Exit polls pigeonhole Democrats of faith in New Hampshire.
By on Jan 9th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Exit polls pigeonhole Democrats of faith in New Hampshire.
In last night’s New Hampshire exit polls, voters “from both parties were asked about their church attendance and if they were Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Something else, or None.” But as the Faith in Public Life blog points out, “only Republicans were asked if they were born-again or evangelical Christian. Asking only Republicans about their religion shows that the media is still stuck on the outdated and false notion that evangelical Christians are the GOP’s political property.” (The same thing happened in Iowa.)
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
well what do you expect, when apparently GOP means God’s Own Party? or God’s Only Party?
January 9th, 2008 at 3:11 pmOf course, only the GOP are God’s Own Party. Democrats and others are spawns of the devil. The world according to the Jerry Falwell’s, Pat Robertson’s, & James Dobson’s.(i.e.-the American Taliban Association).
January 9th, 2008 at 3:12 pm“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.”
January 9th, 2008 at 3:14 pmOutdated my ass.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:16 pmThere is no reason why religious-minded individuals should automatically give their vote in knee-jerk fashion to Republicans. Republicans in office haven’t exactly been true to their faith in promoting destructive wars and killing off of hundreds of thousands of civilians, destroying God’s natural environment, siding with big business against the poor and the sick, and engaging in corruption and unethical behavior. Anyone who respects the words of the Sermon On The Mount can’t be an automatic Republican.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:16 pmAsking only Republicans about their religion shows that the media is still stuck on the outdated and false notion that evangelical Christians are the GOP’s political property.
It also demonstrates putting religion back in government would be akin to re-electing George Bush.
Who cares what religion you are when the Constitution separates Church & State?
‘Born Again’ has to be the lamest excuse for a life of misdeeds ever invented. Of course, it gives those claiming such a wonderful way to avoid responsibility for past behavior.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:17 pmAsking only Republicans about their religion shows that the media is still stuck on the outdated and false notion that evangelical Christians are the GOP’s political property.â€
As far as evangelicals – who have a very fear-centered religious outlook – go, it’s probably true the GOP still holds their vote. It’s the other Christians who don’t have a conservative (read: hypocritical) worldview who don’t vote republican.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:18 pmnice projection there…Southern man…
January 9th, 2008 at 3:19 pmbtw, I’m still waiting for the reports that the Christians are being sent to the Lions in our stadiums all throughout the country…
January 9th, 2008 at 3:20 pmComment by Zimzone — January 9, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
it also excuses for present misbehavior too…
January 9th, 2008 at 3:21 pmSouthern Ass; “ Better Red than dead”
BITE ME!
January 9th, 2008 at 3:22 pmWell the GOP and the evangelicals do suffer from the same HERD mentality. I find them lacking in original thought.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:23 pmI have a real problem with asking questions about religion in an exit poll. If anyone asked me that question I would first tell them is was none of their damn business. Then I would ask them what in the hell religion has to do with a primary election for President.
I would like to know who it was asking those questions.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:28 pmWell the GOP and the evangelicals do suffer from the same HERD mentality. I find them lacking in original thought.
Comment by nofltwlt
The hard core gopers all need a strong authority figure in their lives to know how to live it. So, they turn to politicians and God. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:29 pmAnyone besides me notice that S & M and goon_golly seem to be walking hand and hand these days. I rarely see one of them on a thread without the other. Do you think it is for moral support or might it be that they are one in the same person?
January 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pmcomment by nofltwlt.
Not only do they lack original thought. They seem unable or unwilling of any critical thought. Mindless bots who blindly follow their leader without question.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:33 pmprojection- the word stupid people use when they can’t think of something better to say.
Comment by Southern Man
Yup, it’s one-a-them-thar fancy three syllable Sunday-go-to-town store-boughten words ya’ll. Yee-haw.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:38 pmThis kind of taking Christians for granted is going to bite the GOP in the ass eventually.
Evangelical progressives and other Christian groups are becoming a force to be reckoned with. The environment is a major issue with them, and the continuing disdain of the GOOPers for the environment and global warming is going to be just one more contributing factor to their destruction.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pmflag soutern man for being insulting
January 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pmAsking only Republicans about their religion shows that the media is still stuck on the outdated and false notion that evangelical Christians are the GOP’s political property.â€
…and the GOP can keep ‘em. At least we can keep all the torturers, spanish-inquisition types, Cru-sadists and child molesters in one party rather than encouraging them to spread out. After all, having two idiots blame 9-11 on Jews and homosexuals isn’t exactly a thought process I’d want to import from the republicans. I mean, c’mon, the only thing Huckabee’s showing tells me is how sorely in need Iowa is of a statewide exorcism. Why would anyone think its somehow productive to be up to our ankles in pea soup too?
January 9th, 2008 at 3:42 pm“voters “from both parties were asked about their church attendance and if they were Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Other Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Something else, or None.—
I belong to the First Church of Appliantology!
L. Ron Hoover is our spiritual leader.
what fu(king difference does it make?
January 9th, 2008 at 3:42 pmA non-issue. Enough of this religion bull$hit already!
I suspect that the exit polling was conducted by the same media in both places. In order to keep their results consistent, they may well be asking the same questions of the same people through all 50 primaries, so I hope we don’t get all worked up about it each time.
That said — as I am a Democrat, I’m a bit relieved that I most likely will never be asked by an exit poller if I am a born-again or evangelical Christian. I AM “born-again” — I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior many years ago when I was 15. But — “evangelical”? That honestly depends on how one defines the word. I believe in and follow the teachings of Christ as outlined in the Gospels — particularly the Sermon on the Mount. However, I don’t believe that everything in the bible is to be taken literally, and some of the paradoxes within the bible are things I probably will never understand until I get to heaven. And I don’t see it as my personal mission in life to ensure that everybody gets “saved”.
Now if I’M having difficulty defining evangelism, I suspect that everybody who is asked that has a different definition of what that is, making the data from that question rather useless anyway.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:44 pmSouthern Ass; While I proudly wear the liberal label, but hypocrite? PLEEEEEZZZZE. Repubs invented hypocrisy and raised it into an art form.
GOP leaders rail against Clinton messing around, but Newt was having an affair of his own while leading the impeachment of Clinton.
…Or how about Rudy having a tryst with his mistress in an apartment funded for 1st responders.
Or what about Foley stalking male Congressional pages, then fat-ass Hastert covering it up so the GOP won’t lose one iota of power.
Or that Mitt Romney says he wanted to serve in Vietnam, but copped a deferment for religous studies. And now has the gall to say his sons are serving the country by campaigning for him. Sorry, but campaigning for daddy does NOT = military service.
Get real and get a life, you jerkweed.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pmawwwwww…democrats want to be included in the cult too. ok…you’re in….now get out there and start convertin’ or killin’
January 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pma little namecalling goes with the territory but you have to make a point of some kind at the same time or it’s just insulting.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pmI don’t see your point. It would be like asking a Dem if the are for or against abortion. You can’t be against abortion and vote for someone looking to kill more children. Since any true believer of any of the major faiths is obviously against abortion, they are against Dems. Plain and simple. This is also the reason Rudy has a serious problem as many would never think of voting for someone supporting killing more babies.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:50 pm38 Like the folks who are anti abortion but pro death penalty…..those types of relious fakes?
January 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm“We are neither republican or democrat”…signed: God & Jesus.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pmSorry to all thoes who don’t honor the ‘Seperation of church and state’.
You know anyone can say they are religious….that doesn’t mean that they really are…
January 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm.
Comment by Fred — January 9, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
You mean like how the “Right to life” stopps after birth?
.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pmProjection – Fascism is incompatible with Communism and if you truly think the Democrats and Hillary are Communist, then it is not I who is stupid…but rather you are the one who is ill-informed.
Fascism – Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that subordinates individual and social interests to the interests of the state or party. Sounds like the GOP with its loyalty oaths in Kansas and it’s reluctance to pursue any crimes committed by this administration…Party over Country…
Let’s see…refusal to investigate whether Bush lied the country into war, politicizing the Justice Department by attacking Democrats during election season, turning every department into the arm of the Republican Party, most infamous case being the Civil Rights Division, disdain for human rights, while the supremacy of the military clearly does not apply, because Bush is privatizing military operations, the administration’s intimidation of the media into becoming its virtual mouthpiece, propaganda, its use of religion to make Bush, the Dear Leader into a god-like prophet figure, etc.
Offer up proof that Democrats are Communist, otherwise, it is clear that yours is the mindless knee-jerk reaction we come to expect from any Republican.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pmBecause I was up into the wee hours in the morning helping to defend BARTLEBEE because the regulars frequently mob him because he won’t denounce his individual beliefs that form his agoniscism and give an oath to being a liberal/atheist.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
who was asking him to denounce his individual beliefs? defend them, perhaps, but “denounce”? hows about individuals keep their individual beliefs to themselves and out of politics? i don’t take kindly to anybody who attempts to legislate their religious beliefs! separation of church and state, ya know?
January 9th, 2008 at 3:57 pmIsn’t it in God we trust? Isn’t it the rights bestowed upon us by God stated in the Bill of Rights?
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
no!
January 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pmBTW, Southern Man, I’m waiting for the proof of the Democratic Party -led conspiracy to throw the Christians to the lions…
January 9th, 2008 at 4:00 pmjustasking-I think you might be misreading bilbo’s comment?
bilbo said:
“The hard core gopers all need a strong authority figure in their lives to know how to live it. So, they turn to politicians and God.”
That does NOT necessarily mean that if you’ve turned to politicians and God (for advice on how to live) that you’re a “hard core goper”!
That said, I personally don’t need politicians or God to tell me how to live – not that I’m not willing to hear their advice! Might be some nuggets of goodness in there after all.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:00 pmPeople of faith who do not vote Republican are a threat to the “base”. And we know how the media likes to be the Repuke base.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:01 pmI want to hear how fascism and COmmunism and an upside-down Cross will come to pass.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:03 pmYou can’t be against abortion and vote for someone looking to kill more children. Since any true believer of any of the major faiths is obviously against abortion, they are against Dems. Plain and simple.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Abortion is not a simple black-or-white issue. You can’t equate abortion with murder, one of the proscriptions in the ten commandments, in the absolute since even most Republicans would favor abortion in the case of the mother’s life being jeopardized, incest, or rape. I think abortion is best left to an individual’s choice. If you try to force upon the public a relgious perspective, it’s like trying to force faith itself upon the people. If you force faith, and make it obligatory, it becomes something without value. A life of faith only has meaning when it comes down to an individual’s decision to practice faith and to make that free choice. I think the decision of Roe v. Wade was a difficult one, but about the only thing that makes sense: abortion in the first trimester, abortion with the doctor’s approval in the second, and no abortion in the third.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pmComment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
Do I what? What is it that you don’t understand?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pmYes, people who might be religious but also believe in allowing others to make the choices in their own lives must be heretics. I just love how you make yourself to be the arbiter of whose faith is genuine or not, Roger.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:06 pmYou’re constant attempts to silence anyone that disagrees with you, seems very narrow. Just saying.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
If I had my way all of you trolls would be gone. I have heard what you have to say about everything for the last 7 years…I really don’t care what you think anymore. I think progressives can handle it from here without causing near the damage that you and your ilk have caused with your opinions…conservatism is dead for a while….get use to it.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:07 pmI’m not insulted by Southern Ass, I just consider the source.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:09 pmIt says in the polling of conservatives it was asked it they were evangelical. It didn’t say it was a litmus test to christianity. Which it is not.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
That’s how you interpreted my post? I’m sorry if I wasn’t very clear. I never claimed the question was any kind of litmus test. My point was that the term “evangelical” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, making data collected rather worthless.
