Bush is teaching Labor a lesson!!!!!!!!!

[TXCAP4228]

You can't avoid them. Our entire society is saturated with them, like a virus.

Agreed.

 

[Timebuilder]

History has shown us time and time again that a solid, pervasive, organized religious faith is inconsistent with logical decision making. (Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Taliban, the Ayatolah, James Carter, Pat Robertson...) I want a president who reads History and Law, not centuries-old religious texts.

I don't know what portion of American Christians watch or support Pat Robertson's ministry. I can tell you that I don't. James Carter? He is a good carpenter, and his Bible background is much stronger than his political leadership. In some men, having a strong Bible background has been a benefit to their political abilities. In the case of President Carter, he was better off as a pastor than a President.

As for the others, you are mentiong what can only be considered outcasts, or what I call the lunatic fringe, rather than what should be characterized as a "solid" or "pervasive" religious faith. This isn't surprising, since that is how ANY belief is represented in the media.

It might surprise you to learn that the Bible teaches believers to follow and obey the laws of the secular government, and to work within its confines. All of these people's teachings, Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Taliban, and the Ayatolah all represent teachings that are an abomination to God, according to the Bible. None of them have my respect, or others who have spoken on this topic here. It is a common attempt to lump all belief together into the same bucket. It is an attempt to "smear". Logical? I think not.

If not already obvious, our own History and Law is based on the Bible teachings. As TurboS7 mentioned, our mistake is where we have departed from those teachings in our lives.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Sutherland as "Hawkeye Pierce" in M*A*S*H
Frank, were you on this religious kick at home or did you crack-up over here?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember how funny that was when I watched the movie at a drive in. Now that I see the movie from an adult standpoint, and I see interviews with the people that made the movie, I understand that the intent of the film was to produce an anti-war movie, deliberately thinly veiled as the Korean War, in protest of the VietNam War. This piece of dialogue is a deliberate attempt to characterize religious belief as appealing only to a buffon-like character, such as Frank Burns. I hope you are not citing this as an adult basis for a belief about religious people. That, sir, would be beneath you.

A couple of notes for Heyduke:

I completely agree that you feel our leaders should be held to a higher moral standard. However, Clinton did not have an affair with someone's wife or 18 year old sister.

No, he didn't. He had an affair with a woman that was a scant few years older than his own daughter, and not his wife. Then, he lied to try and cover it up.

He did something that I would guess most of the men in this country would do if they were given the chance. Of course that doesn't make it right, but his actions were right in line with the status quo. (I know very few airline pilots who *haven't* had affairs)

Most of the men in this country, or most of Howard Stern's audience? An eighteen or twenty year old, having grown up in a public school environment, and having an impression of religious people as being Frank Burns or David Koresh might see no problem in Clinton's behavior while working as the leader of the Free World. I'm sure the French think it's hilarious, but I have little respect for them in recent years. I think this is a gross generalization. Certainly, there is no moral standard established by the historical majority of airline pilots. I hope this never becomes the standard for Presidents.

I will now be told by many of you that it is impossible to be an honorable human being without a solid, western-Christian, Bible-oriented foundation. Many of you who would tell me this also believe that Christ spoke Old English and looked like Ted Nugent. Pleas, don't waste our time.

You are quite the humorist.

According to the Bible that you disrespect, it's teaching is intended for all the world, not just westerners, or even Americans. If someone tells you that Christ spoke Old English, you can trust little of what they are telling you. If they tell you that the Holy Spirit inspires the accurate translation of the Greek texts, then they are in accord with second Timothy, chapter three, verses sixteen and seventeen. This isn't the same as Christ's spoken language. It doesn't have to be. Also, it is unimportant to focus on Christ's physical apppearance or skin tone. Scholars believe that people from Nazareth did wear their hair long and uncut. I think that is where the resemblance to Terrible Ted ends.

Thanks to all for your comments. For the naysayers, this discussion has been in regard to 14CFR 61.153 (c). Thanks for taking part.

 

[Heyduke1]

No, he didn't. He had an affair with a woman that was a scant few years older than his own daughter, and not his wife. Then, he lied to try and cover it up.

If by a "scant few" you mean 1.5 times his daughter's age at the time, then you're right. But a 22 year old woman is old enough to make her own decisions. I still think Clinton is a dirty old bastard, but he was no sex-crazed pedophilistic sicko.

