate who believed in the bible and instead vote for the liberal lefty janitor over the more qualified Christian candidate. That is their right though and why we have a secret ballot. No matter what motivates you to vote that is your business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Actually it was more of a Stalin ref, maybe Mao but he's not European, maybe neither is Russia but sure you get the idea. It seems to me some of you guys are so hostile toward religion you'd refuse to vote for an educated and qualified and moral man if he didn't fall in lockstep with your anti religion bitterness. Then sneering at a janitor who earns his living with physical labor while elevating any atheist scientist to God like position... (as long as he is a left-wing scientists) Yes I think you're grasping my point. oh by the way just in case that sounded hostile. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 If we go with the theory that Obama's not actually religious - it wouldn't shock me - he still had to do the dance of pretending to be religious in order to get elected. If he had outright stated his supposed atheism (or heaven forbid muslim-ness) thenhe would never have won. Also, I'm not stating it's one or the other, I know full well who Ben Carson is, better than 99% of people outside of america I'd imagine. I was putting up some extremely well qualified atheist against an extremely unqualified christian and suggesting that the US would choose the christian every time. At least, for the foreseeable future. Obama was against gay marriage before he was for it. He was always for it but he was a hypocrite and waited until the political winds were favorable to claim he evolved on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Actually it was more of a Stalin ref, maybe Mao but he's not European, maybe neither is Russia but sure you get the idea. It seems to me some of you guys are so hostile toward religion you'd refuse to vote for an educated and qualified and moral man if he didn't fall in lockstep with your anti religion bitterness. Then sneering at a janitor who earns his living with physical labor while elevating any atheist scientist to God like position... (as long as he is a left-wing scientists) Yes I think you're grasping my point. oh by the way just in case that sounded hostile. WSS I have nothing against religion, in fact I have binders full of religious friends I grew up in a nominally religious home, was involved in a religious organisation and came to the conclusion that although it has some good morals, I didn't believe the bible. I have nothing against voting for a religious person - I did just recently in our general election in fact - as long as that person isn't making policies based on religious views, but rather on demonstrable facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Obama was against gay marriage before he was for it. He was always for it but he was a hypocrite and waited until the political winds were favorable to claim he evolved on the issue. Yep, and he looked like an ass because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Hang on a second. Sure that bit with Jeremiah Wright Church was a dog and pony show but his phony Christian Epiphany that stemmed from there were mostly to prove to the other Negroes who handed him his ass in a previous election that he was black enough for the inner city Chicago gig. (hard to combine hating the white man and loving Jesus but somehow...) WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 (hard to combine hating the white man and loving Jesus but somehow...) :S As for his 'phony' christianity - it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he were atheist. But the fact that he's going through the dog and pony show kind of makes my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 That baby is part of the mothers body, end of story. You are right it is potentially new life, but it's up to the mother whether it gets carried to term. That baby can kill the mother, and often does....or cause irreversible damage. If I had a wife and my Dr said if she carries this child through two things are very likely to happen, the child will probably not make and the mother will never be able to conceive again at best and there's a small chance she dies. Guess where I"m going? And that's why the choice can never ever ever leave the mother....because you take it out of her hands and put it in hands of lesser men than I...they'll say life is tough bitch suck it up. And that's how it used to be when women were property. We're not going back to the OT no matter how hard you may yearn for it. Who is yearning for the Old Testament? It would be like for me (living under the New Covenant) being an American citizen adopting the laws of Japan and trying to live under them. They don't fit. We have many different people in right to life such as atheists, gay and lesbian, others who all see abortion as the taking of an innocent life. As i posted earlier 99 percent of abortions are for convenience and this is wrong. Should a couple have the right to kill a child because it is not the right gender they wanted or other reasons like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 :S As for his 'phony' christianity - it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he were atheist. But the fact that he's going through the dog and pony show kind of makes my point. it would not surprise me if he was Muslim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 it would not surprise me is he was Muslim. I would be surprised. It's obvious he has sympathies for muslims, as some of his family are muslim, right? Equally, some of his family is christian, though. Either way, I don't necessarily think it's a tragedy if he's any of them, or others. He's clearly not the suicide-bombing muslim, he's not the burkha-enforcing muslim or anything else like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 I would doubt he's Muslim. I can't imagine his wife and daughters running around uncovered would be copacetic. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 I would doubt he's Muslim. I can't imagine his wife and daughters running around uncovered would be copacetic. WSS To be clear, not all muslim women wear hijabs or burkas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Chris made the point earlier. Refusing to vote for an atheist is not the same as what others have said on here about religious candidates. First, every candidate is going to claim Christianity for reasons previously mentioned. There's no real way around it. Second, there is a difference between Christian and "The earth is 6000 years old, evolution is a lie and lets pray for rain!" If you believe the earth is 6000 years old, evolution isn't real, prayer is a legitimate action in a crisis, a man lived in a fish, or that the story of Noah's Ark is true... Then I really don't want you determining public policy. That person would have already demonstrated a lack of reasoning and the act of shunning info. That would make them not fit to hold office IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 I would doubt he's Muslim. I can't imagine his wife and daughters running around uncovered would be copacetic. WSS I just don't see him as religious at all. He did the Christian song and dance you have to do in order to get elected in the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 I just don't see him as religious at all. He did the Christian song and dance you have to do in order to get elected in the U.S. Yep. Chicago specifically. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Chris made the point earlier. Refusing to vote for an atheist is not the same as what others have said on here about religious candidates. First, every candidate is going to claim Christianity for reasons previously mentioned. There's no real way around it. Second, there is a difference between Christian and "The earth is 6000 years old, evolution is a lie and lets pray for rain!" If you believe the earth is 6000 years old, evolution isn't real, prayer is a legitimate action in a crisis, a man lived in a fish, or that the story of Noah's Ark is true... Then I really don't want you determining public policy. That person would have already demonstrated a lack of reasoning and the act of shunning info. That would make them not fit to hold office IMO ummm.....yes. What this individual just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Logic posted he knew of some Christians who did not believe the story of Jonah and Noah as being real and did not take them literally. I know of some too. If you take that position then you have some real theological questions as to the New Covenant and things Jesus said. Jesus did speak and teach with parables but not everything he taught was a parable. He compared the story of Jonah to his death and resurrection and the story of Noah to describe the end times. If Jesus is who He claims to be then He should know if these stories are fables or true accounts. He spoke of them as true accounts. Anyway I believe in miracles as the New Covenant is based on miracles. I believe science will give us a lot of the answers but not all of them. Believing in God puts one to the conclusion of Albert Einstein reached with all his research. To believe in a personal God is what I believe and what the bible teaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Let's not act like Einstein did a bunch of research and proved some god exists. He basically said he was agnostic. What about Steven Hawking, does his opinion count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 Logic posted he knew of some Christians who did not believe the story of Jonah and Noah as being real and did not take them literally. I know of some too. If you take that position then you have some real theological questions as to the New Covenant and things Jesus said. Jesus did speak and teach with parables but not everything he taught was a parable. He compared the story of Jonah to his death and resurrection and the story of Noah to describe the end times. If Jesus is who He claims to be then He should know if these stories are fables or true accounts. He spoke of them as true accounts. Anyway I believe in miracles as the New Covenant is based on miracles. I believe science will give us a lot of the answers but not all of them. Believing in God puts one to the conclusion of Albert Einstein reached with all his research. To believe in a personal God is what I believe and what the bible teaches. Jesus may also have known he was speaking to idiots. For example the Gnostic version of jesus varies a bit but it portrays him as a master many levels ascended from us. He was something a bit more complicated to them than just "the right hand of god". Someone like him may have had to resort to parables and fables to make people understand certain tenants of the universe and the light from which we all came from. Look how hard it is for some of you to grasp basics like "don't shit where you eat". I can completely understand using simpletonian speak with people like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted June 15, 2015 Report Share Posted June 15, 2015 What about Steven Hawking, does his opinion count?Given the hand he was dealt? I'd take a heaping tablespoon of salt with his opinion. Think he might have some animosity towards the belief that "Beardy McSkyWizard" *purposely* designed him that way?I would think he might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.