If you ask a person “are you female?”, you will most likely get a response that would be true to anyone’s definition of the term. If you ask a person “are you evangelical?”, you’ll probably still get a yes or a no, but the next person with the same set of beliefs might give a different answer.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pmi was being sarcastic, right there…considering his use of the term true believer.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pmI can flag anyone I want CaptainMantastic.
I saw an older gentleman at the carwash the other day. He had bush/cheney stickers all over his car. I spoke with him for a few seconds and finally asked him if he wanted to borrow my scrapper…..he looked at me and smiled and said…yes.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pmI flip flopped and triangulated? No I didn’t.
You seem to just want to fight! Yikes!
To paraphrase, I said that I don’t NEED politicians or God to tell me how to live but that I was willing to listen to what they had to say. I’m open-minded that way you see. Then, I consider what I’ve heard and make my own decisions.
When I was young I used to be “born-again” and within that community there is an expression called “contentious chrisitans”. Sound familiar?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pmI believe in “God”. God is Love. Love is the source of all things. Anyone who has experienced true, pure, anadulturated Love can tell you that, within its power, anything is possible.
I wonder if they asked that?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:14 pmYou triangulated in that one sentence. You flip flopped.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
No, she didn’t. She was clear: She doesn’t need politicians or God to tell, that is delineate, hand-down, impose a single “one way” plan of how to live her life. She is willing, however, to entertain suggestions from those sources.
What’s so difficult that you have to retreat to a bogus semantic argument JA?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:16 pmComment by Southern Man — January 9, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
apparently my sarcasm went in over your head. You said that fascism would come with a Communist flag and an upside-down Cross. Funny, because Fascism uses religion for its own goals, to sway public opinion for its own purposes…and quite frankly the GOP’s use of religion is eerily similar to one of the facets of fascism, unless you believe the Democrats are atheists and agnostics and will use them to oppress Christians. This is why I said you were projecting, and maybe I should have made myself more clearer.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:17 pmPerhaps the pollsters read the advertising. Perhaps you do too.
To bitblt there are three political issues that are more strongly associated with the Democrats that with the Republicans.
These issues are: 1) abortion, 2) homosexual rights especially so-called same-same gender marriage, and 3) the government creation myth – the theory of evolution.
If bitblt ranked these with a 1 being strongly associated with the Republicans and a 10 being strongly associated with the Democrats, these issues would break out like this:
1)-10
2)-9
3)-7
So, why is this even noted?
Issues 1) and 2) have to do with an assessment of the future of the nation. If one supports these two there is an implied message that the future of the nation isn’t important. Both 1) and 2) are about death.
Issue 3) has to do with meaning. If one believes in the theory there is an implied message that existence is meaningless which removes any value judgement from 1) and 2) making them easier to embrace.
The theory of evolution is not able to say that life is better. These three issues are the “culture of death.â€
Remember Genesis says that God is the Creator of life, that God says the creation is good, and that God says the creation of mankind is very good..
In short, CCs reject 1), 2), and 3) while the Democrats tend to embrace these.
The pollsters know this – they read the advertising – so why bother asking Democrats if they’re CCs?
Of course, most if not all, conservative Christians (CCs) want all three issues eliminated from the national stage.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:18 pmOpen-minded? Tolerant? Really?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
yes I am..thanks for noticing
Any democrat will do more for American citizens by accident than any republican will do for them on purpose.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:18 pmSince any true believer of any of the major faiths is obviously against abortion, they are against Dems. Plain and simple.
Comment by Roger_Roger
god said not to kill too but they are still for capital punishment…..
January 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pmTo Southern Man, what you obviously didn’t understand about Uncle Ho’s quote (”When fascism comes to America….”) is that it is a quote attributed to Sinclair Lewis. Interestingly, it may be an alteration of a quote attributed to Huey Long, “If fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag.” (Long’s also attributed with “Of course we will have fascism in America but we will call it democracy!” and “There is no dictatorship in Louisiana. There is a perfect democracy there, and when you have a perfect democracy it is pretty hard to tell it from a dictatorship.†)
January 9th, 2008 at 4:20 pmJoseph; thanks, I remembered that quote, but could not recall who made it.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:22 pm46 – I do not believe that there is a God, so to me, all this talk of “God given this” or “God given that” is pure mythological bullshit.
Tell you what: you provide me PROOF that God exists, and I’ll allow Him to have a say in my life.
Until then, you keep Him in your church and out of my government.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:22 pmSince any true believer of any of the major faiths is obviously against abortion, they are against Dems. Plain and simple.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Tell that to president Shortbus and the 1 million Iraqi citizens he wiped out for the WMD whoopsie. Or maybe Pat Robertson who publicly called for assassination of a national leader twice.
Or the churches who had recruiters come in to gather more cannon fodder for bush’s middle-east illegal insanity.
Then there’s Huckabee….
January 9th, 2008 at 4:24 pmjustasking – Now you’re picking on J over grammar? Damn – someone needs some if you know what I’m saying!
I think you need to change your moniker from “justasking” to “justtryingtopickafight”!
Thanks hanshiro!
January 9th, 2008 at 4:25 pmasked? That was a statement.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
…if they asked their poll question with that as one of the responses.
wtfiyp?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:26 pmAnyone who respects the words of the Sermon On The Mount can’t be an automatic Republican.
Comment by Starve-A-Bush_Feed-A-Beaver — January 9, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Todays “christians” tend to vote for who their preacher tells them to.
I have seen it many times where a preacher in his sermon will endorse one candidate or Republicans in general. One reason I really despise organized religion, whatever the leaders say, the church goers blindly follow.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:27 pmComment by bitblt — January 9, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
The Bible claims that God ordered atrocities against the people the Israelites conquered. Case point from this website
Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)
Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14
You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. For I will look on you favorably and make you fruitful, multiply you and confirm My covenant with you. You shall eat the old harvest, and clear out the old because of the new.
Leviticus, Chapter 26, verses 7-9
If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how do you explain these verses? They don’t luminate God in a favorable light. Would it be more reasonable to suggest that these atrocities were committed and then later justified by having God order them? Wouldn’t that be a bit convenient to you? The Bible should not be taken as infallible, and if you believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God transmitted through humans, would it not make sense that humans screwed things up here and there?
St. Paul said that slaves should obey their masters, should we then take this as an endorsement of slavery as the Antebellum Southerners did? How about the use of the myth of Noah’s three sons to justify the “innate inferiority” of their slaves? The Curse of Ham?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pmThose words are in our Constitution and dollar. If you don’t have faith, I can’t PROVE to you there is a God. To believe if God IS faith. It’s an action. Not a religion. As I have said before.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Catch 22 comes to mind.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:28 pmjustasking, God is not mentioned once in the Constitution
January 9th, 2008 at 4:29 pmComment by Southern Man — January 9, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
Well I hope things are settled then…I do get sarcastic a lot at times and even cynical…
January 9th, 2008 at 4:29 pmWhat’s next, ‘Entrance Polls’?
I’m not here to slam religion, I’ve just never been born again. Once was enough.
In my opinion, religion has caused more wars and death than any other single belief, but I also believe in live & let live.
We’re all passionate about politics or we wouldn’t be here. That’s a good thing. Differing views spark differences in opinion.
My problem here is the media. In it’s constant, never ending race to be on the top of the ratings, quality, honesty and common sense fall by the wayside. They copy each other, tease you about ‘breaking news’ that turns out to be yesterday’s footage and draw conclusions from inaccurate or assumptive positions.
Does America need more media consolidation? I think not.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pmJoseph; thanks, I remembered that quote, but could not recall who made it.
Comment by Uncle Ho — January 9, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
“When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.†– Sinclair Lewis.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pmThose words are in our Constitution and dollar.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
btw, it’s interesting you include the dollar.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pminteresting, but not unexpected.
Here we go again – family vales bullshit and fake-based politics.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:32 pmCan the snake oil salesmen be far behind?
90 – I can very easily write “In Mickey Mouse we trust” all the hell over the place – but that certainly doesn’t mean he exists.
Try again, genius. *eyeroll*
January 9th, 2008 at 4:32 pmLike Mary said. Your syntax.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Then you need a new hobby because self-appointed Grammar Patrol isn’t really working out for you there, buddy. Its simply annoying, especially if half of the thread is going to be filled with your self corrections and corrections of others. Get over it. Language is an ever-evolving organism.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:35 pmHow did the founding fathers use faith as a cornerstone of liberty?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:35 pmThose words are in our Constitution and dollar.Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
OYG! Then it must be true if it’s handwritten and printed! Unfortunately, “intelligent design” aside, that doesn’t count as “proof.” Hell, the pyramids were unrivaled, erected as burial mounds and filled with all kinds of pagan artifacts unmatched in christianity. if you want religious expression accentuated in artifice to serve as justification for a religion, you can’t beat one of the seven wonders of the world!
January 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pm108 — So what, JA? That proves NOTHING.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:37 pmComment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
Not to mention… “Your syntax” is not a complete sentence, so there’s no need for that “.” at the end now is there?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:38 pmAnd I worshipangel hair with pesto!
Thank You, FSM!!!
January 9th, 2008 at 4:38 pmPraise his noodly goodness!
January 9th, 2008 at 4:39 pmIf only beer volcanoes existed in the here and now and not just in heaven
January 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pmWell, that still doesn’t put God in a favorable light…heh
January 9th, 2008 at 4:41 pmPraise his noodly goodness!
Comment by Wilco — January 9, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
I, too, have been touched by his noodly appendage…
Pastafarians unite!