Most of the men in this country, or most of Howard Stern's audience?

I don't think either one of us can say for sure. I'm basing what I'm saying on personal observation, and I don't have any statistics on adultery.

You avoided my real point, Timebuilder, so I'll bring it up again.
me:

About the leaders/moral standards thing...I don't think we've improved in the least with Bush II...I find his disappearance from his National Guard duties, his DUI's, and his connections to shady Enron-type deals to be at least as (and probably more) disturbing than Clinton's horniness.

?

 

[Soupbone]

Typhoon and Txcap,
You so strongly defend your belief against religion, I pray that you don't confuse "religion" and Jesus Christ. There are many religions...good and bad. There is only one JC. Remember this, JC is the ONLY person that rose from the dead. NO other religion can say this of their leader or prophet (nor do they claim too). The real question is JC who He said He was. I encourage you to read a 80 page book called "More than a Carpenter". Very good book, very quick reading. Christ either was a liar, lunatic or EXACTLY who He said He was. He was NOT a just a good person or teacher. Many may slam this thread, buy until you bother too read the Bible or that small book, then you are simply believing what other people are saying and not actually having your own ideas!!
One last thing, people confuse Christians with perfection, and the stereo types people see on TV and the media. Ask ANY Christian (again, not someone who belongs to a religion, but a Christian) and they will be the very first too tell you they are perfect only saved by grace...period! In other words, why does the media (and you is seems) hold "Christians" to some standard of perfection more than other people. We just simply know we screw up and we pray to the only person that can forgive us.

Soup

 

[Timebuilder]

If by a "scant few" you mean 1.5 times his daughter's age at the time, then you're right. But a 22 year old woman is old enough to make her own decisions. I still think Clinton is a dirty old bastard, but he was no sex-crazed pedophilistic sicko.

1.5 times has little meaning when your are talking about his daughter's age group. But hey, what was I thinking! I'm sure it is common practice for a guy in his mid-50's to be sexually involved with a young woman of 22. My bad. Let's all go out and play with each other's kids. Great.

You avoided my real point, Timebuilder, so I'll bring it up again.

If I recall correctly, you were asking obout morality. I answered by illustrating the nature of "morality". If you think that someone is frozen in the events of their youth, and cannot be redeemed by God or the American public, then I would agree with you. I that case, no one would be qualified to be President.

The point about Clinton's Presidency is what he did as a fully-formed, experinced adult, not so much the missteps of his youth, such as demonstrating against US policy on foreign soil. While regrettable, that could be ascribed to a lack of maturity.

...and his connections to shady Enron-type deals to be at least as (and probably more) disturbing than Clinton's horniness.

First, I don't know of any connection to "Enron-type deals". Both republicans and democrats have oil and energy holdings, and benefit from US law, such as the depletion allowance, etc. I don't know of any connection between GW and Enron.

I don't find Clinton's horniness at all disturbing. What bothers me is the manner in which he brought discredit upon himself, his office, and the country. As President, his obligation is to put his personal needs aside as secondary to his responsibilities. If a President is unable to exercise moral restraint while in office, he is obligated to at least exercise sufficient discretion so that his inability does not reflect on the office or his country. That's my beef with him, on this issue. Of course, I prefer to start out with a President who has learned from his past and is not doomed to repeat it. I think we have such a man in George Bush, and I pray that I am correct.

 

[Timebuilder]

We just simply know we screw up and we pray to the only person that can forgive us.

I certainly fall into the "I have screwed up" category. I didn't know I was in that category, along with the rest of humans, for a very long time.

"For by grace you have been saved, through Faith, and not of yourselves; It is the gift of God.
Not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Isn't it amazing that folks can find such fault in such an idea.

Consider that a Christmas message. Have a merry one, and try to get on board with the Modest Proposal. We can do a lot to help families that have lost a pilot.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by Timebuilder
In the case of President Carter, he was better off as a pastor than a President.

Agreed. Jimmy is a very good man, one of the best...but he lacked the ability to shroud the truth that is--sadly--necessary in a U.S. president. (If a candidate came out and was completely honest with the voters, they'd never get elected.)

According to the Bible that you disrespect...