January 9th, 2008 at 4:41 pmI don’t see your point. It would be like asking a Dem if the are for or against abortion. You can’t be against abortion and vote for someone looking to kill more children. Since any true believer of any of the major faiths is obviously against abortion, they are against Dems. Plain and simple. This is also the reason Rudy has a serious problem as many would never think of voting for someone supporting killing more babies.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 9, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Of course you don’t see the point. There are plenty of “true believers” who are also Democrats because THEY can understand that their personal, deeply-held religious beliefs should NOT be used to impose a tyranny over those whose beliefs are different.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:42 pmThe Bible does NOT have any DIRECT condemnation of abortion, even though the practice is as old as humanity. The CLOSEST passages deal with striking down a pregnant woman in terms of her being PROPERTY (the penalties involved for injuring a pregnant woman that also causes injury to the unborn child aren’t that different from injuring or killing a man’s cow or sheep). Incidentally, I’d note also that, UNTIL the baby “quickened” (most typically through the infamous “kick”), the unborn was NOT considered a person. THAT is Biblical FACT. As few unborn babies kick until well into the second trimester (typically sixteen weeks is the earliest while twenty-two weeks is the latest; the first trimester ends at the twelfth week), there is some opinion that, prior to the widespread use of ultrasound, the Bible could be used to support fully legal abortions in the first trimester.
Until the right-wing hijacked the Republican Convention Platform Committee, the official GOP stance was to uphold a woman’s right to abortion throughout the first trimester, and to accept medically necessary abortions through later stages of pregnancy. (I think the actual platform change didn’t come until the 1984 Convention; Reagan had indicated unease with the pro-choice stance during the 1980 Convention and distanced himself from that part of the platform under the “good Republicans can disagree” adage. But, he wasn’t unhappy when the religious right commandeered the Platform Committee and not simply abandoned the moderate pro-choice wording but actually reversed the Party’s entire outlook. From 1984 on, the “good Republicans can disagree” was modified to “good Republicans can disagree on most issues but NOT abortion”.)
correction: To believe in God IS to have faith.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
To believe in something that does not exist in reality, has no proof it exists in reality, is insanity.
We need to fix the world we live in now, reality, the physical world, not neglect this world for some imaginary afterlife that does not make sense at all.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:44 pmJA, please cite your claim. In God We Trust wasn’t used until relatively recently. The founding fathers didn’t have anything to do with modern money at all.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:49 pm“To believe in something that does not exist in reality, has no proof it exists in reality, is insanity. ”
I have experienced what some people describe as “God”. You could never convince me that “God” doesn’t “exist in reality” and that doesn’t make me insane.
“We need to fix the world we live in now, reality, the physical world, not neglect this world for some imaginary afterlife that does not make sense at all.”
Funny, I get the feeling that that’s exactly what “God” wants us to do. Maybe you simply have faith in your disbelief.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:51 pmComment by J — January 9, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
I do not have to prove “your God” does not exist.
YOU claim he does. Thus it is up to you to prove YOUR CLAIM.
Where is your scientific evidence of the existance of your so called God?
Show me.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:54 pmYou just debunked a whole theory in quantum physics.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
So God is nothing more than a theory? or is quantum physics a religion?
January 9th, 2008 at 4:56 pmYou just debunked a whole theory in quantum physics.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
You obviously have never studied the quantum theory, it is a theory that takes current knowledge of physics and creates a “theory” expanding from what is currently known.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:56 pmContentious:
1 : likely to cause contention
January 9th, 2008 at 4:58 pm2 : exhibiting an often perverse and wearisome tendency to quarrels and disputes
“The Bible is the word of God…
Because God says so…
In the Bible…
And if that unbiased single source of indisputable fact isn’t enough to wake you libs up, then you deserve to be damned.”
Every dopey thing an Evangelical troll on this board writes is based on that simple article of faith right there. So just remember how handicapped they are from achieving logical thought when you try to argue with them, realize it’s a waste of time, and just say they’re dopey. Saves time and energy.
Fun, too.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:58 pmhaha! Not scientific evidence, Wayne. SPIRITUAL evidence.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
Show me your so called evidence…..
January 9th, 2008 at 5:00 pmThat’s funny that posters use “JA†in reference to my posting name. “JA†is the name of God to Rastarfarians in Jamaica. You know, when Bob Marley says “We JAmminâ€,â€Movement of JA people†The emphasis is on Ja. -Comment by justasking
I thought is was referencing JAmaica, but if you say so…
January 9th, 2008 at 5:01 pmBut just to get that on the dollar was a bloody fight. Can’t that be respected?
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
Nope! Occassionally, I cross it out. Did it on a 5-spot just today.
LivLib,
If you don’t believe in God. It’s fine.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
Damn straight!
January 9th, 2008 at 5:02 pmand it’s fine that you do.
Okay, if I could take you or anyone else back to my personal experience, I would, but it remains subjective and corny-sounding… The only advice that I have for you is to not hold such a tight tourniquet around your heart. Try to open it to Love, just let go and be open to all of the possibilities.
Just know that if you keep looking for proof, instead of truth, you won’t find it. Its kind of a paradox in that way, I guess.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:02 pmYou might be intrigued by the questions he posed in his letters, Dim Wit. I could give you the name of the book (I gave it as a present and forgot the title).
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
I only read Penthouse Forum
January 9th, 2008 at 5:03 pmIts actually “Jah” as in: short for Jahweh (or Yahweh).
January 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pmI have experienced what some people describe as “Godâ€. You could never convince me that “God†doesn’t “exist in reality†and that doesn’t make me insane.~Comment by J — January 9, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
And comets & eclipses used to scare the villagers into being believers, into hiding in their hovels, sacrificing cats and living in squalor because the church told ‘em to. If you’ve had an emotional epiphany, that’s fine. Yogis and Monks have had revelations, but that doesn’t automatically consign all visions into heaven-sent memos.
If you have no frame of comparison or reference, how can you judge a moving experience or emotional experience as “God?” It could also be the bottom rung on a ladder to transformation of a higher understanding on the physical plane.
In other words, certain meditation disciplines (or martial arts) could be construed as from or of “God” but the practitioners know, via regimen, that it’s the body’s ability to perform and function on a higher plane is simply a natural product of that discipline. Occasionally, an ordinary person will stumble into one of these experiences and, without a frame of reference or understanding, will immediately claim “God.”
It’s ignorance rather than divine intervention, I suspect.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:05 pmThanks, that was such an unbiased compliment.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Well, it’s an opinion. By definition, opinions are biased. It’s why they’re not facts. I can easily understand why many Evangelicals would have trouble differentiating between opinions and facts, seeing how they so easily confuse beliefs and facts…
January 9th, 2008 at 5:10 pmPenthouse in Braille is pretty good. You always know where the nipples are.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:12 pmmy spirit? I don’t have hollywood special effects..
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
you don’t have any god either.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pmYeah, if you say so. You’re the higher authority.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
Smartest thing you’ve said all day, Sparky.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:17 pmIt’s ignorance rather than divine intervention, I suspect.
Comment by hanshiro — January 9, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Ignorance of what exactly? Why do you suppose I was putting “God” in quotes? It sounds like many of you project your false image of (wise man w/ beard) “God” onto “believers” who may have more in common with you than you think.
It really may just come down to a matter of semantics like it sounds here. I don’t disagree with anything that you wrote, for instance.
Maybe what you or others call “Nature” or “the Universe” or “the body’s ability to function on a higher plane” is what other people are calling “God”. I don’t really see the contention here except in that in the use of the word “God”.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:18 pmShow me your so called evidence…..
Comment by Wayne — January 9, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
my spirit? I don’t have hollywood special effects..
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
You don’t have proof either. Just faith. All fine and good, as long as you don’t think your faith should be law.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:18 pmThen why are you commenting on physics?
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
I was unaware that my reading of Penthouse Forum bars me from commenting on physics.
(”Thou shalst not readeth Penthouse Forum and commenth on physics”)
January 9th, 2008 at 5:20 pmBut just to get that on the dollar was a bloody fight. Can’t that be respected?
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
ignorance, superstition and fear should be respected? you sound like a fundamentalist Muslim. or a scientologist.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:20 pmShow me your so called evidence…..
Comment by Wayne — January 9, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
my spirit? I don’t have hollywood special effects..
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
So without evidence, you have no proof your claimed God exists.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:21 pmThanks for proving my point
No. My faith is that I do. Yours is that YOU don’t.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
faith is blindness
January 9th, 2008 at 5:21 pmNo one said it was.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
wrong again. are you going for a record?
January 9th, 2008 at 5:22 pmSmartest thing you’ve said all day, Sparky.
Comment by slappy magoo — January 9, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
I was irony. But you missed it.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
Actually, it was sarcasm, not irony. If you can’t tell the difference, use neither.
Either way, it’s a damn shame, you almost said something smart today. Oh, well, there’s always tomorrow for dreams to come true.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:22 pmO..and thanks for defacing the monies. LivLib. We need all the anarchy we can get.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
“In God We Trust” is defacement
January 9th, 2008 at 5:23 pmThat comment is very bad.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
why? the truth shall set you free.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pmt’s simple to understand. No man created the universe.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
prove that.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pmno, faith is things hoped for.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
and unseen. thus, blindness.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:26 pmYou said you ONLY read penthouse.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
I do believe I said I only read Penthouse Forum. Penthouse is an entirely seperate magazine.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:29 pmYour own God…That’s the irony.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
you have a poor understanding of English. and everything else.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:29 pmOK..OK…you only read Penthouse Forum. Why are you commenting on physics?
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Why CAN’T I comment on physics?
January 9th, 2008 at 5:33 pm“In God We Trust†is defacement
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
of “God” or of money?
January 9th, 2008 at 5:36 pmYour posting name says you can’t…no no…you MUST NOT!
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
Oh. Thats a very logical explanation.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:38 pm#15 – bilbo that is an excellent point – who was asking voters about their reigious beliefs?
January 9th, 2008 at 5:41 pm“ok. You’re the enlightened one.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:33 pm”
exactly. And you aren’t.
“of “God†or of money?
Comment by J — January 9, 2008 @ 5:36 pm”
The Constitution, in fact.
“t’s simple to understand. No man created the universe.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
prove that.
HAHAHAHAHAHAA!
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:29 pm”
So, no proof. I figured as much.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:42 pm“The Constitution, in fact.”
Amen ;)
January 9th, 2008 at 5:45 pmBut you know there’s a Mickey Mouse even if you’ve never seen him.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
that’s actually a very good comparison to god, on so many levels.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:46 pmFancy editing.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
you’re very uncomfortable with truth and fact, I see.
Do you really want to delve into a debate on whether a man created the universe or not? Is that necessary?
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
It’s no less necessary than the god debate. You can’t prove or disprove either. You can only blindly follow what you’ve been told, rather than investigating and determining for yourself. Faith is destructive.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:49 pmJust because you don’t “see†somthing doesn’t mean that there isn’t effect and a whole universe of things going on. Ask his cat.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
why not ask his god? whoever schlinger is.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:51 pmno no grasshopper. Enlightenment is when you have experienced.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
that kind of idiotic statement is why we’re not having a debate. I’m merely pointing out your weaknesses, and you’re merely proving them.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:52 pm“delve into a debate on whether a man created the universe or not?”
Could be that men (collective) create physical reality by a projection causing perpetual manifestation… but that’s probably not what they were getting at.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:53 pmLefty,
Do you really want to delve into a debate on whether a man created the universe or not? Is that necessary?
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
Man may not have created the universe, but he certainly created god (actually man created many gods)
January 9th, 2008 at 5:53 pmItalicized quotes from
Comment by ucsbclassics53 — January 9, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
If the Bible is the infallible word of God, then how do you explain these verses?
These accounts are history. They’re the history of what God told his chosen people to do and what they did.
Even Christ alludes to the destruction of Sodom.
They don’t luminate God in a favorable light.
You can judge history all you want. I think the appropriate response to these stories is a strong case of fear – extreme respect. God is the owner. He can do anything he wants.
Would it be more reasonable to suggest that these atrocities were committed and then later justified by having God order them?
I accept that accounts as a history of God’s people. In addition there is some justification for what was done.
These verses are right after the verses about child sacrifice, men with men, and women with animals. Apparently this people wasn’t worth preserving.
Wouldn’t that be a bit convenient to you?
I use a twenty first-century mind. You use a twenty first-century mind. I believe one’s attitude changes toward these accounts when one accepts the idea that God is sovereign and owns everything and everyone.
If you believe the God is the Creator then it’s easier to accept that God is sovereign and owns everything. Christ refers to the Creator in Matthew 19.
The Bible should not be taken as infallible, and if you believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God transmitted through humans, would it not make sense that humans screwed things up here and there?
If this is what holds you back from you having a belief based on the words in the Bible, all I can do is refer you to Hebrews 11 where it says the without faith it is impossible to be pleasing to God. Having a faith is not the same as having proof.
I can’t even answer all the questions I can ask, but I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.
St. Paul said that slaves should obey their masters, should we then take this as an endorsement of slavery as the Antebellum Southerners did?
Seems to me that at the time this was probably written, about one third of the population were slaves. That’s a lot of people. Best guess here is that had Paul written that Christian slaves were to be freed then many would have become Christians to be freed. The ensuing rebellion would not have benefited the movement.
Some suggestions for dealing with first century slavery:
It was probably more like an employer-employee relation that we imagine.
Slaves were economic assets. You hurt them or break them and you’re poorer.
Also, Paul told the masters and slave that they were brothers in Christ, and he also told the masters to treat their slaves well.
Some suggestions for dealing with slavery among the children of Israel before the time of Christ:
Is it more humane to take a conquered people as slaves or to slaughter them?
A Hebrew could only own another Hebrew in an economic condition. In other words, the one who became the slave could sell himself into slavery. This seems something like modern day credit cards to me.
Last Sunday I did hear some writings of a mid 19th century evangelist on the subject of being a slave master. The notable thing in these particular writings is that the responsibility of being a slave master was taken very seriously. It was taken so seriously by this particular southern gentleman that he wouldn’t do it.
How about the use of the myth of Noah’s three sons to justify the “innate inferiority†of their slaves? The Curse of Ham?
How about it?
Noah’s curse was that the descendants of his son Ham would be the servants of servants.
Some read this as being the best at being servants. This is certainly not to demean anyone. For example, how many foods originated in Africa? How many foods came from American Indians? Isn’t that serving mankind.
If we understand that the sons of Shem became the Jews and Arabic people; that the sons of Japheth became the white European, the Kurds, and Asian Indian; and that the sons of Ham became everyone else, then the sons of Ham are noted as quite populous. In making a modern observation of these three grand divisions of humanity, I certainly claim that any person is inferior to any other, just different.
(Aside: Muslims believe that Abraham’s son by the Egyptian Hagar, Ishmael is the father of the Arabic people. I believe I got right. Egyptians were descendants of Ham.)
January 9th, 2008 at 5:55 pmFaith is destructive.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
Would you consider your faith in science and/or your own disbelief destructive?
January 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pmwhy not ask his god? whoever schlinger is.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
He means Schrödinger and he’s pretending he knows anything about quantum mechanics. Since he can’t even get the guy’s name right . . .
January 9th, 2008 at 6:02 pm“Would you consider your faith in science and/or your own disbelief destructive?
Comment by J — January 9, 2008 @ 5:56 pm”
Potentially. thousands of people die every day because of their faith in physics. My own disbelief is not faith, it’s fact. So that’s not in the least bit destructive.
“whoever schlinger is.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Lord.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:56 pm”
Jesus Schlinger?
January 9th, 2008 at 6:03 pmwhoever schlinger is.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Lord.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
Did you, in your infinite ignorance, really mean Schrodinger’s cat?
January 9th, 2008 at 6:04 pmfaith=hope
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
faith=hope of empirical proof. if none is forthcoming, then faith reverts to blindness.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:05 pmIt’s simple to understand. No man created the universe.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
hahaha, simple only in your own mind
man did not create the rocks we walk on either but that is not proof an imaginary god did.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:07 pmMan created many representations of God. Not God himself. You keep confusing the physical with the metaphysical.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
No, you are. You keep confusing the hope with the fantasy.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:07 pmMy own disbelief is not faith, it’s fact.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Actually, it’s still just your subjective opinion in which you have faith.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:08 pmMan created many representations of God. Not God himself. You keep confusing the physical with the metaphysical.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
I’m not confused. Man created god. Not the other way around.
Zues, Hermes, Aphrodite, Ja, Satan, God, Thor, Citlalicue, Ra, Allah, Shangdi, Krishna, etc.
Your god is no more accurate than any other god.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:08 pmComment by bitblt — January 9, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
that’s some of the sickest crap I ever heard, barring last night’s election coverage.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:09 pmYo, JA – you claim that Mickey Mouse exists.
OK. Let’s say he does.
He exists solely because Walt Disney created him.
Therefore, by YOUR logic, if God exists, MAN created him.
And I agree. Man DID create God, not the other way around.
.
.
.
p.s. Quantum physics is based upon provable MATHEMATICS, genius. Mathematics – not a just a simple statement by a mystic.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:11 pmActually, it’s still just your subjective opinion in which you have faith.
Comment by J — January 9, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
Actually, it’s fact. You posit something, you prove it. I’m not positing anything. Disbelief is not belief. Here’s the thing: if you were raised without any concept of god, but in modern times where science explains almost anything you might question, the chances are that you would never conceptualize a fantasy figure. god was born in man’s mind out of ignorance and fear, and the concept was quickly seized upon as a method of control and enrichment of the rulers, “god’s chosen”. Without god in contemporary society, there’s quite a large number of charlatans who would have to work for a living.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:13 pmWhy does it bother you so?
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
Because that extent and level of ignorance has prevented humans from becoming fully enlightened and free, that’s why.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:15 pmEinstein had his theory but he had trouble proving it until the mathmatics worked. That’s what took so long.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
well, you’ve had lots more time than Einstein did to prove the existence of god. is it a math problem?
January 9th, 2008 at 6:23 pmYou should read how Einstein and other scientist have come to their conclusion about the existence of God.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
I have, and their conclusions are not provable. they are entitled to their opinions. I’m quite sure they were wrong about other things during their lives, as well.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:24 pmYou get an A- for your research. But you get points taken off for taking so long.
D-
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
I do apologize. You see I am at work and I must work in between nonsensical commentaries.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:25 pmEven Ayn Rand (is that how you spell it?)
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
there you go. I don’t need to believe Einstein, or Jung, or especially Rand. None can show me proof, but as soon as somebody does, then I will accept god as a fact. No belief will be involved.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pmMLK, Gandhi, Jesus, even the Budda agree. But I have to work with the TP regulars.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
I’m not so sure about that. And, so what? 90% or more of all humans agree. It’s the best scam in history, no question about it.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:29 pmDear God, Help me.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
god helps those that help themselves. except when he doesn’t.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:30 pmou have a higher brain order. Your conceptions are better. You are a true extentialist.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
That’s not how I would put it, but think what you like.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:31 pmjustasking, for the record, *I* never claimed to be a higher power, you assumed that I thought I was. I’m not. Just smarter than you. Because I don’t take things on faith written thousands of years ago, and subsequently rewritten, retranslated, re-interpreted & edited by fearful religious leaders, & claim them to be fact because I just believe in them oh-so-much.
Oh, and while we’re at it, I noticed that you refer to the “our maker” phrase in the bill of rights, and interpret that to mean “God.” Ever wonder WHY they chose “Our Maker” which is a little more vague and open to interpretation than “God?” Could it be that they understood that not everyone believes in the same concept of God, and therefore left it open-ended, so it could be anyone’s concept of a “maker” whatever that concept was?
January 9th, 2008 at 6:33 pmYour forefathers, and mine, trying to be respectful of everyone’s beliefs. They didn’t always bat a thousand (slave owners espousing freedom) but they were trying. Which is more than I can say for today’s blinder-wearing “I’ll believe you if you tell me you pray to the same God I do” Evangelical sh!theads.
Well, alrighty then, JA. I’ll leave you to your god and whatever it is you’ve been smoking. Obviously reason has no effect on your soggy brain.
I think I’ll stick with the FSM.
rAmen.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:40 pmI’m not positing anything.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Actually, you posit that there is no God and since you can’t prove a negative, you are lashing out. I can’t help that you have closed yourself off to the proof you are looking for.
I posit that it is something you have to find for yourself. No one else can “prove” it to you.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:46 pmmatter of fact a lot of your logic comes from the post modern era.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
Well, that’s where I live. Now, I would like to clarify something. I claim no superiority of intelligence over the faithful. I don’t attempt to convert anybody to my way of thinking, ever. Most of my closest friends and associates are believers. I cherish and respect them. I don’t know why I am so lucky to have escaped the faith trap, except that I live by what I call “the rule of 2″, which says that only 2% of anything or anyone that I encounter is worth bothering with. Originally I saw it as a great timesaver, but it has become more important as a way to focus my life in the direction that works best for me. It is not about materialism, or status. It is about the quality of life, both mine and the life that surrounds me. It is, ironically, a very Christian way in many respects, based on Christ’s teachings of peace, love, charity and enlightenment. It is the very opposite of post-modern conservative, rightwing thinking, as Christ is the antithesis of that philosophy. My argument is never with believers about their beliefs; it is always about their view of what I should believe and follow, which is both none of their business, and entirely wrong in my moral code. I don’t need god to keep me moral, nor do I need puishment after death, nor Original Sin, nor any other of the paternalistic, controlling, man-made rules of religion.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pmI posit that it is something you have to find for yourself. No one else can “prove†it to you.