Now hold on. Don't get all Republican on me and start putting words in my mouth. I respect it for what it is, an ancient religious text. Just like the Torah and the Koran. And the book of Mormon, for that matter.

What I do disrespect is the idea that respecting these books is more important than respecting your fellow man. I don't need a book to tell me that stealing and murder--for example--are wrong.

Originally posted by Soupbone
You so strongly defend your belief against religion, I pray that you don't confuse "religion" and Jesus Christ. There are many religions...good and bad. There is only one JC. Remember this, JC is the ONLY person that rose from the dead. NO other religion can say this of their leader or prophet (nor do they claim too). The real question is JC who He said He was.... Christ either was a liar, lunatic or EXACTLY who He said He was. He was NOT a just a good person or teacher.

First of all, his name was Joshua...not the Greek corruption "Jesus." His mother was a "young woman," not a "virgin." His father created "mankind" (adam), not a man named "Adam."

The Bible can teach us many things, but if you walk away from it believing a man lived inside a whale for three days, you're not doing it justice.

 

[Flying_Colors]

Honor and faith are in the things you do for others...not the prayers you utter or the religious buildings you visit.

Well, I, for one, agree with you. Now back to lurking.

 

[Timebuilder]

Now hold on. Don't get all Republican on me and start putting words in my mouth. I respect it for what it is, an ancient religious text. Just like the Torah and the Koran. And the book of Mormon, for that matter.

I apologize. Putting words in your mouth was not my intent. I was drawing a conclusion while making a statement. You see, according to the Bible, if you see it as being "equivalent", that is to say, on a equal footing with the books you mentioned, you are not respecting the Bible for what is says that it is.

What I do disrespect is the idea that respecting these books is more important than respecting your fellow man. I don't need a book to tell me that stealing and murder--for example--are wrong.

There are two schools of thought about why you know that stealing and murder are wrong. Mosaic law, the law of Moses, is one such explanation.

First of all, his name was Joshua...not the Greek corruption "Jesus." His mother was a "young woman," not a "virgin." His father created "mankind" (adam), not a man named "Adam."

There are many "scholarly" works that contain the references you are sharing. The Bible states that it is the inerrant word of God. For a Bible believer, that is sufficient. In fact, that faith is coinsidered to be the most important aspect.

By the way, we have navy personnel living quite comfortably in what Biblical people would have called "whales". Humor aside, we have to understand that when we look at scripture, it respresents not only WHAT God wants to convey, but HOW He wants to convey it. If you focus on an image of a man iside the stomach area of the world's largest mammal, then I submit that you have missed the point of the Gospel.

As I mentioned before, to the great frustration of a number of people, is is impossible to have a truly secular discussion of issues of faith.

Weren't we discussing George Bush teaching labor a lesson? If so, perhaps that lesson is that the labor market is going through some radical changes, driven by the free market.

 

[Timebuilder]

Honor and faith are in the things you do for others...not the prayers you utter or the religious buildings you visit.

Sorry I missed this.

I would define "faith" as the acceptance of God's Word, and the daily immitation of His example. The set out words of a published prayer are fine for familiarity, but they are not the basis of being faithful. Buildings are a place for faithful people to gather, and nothing more.

In another thread, I am proposing a way for you to "do for others". I see precious few people supporting the idea.

 

[Soupbone]

First of all, his name was Joshua...not the Greek corruption "Jesus." His mother was a "young woman," not a "virgin." His father created "mankind" (adam), not a man named "Adam."

The Bible can teach us many things, but if you walk away from it believing a man lived inside a whale for three days, you're not doing it justice.

Typhoon,
I'm sorry, did I miss something. Please tell me where you got those facts. Because I know that you would not say something like that without researching yourself and having the facts on it.

I simply mean that I have never met anyone that actually researched Christ and did not come away a changed person. We are too lazy in this society to do our own research so we let others and the media tell us what to believe. No the Bible is not just another good book, nor is Jesus just another good person. See, if you believe what the Bible says and believe the greatest commandment of all...Love the Lord you God with all your heart, mind and soul...then you will love others the same. (ie the 2nd greatest commandment) That is why I encouraged that other book "More than a Carpenter" Very easy book, but at least you can come away from it informed on the issue of Christ from 1st hand knowledge...not just from other ill-informed people.