Comment by J — January 9, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
Then, by definition, it doesn’t exist. and almost nobody finds it for themselves, they are indoctrinated into it from day 1. the Catholic Church is quite famous for its “give them to us for 7 years, we have them for life”.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:52 pmLefty keeps saying that a person must find out things him/herself. People DO search for God. For something more than themselves. Yet for him he closes himself off to other logics. But he’s more enlightened.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
I’m sorry you are having such a difficult time with reading comprehension. I’m also sorry that people become so damaged that they have to search for something more than themselves, that they can’t accept themselves as a work in progress, and can’t be satisfied with merely being the best human they can be. These, however, are not my problems.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:55 pmWhat a day to have my ISP’s server go down. Please forgive my if I miss, or repeat any salient points as I catch up.
1) Why does anyone think it’s appropriate to ask anyone anything about religion?
It’s a private matter. Feel free to vote, or campaign, for anyone you wish. Let your Faith decide. But leave it in your church, your home, and your heart. If a stranger walked up to me, and asked me what my religion is? (It’s never happened to me, though I’ve been approached by many who were eager to tell me about THEIR Faith.) I politely say, “that’s private and I’d prefer not to discuss it”. I find it discouraging that more people don’t take the same approach. Especially when the MSM is pimping it.
2) I can’t imagine letting abortion become the deciding factor in my politics and/or Faith. I trust the ethics of medical people and believe they are better qualified to make decisions about abortion than I. Overturning Roe v. Wade would, potentially, eliminate Federal protection of those who have/perform abortions of necessity. I believe this protection is necessary and don’t think I could support a candidate who would seek to change existing Federal law.
3) The fact that the existence of a Supreme Being, and merits of particular religions, is part of modern politics is frightening as Hell. The examples of great societies ruined by religious conflict are countless. And the mass media of today provides a constant stream of new people to hate.
The ones who really terrify me are the ones, of all Faiths, who see a picture of people praying, a half a world away, and their first instinct is to kill them. And, as often as not, they are praying to the same God and most of them don’t really believe any of it, don’t hate anyone else, and just want to fit in.
To me, the whole idea of hating, or fearing, someone for religious reasons is so ridiculous that any candidate, of any party, who shows any hint of religious bias is; NOT ACCEPTABLE! They might as well withdraw as far as my vote is concerned.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:56 pmJA – you’re full o’ shit. I haven’t said anything hateful. Your remark was way more hateful than anything *I* said.
Nice. I suppose calling someone “hateful” is the last refuge of the tongue-tied god-smacked…?
Ah. I see. Carry on, then.
And may the FSM touch you with His Noodly Appendage, my child.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:56 pmComment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
Point by point:
Did I insult anybody because of their belief? Or are you lying?
I am debating the accusations thrown at me, and defending my position. that really isn’t the same as trying to convert you.
I don’t have displaced anger, I have very real anger, with very good reason. thousands of innocents were blown apart, ripped to pieces, run out of their country because of the faith-based insanity.
The Rule Of 2 is sad for you because you don’t have the strength to follow it. It’s perfectly socially conscious, in fact, because it lets me put my resources where they’ll do the most good.
And yes, it’s all about me. My friends reap the benefits. You don’t. Boo-hoo.
How did you manage to read into this that I don’t give? My generosity is actually very well-known in my business. i pay very well, and treat my co-workers with utmost respect.
I have always gotten what a true Christian is. it’s the Christians that have managed to miss the point for all these centuries.
religion and zealots hurt everybody. and you are right, that is man. there is no god.
It is amazing that you missed every point but one, and completely skewed my intentions with your sad, cynical, nasty, selfish interpretations. You have convinced me that I am, indeed, much nearer enlightenment than you. that makes me sad for you, and you harldy deserve it. you are poisoned by hate. it’s a shame, but more proof of the nonexistence of god.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:17 pmOpen-minded? Tolerant? Really?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
This has to be the ultimate in hypocracy. CaptainM acusing someone of not being open-minded or tolerant. Republican, hypocracy is thy name.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:55 pmThen, by definition, it doesn’t exist. and almost nobody finds it for themselves, they are indoctrinated into it from day 1.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
By what definition?
So, if poverty only effects the poor, would it be correct for a rich Conservative, let’s say, to assume that there’s no such thing as poverty? If it exists for some people, then it does exist wether you want to believe it yourself, or not… no matter what proof you demand and don’t receive.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:58 pmSo, if poverty only effects the poor, would it be correct for a rich Conservative, let’s say, to assume that there’s no such thing as poverty? If it exists for some people, then it does exist wether you want to believe it yourself, or not… no matter what proof you demand and don’t receive.
Comment by J — January 9, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
What are you, 6? Poverty will affect a rich conservative if he loses all his money. Poverty will disappear from the poor if they get some money. god will never show up. what an idiotic comparison. If a rich conservative claims there is no poverty, it’s very easy to him otherwise. You can only try to force your beliefs on me, but you can’t show me god. and as far as justasking is concerned, he knows nothing. liberals by definition are open-minded and liberal. If their closed-minded and conservative, they’re conservatives.
When did kindergartens get internet connections?
you’re pretty bitter, Lefty.
Maybe you should go back on the McCain thread.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
And you’re pretty ignorant, as well as arrogant. Go back to redstate.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:02 pmMany “independents”, like myself, are fairly “conservative” in the general sense. I’ve voted for candidates which represented my views, regardless of party affiliation, and helped elect quite a few Independent candidates.
I don’t think the American way of life has ever faced a greater threat than the modern, politically active, American Evangelicals. “Evangelicons”, I call them, to separate “Christians” like Pat Robertson from my Christian neighbors who view Church as a social function rather than political.
Vote for whoever you wish. You are free to “vote your Faith” if you wish. But there is no place for “evangelicons” in government and I think most “independents” and “progressives” agree. And a great many real conservatives. The Bushco/neocons have tainted the word “conservative”, but, it looks like they’ll prove to be an aberration.
The evangelicaon influence, on the Republican Party, has to go. It has nothing to do with respect for Faith. The problem is unqualified people making decisions based on their religious preconceptions. It doesn’t even matter if their preconceptions are correct.
I want my elected officials to make sound decisions, based on sound data, without regard for any particular Belief. And rather than guessing about things beyond their understanding? They should work with the most qualified people; not rely on an old book which is no longer a reliable encyclopedia.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:12 pmMaybe you’re just too familiar with yourself.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Huh, projection, again. Can’t get a date, j? What a surprise.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:19 pmComment by J — January 9, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
Believe in poverty? Um? What in the world do you mean? Poverty is not a belief.
Poverty is a description of relative socioeconomic status and is fairly easy to observe and quantify. A millionaire is said to suffer the shame of poverty; in a roomful of billionaires.
Poverty, also, is not an entity, real or imagined, and is therefore of no significance in a discussion of a hypothetical Supreme Being.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:21 pmData doesn’t need to be clinical to be valid. However, your equating “belief in poverty” with Religious Faith is ridiculous and any other argument irrelevant.
“Faith” only serves to show confidence in one’s fixed idea. Knowledge is “fact based”. Those who spout a fixed “Faith” are, by definition, suspect in their ability to adapt to changing dynamics. Whether it’s: science, politics, spirituality, or (oddly enough) “A Faith’s” impact on good people of differing, or indifferent, Faith.
No matter what! we must reject leaders who express a willingness to pursue conflicts based on religious dogma. And anyone who refuses to see the absolute folly of accepting “Faith based government”, in ANY guise, is an utter fool.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:30 pmDINGDINGDING! Then don’t knock mine and tell me HOW to interpret my beliefs. I have told you to believe in anything. I said it was fine it you don’t. But look at all the insults I’ve had thrown at me. Is that really promoting civil liberty? Some things have been guaranteed as a citizen
right. I thought that’s why the argument is here in a political forum.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Ohhhhh, that’s rich…
I refer to your first very dopey post, the first, might I add, of oh so many…
Yes…I guess you can’t be progressive and born again. btw Zimzone, Jesus said that ye must be born again to become a spiritual person. I don’t think Jesus was lame. If you think it’s a “wonderful way to avoid responsibility for past behaviorâ€, it is. It’s called grace and mercy.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Which was, right off the bat, a slam on…
A: people who consider themselves both Born Again & Progressive (ie Christians who understand that they shouldn’t let their religious beliefs close themselves off to people they’d otherwise think would be good leaders);
B: People who don’t believe in the concept of being Born Again, or that you have to be born again in order to be spiritual (sure, *YOU’RE* just the messenger, *YOU’RE* just saying what *JESUS* is saying, and I guess it all depends on what your definition of “is” is. I thought it important to refute such a stupid point before you inevitably make it.) It implies everyone else’s spirituality, no matter what their beliefs, is horseshit;
c: People who understood the point zimzone was making in the first place. Allow me to refer to the post YOU were referring to when you made your first dopey point:
‘Born Again’ has to be the lamest excuse for a life of misdeeds ever invented. Of course, it gives those claiming such a wonderful way to avoid responsibility for past behavior.
Comment by Zimzone — January 9, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Zimzone was blasting people who commit atrocious acts in God’s name, and claim it’s ok because they’re Born Again. Anti-choice advocates who believe killing doctors who perform abortions are doing the Lord’s Work. People who shout they’re pro-life, but they’re for the death penalty (like Our Glorious Leader). People who believe Jesus died for our sins so all our sins will be forgiven, then demand other people children torture & kill brown people (ditto Our Glorious Leader). It’s a lot like people who go out and get sh!tfaced drunk and thinks that gives them a free pass for any irresponsible act (”Look baby I’m sorry I beat up your sister’s husband and then banged her, but BE NICE to me! I’m an ALCOHOLIC! Don’t JUDGE me!” You know, a-holes like that. And your reply, intentional or not, validates and defends a-holes like that.
So, to wit, from the get-go, you were a tremendous a-hole, defending Christianity as the one-true-way, the only-true-way to be totally enlightened (whether you believe it, or are just a troll, it’s certainly been fun pointing out how ridiculous your arguments are, in fact, you’d save at least a little bit of face if you just said “Gotcha!” right now. You’ll still be considered an a-hole by just about everyone, but at leat for slightly better reasons.) And now, after all your pathetic arguments have been debunked, after you’ve been nasty to the people who’ve debunked your points while crying that they’re being so mean to you (you know, like a big pu$$y), NOW you say you’re all about religious tolerance? TELLING us we can “believe in anything?” (Thank you SO MUCH for your permission, by the way, saves me from having you sign a note for me)
I guess you’re lucky intelligence tests are not a prerequisite to drive on down these internets tubes of ours.
You’re a joke. And not a good or funny one. What we call “A Carrot Top.” Feel free to keep spouting hypocritical nonsense, but don’t be terribly surprised when you don’t get respected or revered.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:08 pmComment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
you claim: “you can’t show me god.”
and then go on to claim:
“If their closed-minded and conservative, they’re conservatives.”
So, who would be exhibiting conservative traits in this instance?
“Poverty is a description of relative socioeconomic status and is fairly easy to observe and quantify.”
Comment by Impolitics — January 9, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
Spirituality is a description of consciousness with relative intrinsic value that is quite difficult to observe and impossible to quantify.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:31 pmslappy…take a nappy.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
I know smart people don’t need to hear this, but just for the record, when trolls spend HOURS trying to make their dopey points while refuting other people’s points, and then become casually dismissive of their opponents who call them on their bullsh!t instead of defending themselves, it means this: THEY’VE GOT NOTHING. They’re full of sh!t, if they didn’t know it before, they now do, they realize everything they’ve talked about is stupid, they should’ve never logged online, just stayed home, had their 3 bowls of Sugar Pops for dinner, masturbate furiously into an old sock, hope nobody heard them when they shouted out their old gym teacher’s name & then cry theselves to sleep by 7pm, fetal position optional, contemplating suicide, like they do most nights.
Why not just admit you’re an a-hole? To yourself and to everyone else? It’s the first step towards healing, and Jesus loves honesty, ESPECIALLY self-honesty.
And for the record, I don’t think I’m morally or intellectually superior to everyone else on the board. Just you. Because you give Evangelism a bad name, and that’s saying a lot.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:50 pmB: People who don’t believe in the concept of being Born Again, or that you have to be born again in order to be spiritual
Comment by slappy magoo — January 9, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
Try to determine what “Born Again” really means and the context in which it was originally contained. It is now mostly just a term used and bastardized by the modern day Christian-right to flaunt self-righteousness. It does seem to me that most of the people who give themselves this label truly haven’t given it much honest thought which has made this potentially enlightening term feel dirty.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:50 pmSpirituality is a description of consciousness with relative intrinsic value that is quite difficult to observe and impossible to quantify.
Comment by J — January 9, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
therefore only exists in the mind of the believer. which is fine if you don’t mind living a life of superstition and fear. I realized long ago it was unnecessary. Unlike you, I don’t care what you do, it’s none of my business, until you try to make it my business. I really don’t expect you to change your mind, so i haven’t tried to convert you. Your defensiveness bespeaks the weakness of your position though, and your lack of proof. Your comparison of poverty with god was ridiculous and extreme, as well as stupid, since it was so easiy destroyed, but, even so, I don’t care if you believe in god. I do care that the forces of organized religion are responsible for much of the death and destruction throughout human history, but if you’re OK with that, then so be it.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:55 pmAll I’m producing right now are comebacks to a Slappy Magoo. Whatever that is. Sounds like a microwave pasta dish.
Comment by justasking — January 9, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
You can only argue with one person at a time who’s questioning your faith? Some Christian soldier YOU turned out to be. Jesus wept.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:17 amAnd how sad is it that someone willing to be called “Slappy Magoo” is doing such a dandy job of making you look like the dullard you are (though I’m certainly NOT the only one). think about it, when you go to work tomorrow, you’ll have to tell coworkers someone named Slappy Magoo schooled you…
Ahhhhh, who am I kidding, nobody at work wants to talk to you.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:18 amAhhhhh, who am I kidding, nobody at work wants to talk to you.
Comment by slappy magoo — January 10, 2008 @ 12:18 am
you think it has a job?
January 10th, 2008 at 12:20 amComment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
“which is fine if you don’t mind living a life of superstition and fear.”
Who said anything about fear? Do you not believe in personal growth?
“I realized long ago it was unnecessary.”
Oh…
“Unlike you, I don’t care what you do, it’s none of my business, until you try to make it my business.”
And yet, I’m the one being judged for my faith, here.
“Your defensiveness bespeaks the weakness of your position though.”
Please point to where I’ve gotten defensive in any manner? I am very comfortable in my “faith” purely based on what I have experienced myself, and you’re right, nothing you can say can ever “convert me”. I have opened myself to the truth and received it. If you refuse to do it yourself, or have done it in a different manner, then you’re right here, too: That’s your business.
“and your lack of proof”
What about your lack of proof? Perhaps there is a reason that you can not prove a negative… and this would be the ultimate negative.
“Your comparison of poverty with god was ridiculous and extreme, as well as stupid, since it was so easiy destroyed”
You said that because some people experience “God”, but not all, that “God” doesn’t exist. Perhaps it wasn’t the best example, but it was effective in debunking that particular logic. “Destroyed” is a pretty harsh term for, what I consider, some unfinished business.
“I do care that the forces of organized religion are responsible for much of the death and destruction throughout human history”
When people attach their spiritual identity to anyone else besides themselves, they forfeit control of their connection to God and of their lives to someone else who can easily choose to misuse it. No argument here, whatsoever.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:21 amSpirituality is a description of consciousness with relative intrinsic value that is quite difficult to observe and impossible to quantify.
Comment by J — January 9, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Which is exactly correct and demonstrates why “spirituality” can’t be compared to an observation of a “real time” event such as poverty.
Spirituality may dictate the extent of one’s response to poverty, but, it’s dangerous or improper to judge poverty, or anything else, based on adherence to “spiritual norms”.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:25 amyou think it has a job?
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 10, 2008 @ 12:20 am
Those shopping carts aren’t going to bring themselves back to the market.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:27 amWhich is exactly correct and demonstrates why “spirituality†can’t be compared to an observation of a “real time†event such as poverty.
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 12:25 am
I think that all we’ve established here is that poverty, like spirituality, is relative, as in when you stated:
“A millionaire is said to suffer the shame of poverty; in a roomful of billionaires.”
In my last post to lefty patriot, I admit that this might be a bad example, but effective in debunking the original logic debated which you have also failed to refute and actually reinforced (above). As you seem to be too hung up on the example itself, I maintain that it’s effective enough to prove my point which is: just because you haven’t experienced something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:35 am“You said that because some people experience “Godâ€, but not all, that “God†doesn’t exist. Perhaps it wasn’t the best example, but it was effective in debunking that particular logic. “Destroyed†is a pretty harsh term for, what I consider, some unfinished business.”
I said nothing of the sort, liar. I never claimed that anybody experienced god, because that is impossible. your poverty idiocy merely proved what a moron and addled thinker you are. Poverty is easily provable, god is, up to this point, for thousands of years, unproveable.
spirituality is another thing altogether, and everybody has a different take on it.
personal growth is personal, and comes from within. god only slows that process, if not killing it altogether. god makes man lazy and irresponsible. not much prospect for growth under those conditions.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:35 amjust because you haven’t experienced something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
Comment by J — January 10, 2008 @ 12:35 am
and just because you have imagined something doesn’t mean it does exist.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:36 amI guess that goes along with the poverty discussion before that some people aren’t affected along the lines of empathy.
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 12:37 am
it’s irrelevant. like you.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:38 amNobody said it had to for you!
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 12:39 am
thanks for making my point.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:41 ampersonal growth is personal, and comes from within. god only slows that process, if not killing it altogether. god makes man lazy and irresponsible. not much prospect for growth under those conditions.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 10, 2008 @ 12:35 am
Well done, Lefty.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:42 amThanks, Zooey. goodnight, I’m off.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:45 amfinally! you get it.
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 12:43 am
and you never will.
Coda.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:46 amNobody said it had to for you!
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 12:39 am
God, so many dumb things in rapid-fire succession, it’s like Hannity on crack.
“Existence” is not subjective. A belief in existence is. You can not say “God exists” honestly. You CAN say “I believe God exists” honestly.
And going back to your original dopey post, you, by quoting “Jesus” made it clear that you don’t have to believe in Him; just that you’re doomed to Hell if you don’t. It immediately shifted the discussion to one of whether God and Jesus exist instead of the actual article the thread is for, which is whether or not it’s unfair for pollsters conducting exit polls to assume only Republicans can be born-again or Christian.
You know, most people, when they want attention, actually DO something. Sing a song, perform in a play, join a team, write a story. You know, constructive stuff. Letting a bunch of strangers on an internet site know just how pathetic you are is kind of an odd hobby to have. But at least it keeps you off the streets, where you might otherwise get run over by a runaway shopping cart.
And for the record, people who collect shopping carts for a living are more than welcome here, but if they try to jam their religious beliefs down everyone else’s throat, passing judgment all the whille, and then cry like pu$$ies – “What? I’m just Saying…” when they’re called on their bull – they’re gonna get what you got.
Seriously, at what point do you say “Ah ha, just fooling?” Come on, it’s troll amnesty time. Last shot to admit you’re a lying conniving doo shnozzle, as opposed to a truly thick headed hypocritical hiding-behind-Jesus’-robe doo shnozzle.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:56 amI don’t like well done, Lefty. It clashes with the bitterness of the Slappy Magoo. Making it unpalatable.
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 12:53 am
Oh, that “the” justasking. Still working with nothing! Still just doing ad hominem attacks instead of defending his now-debunked opinions. Gotta admire his consistency in trolling…
Wait. No. No, you don’t.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:58 amComment by Lefty Patriot — January 10, 2008 @ 12:35 am
“I said nothing of the sort, liar.”
Yes you did. In post 262:
“Then, by definition, it doesn’t exist.”
I don’t want to get into a name calling match, but who’s the liar. I can’t debate with you if you are going to revert to being dishonest.
“I never claimed that anybody experienced god”
You didn’t have to. I did. You haven’t, so you don’t believe that anyone else has. You have, up until this point, closed yourself off to that experience, and based on what you’ve stated, I can’t say that I can fully fault your reasoning.
“your poverty idiocy merely proved what a moron and addled thinker you are. ”
Why are you being so nasty, here? It still proved my point in that some people can experience things that exist while others do not and that while some hypothetical, close minded, wealthy conservative may not believe that poverty exists, because they aren’t experiencing it, it does, in fact, still exist. Perhaps you just don’t like being compared to that hypothetical conservative.
“Poverty is easily provable”
Not to someone who chooses to live in their rich, ignorant bubble as I have posited. If one were rich enough, they could live their entire lives sheltered from poverty and never knew that it existed like Buddah’s parents tried to do for him, until he made a personal choice to seek knowledge.
“god is, up to this point, for thousands of years, unproveable.”
As is no “God”.
“personal growth is personal, and comes from within.”
“The kingdom of Heaven lies within” -the Bible
“god only slows that process, if not killing it altogether. god makes man lazy and irresponsible. not much prospect for growth under those conditions.”