 

[TXCAP4228]

I tried to avoid this but....

Typhoon and Txcap,
You so strongly defend your belief against religion, I pray that you don't confuse "religion" and Jesus Christ. There are many religions...good and bad. There is only one JC. Remember this, JC is the ONLY person that rose from the dead.

Christ either was a liar, lunatic or EXACTLY who He said He was. He was NOT a just a good person or teacher. Many may slam this thread, buy until you bother too read the Bible or that small book, then you are simply believing what other people are saying and not actually having your own ideas!!

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only conservative non religious person in the universe. But I have hope for Typhoon1244.

Anyway, Soupbone, I will respond directly to two things that you said. I quoted you above.

In response to the first part above:
1) JC is NOT the only person that rose from the dead. You may need to go back and read the story of Lazarus. I would know this because I have spent many years of my life studying the Bible.
2) Any belief in a deity (or deities) or an afterlife that prescribes a particular way to live your life is a religion. You may not like to be grouped into the word "religion", but that's what it means.

This is from Meriam Webster online:
Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

In response to the second point:
You are wrong that Christ was either who he said he was, a liar or a lunatic. There are other possibilities - for example, the stories recorded about him may be inaccurate.

A parting thought. Read your bible a little better if you really want to educate me on what it says. Have a nice day.

 

[Timebuilder]

I think I know what soup was saying, and perhaps you do, too.

Lazarus was only able to rise from the dead because of Jesus. Lazarus was able to live out his life on earth, and later die a normal death. The experience of Christ was far different, in that he ascended into heaven, yet was able to appear among his followers, and converse with them, and show them the wounds that caused His death. A completely different matter, no doubt.

I think soup was drawing a distinction between religion, which as we see in India can include the worship of animals, and the individual deity of Christ. He, specifically, is not a religion. Man has created specific religions that are built on His teachings, but His teachings do not require a religion, per se. In fact, Christ spoke out several times against the religious people of his time. He was not in favor of being "religious" as we define it today, since it is very close to what existed back then.

You are wrong that Christ was either who he said he was, a liar or a lunatic. There are other possibilities - for example, the stories recorded about him may be inaccurate.

From a secular viewpoint you are correct. However, the Bible authenticates itself as being inerrant, precluding the possibility, at least for believers, that the accounts of Him are wrong. That leaves only the possibilities of liar, lunatic, or the true Christ, the Messiah of the Old Testament.

 

[Soupbone]

TXcap,
Wonder when I might here from you. You obviously did not fully understand my thread. Yes, at least you have read and studied some things but missed the bigger picture. Who raised Lazarus from the dead...Jesus did. So obviously since you believe that then there is hope for you. Jesus has the power over life and death. Please don't take parts of the Bible. Use it all...or don't use any. I have read it...cover to cover. Have you?
As far as religion, nice dictionary. I do not mind at all being grouped into a "religion". I simply was stating that there are a lot of "religion's" but only one way to Christ. Small minded...yes, but Christ did not give any other options! John 14:6...I am the Way the Truth and the Life. NO one comes to the Father except through Me. Doesn't leave much room for interpretation does it?
One last thing...too many people and too many books were written about Jesus at THAT time (all in agreement) to be inaccurate. That goes against every book in the Bible. So is the whole Bible wrong...every book?

 

[Soupbone]

and last thing

You mentioned that it might be inaccurate.
Please do not misunderstand the fundamental philosophy of Christianity. You must look at what Jesus said about HIMSELF. The other books of the Bible and other writers might have been inaccurate. But Jesus made the claim to be God, and the only way to God. So yes, He was either a liar, lunitic, or exactly who He said He was. So Christians, use the rest of the Bible to confirm exactly what He said, so that we dont (blindly) follow someone like Jones, Koresh etc.... And Timebuilder is right, it does take faith. But the rewards are eternal!

 

[TXCAP4228]

Timebuilder, I am always impressed with your wisdom and maturity. In fact we agree on almost everything but this. In that spirit, I have a couple of short replies.

I think I know what soup was saying, and perhaps you do, too.

Lazarus was only able to rise from the dead because of Jesus. Lazarus was able to live out his life on earth, and later die a normal death. The experience of Christ was far different, in that he ascended into heaven, yet was able to appear among his followers, and converse with them, and show them the wounds that caused His death. A completely different matter, no doubt.