You seem to still be conflating spirituality with religion.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:05 amThis is like watching the Simpsons!
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 1:01 am
Well, actually, the Simpson’s is a cartoon which explores the limits of absurd, though topical, humor. Still, it presents a more reasoned approach to religion, and it’s proper place in the world, than some of the posters here.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:11 amStill, it presents a more reasoned approach to religion, and it’s proper place in the world, than some of the posters here.
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 1:11 am
And politics.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:13 amAnd politics.
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 1:13 am
And education.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:13 amThis is like watching the Simpsons!
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 1:01 am
Further proof you’re a troll, as characters on The Simpsons break various commandments on a regular basis. No self-respecting Evangelical would watch it & believe they weren’t sinning, and thus survive the Second Coming.
Effing dolt.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:15 amAnd education.
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 1:13 am
And Poverty. And wealth. “Spiritual”, “Material”, “Religious”, “Atheist”, or, any other conceivable scale.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:15 amComment by Lefty Patriot — January 10, 2008 @ 12:45 am
Good night to you, too. Its been fun or real… or really something.
I would like to make one final statement that helps make my actual point that I was trying to make before we got hung up on the “poverty” example:
Just because Stalin’s regime and it’s lefty ideals were responsible for death and destruction, in Russia, on a scale comparable to religion throughout history, doesn’t mean that there isn’t any good or value to be gained through lefty ideals. Don’t close yourself off to certain experiences or the good or value that can be gained through other’s beliefs based soley on the dark past that it may once have had. That’s all.
peace
January 10th, 2008 at 1:17 amYou don’t have to be influenced by what I say. But I think you ought to rethink getting your core beliefs from the Simpsons.
Or at least telling people that you do.
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 1:16 am
Yeah! Don’t tell people you get your core beliefs from cartoon characters! Tell them you get your core beliefs from an old book that was supposedly dictated by a wise old man who lives in the sky, knows all, judges all, and makes people want to kill each other in His name. MUCH more logical.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:19 amWho said I was evangelical?
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 1:18 am
Well, if you’re not, you’re spending an awful lot of time defending a belief system you don’t agree with. You’re either one of the most stupid Evangelicals ever created or one of the stupidest trolls ever created.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:20 amBTW, neither answer’s gonna get you laid terribly often.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:22 amAnd Poverty. And wealth. “Spiritualâ€, “Materialâ€, “Religiousâ€, “Atheistâ€, or, any other conceivable scale.
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 1:15 a
In fact there is more modern and ancient, wisdom in most individual episodes, of the Simpson’s, than in a whole season’s post by many “trolls”. Only, they are so limited in their thinking, so closed minded, that they don’t realize how many “TRUTHS” are explored. Sometimes as the butt of a deserved joke, sometimes with respect and dignity. It depends on how “TRUE” a particular “TRUTH” turns out to be when put to any logical test.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:24 amWhich episode from the Simpsons was that?
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 1:24 am
The one that proved Christianity was a farce. Like your posts. Except the Simpsons is smart and funny.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:27 amYou’re confabulating now. stop.
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 1:26 am
So sayeth the dunderhead that’s been praising faith-as-fact for hours now.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:29 amAs opposed to “hey, maybe tonight’s the night I can finally feel you up? I know it’s only been 6 months since we started dating but…no? OK, I was justasking.”
January 10th, 2008 at 1:30 amYou don’t have to be influenced by what I say. But I think you ought to rethink getting your core beliefs from the Simpsons.
Or at least telling people that you do.
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 1:16 am
Who said any thing about “getting core beliefs from the Simpson’s.” I said that the writers use the given format to explore many issues. Often the absurd, or comedians in general, tell more about a society than Preachers.
Comedy is a valuable source of sociological data. And it’s often more up to date, honest, and logical, than any dogma or it’s followers.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:31 amAaaaaaaand now that everyone’s MORE than aware you’re the worst kind of troll – one who just spouts contradictory horsesh!t on whatever site he finds himself, which negates any opinions you’ll ever share on any other topic, I’m pretty connfident telling you to eff off and goodnight everyone else.
Relax, I’m not worried, I’m sure you’ll come up with a new screen name and engage in the same assholishness, if not tomorrow, then soon. But as long as WE justaskin is an a-hole, and YOU know you’re an a-hole, nothing else needs to be said.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:34 amOK, one more, for ol’ time’s sake…
So you DO get your core beliefs form cartoons. Bush does too! He tried to get the Saudi Prince to watch a couple…but the Prince didn’t think that was a good idea.
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 1:32 am
Obviously, this is the time of the night when the meds wear off and the manic side of your personality rakes over, and you engage in scattershot topic-throwing until everyone is disgusted by you, and you then feel like you’ve won something.
The sad part is, your manic side? Still not particularly interesting. Or funny.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:38 amComedy is a valuable source of sociological data. And it’s often more up to date, honest, and logical, than any dogma or it’s followers.
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 1:31 am
But it doesn’t even register, with many, that humor is just as eternal as religion, as Faith, as TRUTH itself. And humor has, eternally, dared mere gods to prove; “What is THE TRUTH”!
And not one god has ever delivered a credible, verifiable, message which a majority will BELIEVE. Only enough BELIEVE to seize power and enforce THEIR TRUTH.
If the message were credible, and verifiable, no one would have to fight over which “Message” is TRUE! It would be obvious to every thinking, feeling, human who received it; without reservation.
Such is obviously not the case. There are no obvious, universal, answers. And that’s the fact BELIEVERS can never admit because it comes damn close to disproving God. That’s why BELIEVERS condemn humor. Especially topical humor.
Humorists have banished more Gods to the realm of fantasy than all the Philosophers, Clergy, Politicians, Scientists, Warriors, Miracles and Plagues, combined.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:50 amHumorists have banished more Gods to the realm of fantasy than all the Philosophers, Clergy, Politicians, Scientists, Warriors, Miracles and Plagues, combined.
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 1:50 am
And the BELIEVER is petrified when they see others laugh, at that which they believe. And it gets worse if they allow themselves to comprehend that Humorists ARE Clergy, Scientists, Warriors, Politicians, and most definitely Philosophers. The wisest and most TRUTHFUL of any society, the BEST MINDS of their times, and those who’s works are most preserved.
Humor is the harsh mirror in which the BELIEVER must defend the BELIEF. A mirror in which they discover the laughing faces of MANKIND’S BEST MINDS!
January 10th, 2008 at 2:03 amName some.
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 1:57 am
Don’t be disingenuous.
Every past God, from abstract prehistoric idols, to modern times, of course. God’s are not banished by physical, measurable, evidence. They are banished when they are ridiculed loud, and often, enough that any threat of retribution (concrete proof), becomes ridiculous.
Poof! It’s hard to believe in any vengeful God (Vengefulness is part of the natural [gasp!] EVOLUTION of God’s) which fails to show it’s power, in the face of absolute ridicule and denial, with some consistency.
Some last longer than others, but, even those which last (gasp!) EVOLVE to a non-Vengeful but still unverifiable nature. Yet, they never evolve the ability to smite those who mock them on a consistent basis.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:15 amYet, they never evolve the ability to smite those who mock them on a consistent basis.
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 2:15 am
That is left to those who BELIEVE.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:21 am“I don’t believe in smiting. Never smote anybody.”
Comment by justasking
Not even by mistake?
Your mom must be so proud.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:26 amSounds good. Meaningless… but it sounds good.
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 2:20 am
Which is why I’m not direct my comments at you, or anyone in particular. Rather I’m just making observations and seeing if anyone, with the open mindedness to understand my point, agrees. Just putting in my two-bits.
BTW, my point is that Humorists have come close to disproving Gods, and have rendered the worship of most ridiculous.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:26 am“BTW, my point is that Humorists have come close to disproving Gods, and have rendered the worship of most ridiculous.”
Comment by Impolitics
I know that I can never again take Odin seriously – after seeing Erik the Viking
January 10th, 2008 at 2:32 amBTW, my point is that Humorists have come close to disproving Gods, and have rendered the worship of most ridiculous.
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 2:26 am
Especially Humorists who BELIEVE ANYTHING different than the current Gods of the age; Tlaloc for example. I bet their were some dandy, “Tlaloc and Kohoutek walk into a bar” jokes long before his worship became ridiculous in the eye’s of the majority.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:34 amAnd Allen Sherman’s The Rape of the Ape puts all of religion in its proper context.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:35 am“Especially Humorists who BELIEVE ANYTHING different than the current Gods of the age;”
Not too popular during the inquisition, I’ll wager….
But other than that, yeah.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:38 amYou know what? I think you scare yourself more about God than anyone else ever could. I’m not afraid of God.
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 2:25 am
Will you please stop being disingenuous? Or at least stop making assumptions about what I fear? If I decide to divulge a fear I tend to state it clearly.
As a non-believer It’s impossible for me to fear a god. I do fear the things which people do in their names.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:40 am“Or maybe a class in theology.”
Comment by justasking
Catholic schooled, 1-8 grades. That’s instruction seven days a week, to the uninitiated.
And it all depends on your flavor of “God.”
January 10th, 2008 at 2:41 amNot too popular during the inquisition, I’ll wager….
But other than that, yeah.
Comment by barfly — January 10, 2008 @ 2:38 am
I didn’t say being a Humorist is safe, or easy. Pranksters, Fools (often BELIEVERS), casual Essayists, and Jesters often pay with their lives for irreligious, or “Impolitic” expression.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:44 am“What happens to these jesters that speak out? Who condemns them? Tell me more please.”
Comment by justasking —
Lenny Bruce was arrested repeatedly.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:50 am“God arrested them?”
Comment by justasking
I’d heard that ecstasy was now being laced with some toxic shit, but this is the first time I’ve seem an example of it’s effects…
January 10th, 2008 at 2:54 amAnd that’s “seen” to any lurking spelling nazis…
January 10th, 2008 at 2:55 amAnyway, I’d agree that humorists have a tough ho to row, or whatever the saying is. But I think their humor is both potent and valid because most humorists have known severe adversity in their lives.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:01 amWhich if you think about it, is why “conservative humor” is an oxymoron.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:05 amThat’s nice. Off topic. But very nice of you to open up.
Comment by justasking —
But that Slappy Magoo…now there’s some laughs!
Comment by justasking
Need I say more?
January 10th, 2008 at 3:08 amThis feels too much like virtual t-ball.
Adios, justasking.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:12 amOr maybe a class in theology.
Comment by justasking — January 10, 2008 @ 2:38 am
I’ve learned enough theology to know that dogma often promotes presumptive answers on matters which are demonstrably untrue, or, explained by other hypotheses. I learned that I prefer to explore a subject without pre-conceptions.
I’ve even used that approach with Theology. I learned enough to come to the realization that I don’t much care for any Theology, Myth, Superstition, Philosophy, Custom, Moral, or BELIEF; without exploring it’s merits and deciding if it’s beneficial to me and society.
I subscribe to some tenants of many Philosophies. But, I try to use every bit of my wit, experience, and spirit, to make important decisions which affect lives.
And I certainly wouldn’t benefit from further Theological training. “Religious Scholar” is a conflict in terms, to me. A true scholar seeks new answers, or the best answer, not old. Those who study only the oldest tomes are mere interpreters. I have gleaned what I wish from the “Big Three” Western religions.
I’ve taken much more from several Eastern Schools of thought (As have the “Big Three ” themselves. which don’t depend on a Creator or an inflexible reality at all. Since the Universe is, as far as we know, never identical from one nanosecond to the next? A universe of infinite possibilities, which don’t exist until proven by, is supported by Science, History and the study of the physical universe. And none of it requires a supernatural force.
Even the possibility of this will never be admitted by the BELIEVER. They will never seriously consider an Existence where their Gods must prove themselves.
Instead the BELIEVER will bicker and argue about what “Proof”, Theory, and even “Wisdom” itself into doubt.
BTW, the Wisest minds of every culture, as acknowledged by most true Scholars, have one thing in common. Each has used the newest ways of thinking, and the newest data.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:22 amjustassing’s ignorant rantings are a very clear indicator of why the USA is on a descent into mediocrity and irrelevance. that kind of stupid is a disease.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:16 am“A universe of infinite possibilities, which don’t exist until proven by, is supported by Science, History and the study of the physical universe. And none of it requires a supernatural force.”
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 3:22 am
Yes! Who here has said that “God” has to be a supernatural force? If our word for “nature” or reality encompasses everything that exists, then that simply couldn’t be possilbe, based soley on definitions. It is a matter of semantics, for you, and yet you don’t even seem to realize it. Did you not read any of my posts that you seemed to respond to earlier? I’ll sum it up: It is your own false description of “God” that you are projecting onto all “Believers” that you feel is so easily discredited… a strawman, or strawGod, if you will.
God is Love. Love is the source of all existence and reality as I have experienced it. God is, therefore, reality and everything in it. You can not convince me that reality does not exist especially since reality is a term that we use to describe everything that exists.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:55 amjustassing’s ignorant rantings are a very clear indicator of why the USA is on a descent into mediocrity and irrelevance. that kind of stupid is a disease.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 10, 2008 @ 8:16 am
Yep. (most) Americans is stupid. But we also seem to enjoy being stupid.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:06 amComment by J — January 10, 2008 @ 8:55 am
See the Hindu phrase “Maya”
Your acceptance of reality is really only the acceptance of the illusion of reality.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:08 amIf reality is only an illusion and only the illusion is real, then isn’t it really all just the same?
I personally don’t believe that reality itself is the illusion, only our ever-changing, never-all-encompassing perception of it. My belief is that that’s what they were trying to say, too.
January 10th, 2008 at 9:24 amWow, I can’t believe so many posts continued on this thread even after justwaffling was exposed to be a humorless smug bastard.
I’m guessing he’s now in a Friends of Bill W. chatrooms talking about the joys of moderation.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:22 am“Everything you care about is wrong! Everything I believe in is right! Prove to me I’m wrong! Your proof is meaningless! Non sequitur! Change of subject! You’re boring me! I’m giddy on a sugar high! Aaaaah, I don’t believe anything I just told you I believed in! Nyah Nyah, that’s what you get for feeling passionately about stuff! Now, if you’ll excuse me, those Victoria’s Secret catalogs I stole from my neighbor ain’t gover cover themselves with semen!”
January 10th, 2008 at 10:29 am-justasking, in a “nut”shell
Oh, and while we’re at it, I noticed that you refer to the “our maker†phrase in the bill of rights, and interpret that to mean “God.†Ever wonder WHY they chose “Our Maker†which is a little more vague and open to interpretation than “God?†Could it be that they understood that not everyone believes in the same concept of God, and therefore left it open-ended, so it could be anyone’s concept of a “maker†whatever that concept was?
Your forefathers, and mine, trying to be respectful of everyone’s beliefs.
Comment by slappy magoo — January 9, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
The phrase “..they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…†is used in the Declaration of Independence.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html
The phrase “Our Maker†…
Where in the bill of rights?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
Both the words create and make are used in Genesis (NIV and KJV). Verse 26 includes, “Let us make man in our image,…â€
So both the words Creator and Maker would be an appropriate reference to God. Creator is a word Christ used to refer to God in Matthew 19.
Your forefathers, and mine, trying to be respectful of everyone’s beliefs.
If by this you mean the modern idea that every belief is as good as every other belief, I think you’re mistaken. If you have any references that show that the founders considered all beliefs equal and worthy or respect I’d like to see them.
I don’t think they, the founders, were respectful of everyone’s beliefs the way you think we should be respectful of everyone’s beliefs in the twenty-first century.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:50 amTry to determine what “Born Again†really means and the context in which it was originally contained. It is now mostly just a term used and bastardized by the modern day Christian-right to flaunt self-righteousness. It does seem to me that most of the people who give themselves this label truly haven’t given it much honest thought which has made this potentially enlightening term feel dirty.
Comment by J — January 9, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
The people who use it – “born again†– know that it has a serious meaning.
The phrase “born again†has its origin in the Bible. Christ told the Pharisee Nicodemus that he must be “born again.â€
It is recorded in the New Testament book of John chapter 3.
Conservative Christians, the Christians who actually believe in Christ, use it as a code to mean a saved believer or being saved.
The summary of Christ’s meaning is in John 3:16. Verses following immediately are also important.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:56 amComment by bitblt — January 10, 2008 @ 11:56 am
The term “Born Again” is also, often, carelessly used by people who understand they have to be “born again” in order to be saved, but they don’t actually work the program per se. They don’t follow the teachings of Christ, barely prop open a Bible, but yet bleieve if they say their Born Again, therefore, they are. My stepfather was “one of those.” Didn’t read the Bible, hated blacks and Jews, treated women & children like crap (whether or not they were his by blood, by marriage or friends or strangers), believed in the death penalty, thought Muslims were animals, but as long as he watched Jerry Falwell (and gave generously to his church), then he was amongst the Chosen and could pass judgment.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:46 pmConservative Christians, the Christians who actually believe in Christ
Comment by bitblt — January 10, 2008 @ 11:56 am
It is these kinds of arrogant, to the extreme, statements that keep people away from, not only the teachings of Christ, but Spirituality and “God”, in general. You do know what the Bible says about that, don’t you?
January 10th, 2008 at 1:57 pmI’ve said it before, I’ll say it again:
Barring something catastrophic, the Dems could run a potted plant, the Great Satan, or, (in a startling party defection) Georgie’s dog Barney; and the Reps couldn’t win with God Himself. Invoking God is, increasingly, becoming a weakness outside the hardcore Religious Right.
And the stupid pollsters, pundits, and the candidates themselves, are the best campaign fodder for the opposition. It’s a pity that no legitimate National Third Party is up and running.
‘08 would be a great opportunity. Cause the Reps are damaged goods and old school politicians, from either party, are suspect.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:07 pmConservative Christians, the Christians who actually believe in Christ
Comment by bitblt — January 10, 2008 @ 11:56 am
It is these kinds of arrogant, to the extreme, statements that keep people away from, not only the teachings of Christ, but Spirituality and “Godâ€, in general. You do know what the Bible says about that, don’t you?
Comment by J — January 10, 2008 @ 1:57 pm
There’s no arrogance here. I’m under the impression that there are people who call themselves Christians but don’t believe in the divinity of Christ. Even Richard Dawkins calls himself a cultural Christian – he likes to sing Christmas carols.
I meant to indicate the Christians who actually believe Christ is the Son of God. You know what the Bible says about believing in Christ, don’t you? See John 3:16 and following for the answer.
BTW, your not knowing the answer doesn’t make me arrogant.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:35 pm“There’s no arrogance here.”
Comment by bitblt — January 10, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
The fact that you don’t see it is even more telling.
“I’m under the impression that there are people who call themselves Christians but don’t believe in the divinity of Christ.”
Do you consider the Gnostics Conservative Christians? I sure don’t. Your view of Christianity appears quite limited.
“BTW, your not knowing the answer doesn’t make me arrogant.”
But, this statement does because I do, in fact, know John 3:16. I was bribed w/ a pack of Smarties by “Conservative Christians” to memorize it when I was 4.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:02 pmYes! Who here has said that “God†has to be a supernatural force?
Comment by J — January 10, 2008 @ 8:55 am
You have got to be kidding. Gods, regardless of nature, are defined as supernatural beings. To discuss the subject without a grasp on that fundamental concept is futile.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pmTo discuss the subject without a grasp on that fundamental concept is futile.
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
What seems more futile to me is a “non-believer” trying to tell a “believer” what “God” is supposed to be. Thanks for the laugh (no really).
January 10th, 2008 at 6:15 pmYes! Who here has said that “God†has to be a supernatural force?
Comment by J — January 10, 2008 @ 8:55 am
I think God is actually this guy in my neighborhood named Ned. He’s not supernatural in the slightest. He walks with a slight limp and likes to sing “Baby Got Back” when the local bar have a karaoke night. He used to smoke, but doesn’t anymore. He has no powers to speak of. He doesn’t know all and/or see all. And yet, somehow he’s God.
And by a bizarre coincidence, *I* have no supernatural powers, and yet, J worships me as his God. Thanks for the cookies and milk on Christmas Eve, J. I know you laid them out for Santa, but f*** that guy. He’s not God. I am.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:27 pmSome last longer than others, but, even those which last (gasp!) EVOLVE to a non-Vengeful but still unverifiable nature. Yet, they never evolve the ability to smite those who mock them on a consistent basis.
Comment by Impolitics — January 10, 2008 @ 2:15 am
Yeah, how could God fail to be provoked, by the likes of Homer Simpson and Jon Stewart, to decide to prove Himself to mankind? Impossible! ;)
January 11th, 2008 at 1:41 amI don’t need god to keep me moral, nor do I need puishment after death, nor Original Sin, nor any other of the paternalistic, controlling, man-made rules of religion.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 9, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Yet another similarity to Christians. That’s not what we need God for either! ;)
January 11th, 2008 at 1:51 amJust in case any of you are checking back here, please take the time to read:
10 Things Christians and Atheists can and must agree on. (its pretty funny while making worthwhile points).
http://www.cracked.com/article_15759_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html
Someone just sent it to me out of the blue… “God”? “Coincidence”? whatever…
January 11th, 2008 at 12:41 pm