My intent was to reply to Soup's direct statement. He made a factual error about the bible in the same post where he asked me if I had ever read it. The answer is yes, I have. I read his post to be a little condescending and I called him on it. It was not my intent to be insulting - I hope neither you nor soup took it that way.

From a secular viewpoint you are correct. However, the Bible authenticates itself as being inerrant, precluding the possibility, at least for believers, that the accounts of Him are wrong. That leaves only the possibilities of liar, lunatic, or the true Christ, the Messiah of the Old Testament.

Since my only viewpoint is secular, this is how I approach the "lord liar or lunatic" statement. This statement is a fallacy of logic since there are other possibilities. A legitimate premise cannot be self supporting - in other words it cannot define it own truth... It would be like using a word to define itself, you know what I mean? The definition would have no real meaning. The "lord, liar or lunatic" statement exhibits this flaw. You may accept it if you want and I will certainly not criticize you for it.

Soup has made some other posts that I will respond to separately.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Soupbone

Soup, my intent is not to insult you.

Wonder when I might here from you. You obviously did not fully understand my thread. Yes, at least you have read and studied some things but missed the bigger picture. Who raised Lazarus from the dead...Jesus did. So obviously since you believe that then there is hope for you.

1) You will hear from me right away - I tried to stay away form this but I always seem to get pulled in. I'm not affraid of the discussion.
2) I did not miss the point of your post, I responded to your verbatum statement. Don't backtrack now and say you meant something else. You assumed (incorrectly) that I had no clue what the bible said and I called you on it.
3) Hope for me? Please don't condescend. I haven't made similar statements to you.
4) Actually, I do not beleive. I am simply recalling a story told in a book.

Please don't take parts of the Bible. Use it all...or don't use any. I have read it...cover to cover. Have you?

1) You are taking parts of the bible, why can't I?
2) Use it all or don't use any of it? Do YOU use all of it? How about the old testament? If you have had yeast in your bread or eaten bacon this week then you do not use all of the bible.
3) Yes, I have read ALL of it. I went to sunday school just like you. I went to bible studies just like you. Don't be condescending if you don't know the background of the person you're talking to.

As far as religion, nice dictionary. I do not mind at all being grouped into a "religion". I simply was stating that there are a lot of "religion's" but only one way to Christ.

I will accept that, but in your prior post it looked to me ike you were attempting to distinguish between religion and Christ. Christ is a figure, Christianity is a religion. Zeus is a figure, worshiping Zeus is a religion. We may not really disagree on this subject and in any case it is semantic. Always good to define terms though, right?

Small minded...yes, but Christ did not give any other options!

I didn't say small minded, and I don't want you to think that I think that. Others who have discussed this in other recent threads have said some pretty impolite things but I always try to be more diplomatic.

One last thing...too many people and too many books were written about Jesus at THAT time (all in agreement) to be inaccurate. That goes against every book in the Bible. So is the whole Bible wrong...every book?

Lots of ancient Greeks wrote about their gods, how is that any different? Religions all over the world have texts that you would certainly not agree with since you acceot yours exclusively so I will turn your question around on you. Why are they all wrong??

Now I will go to your next post.

Please do not misunderstand the fundamental philosophy of Christianity. You must look at what Jesus said about HIMSELF.

Jesus was not the author of any of the books of the bible. In fact, all of his words are recorded by others. At LEAST one other possibility to the "lord, liar, lunatic" statement you made is that those who recorded Jesus' words made errors. Maybe they exagerated, maybe they lied, maybe they simply remembered wrong.

Your premise (the "lord, liar, lunatic" statement) begins with the assumption that everything in the bible is correct, and then you use that to prove that it is correct. This is circular reasoning. I said more about this in my reply to Timebuilder.

But Jesus made the claim to be God, and the only way to God. So yes, He was either a liar, lunitic, or exactly who He said He was. So Christians, use the rest of the Bible to confirm exactly what He said, so that we dont (blindly) follow someone like Jones, Koresh etc....

This demonstates the logic flaw I point out above.

And Timebuilder is right, it does take faith. But the rewards are eternal!

In spite of our disagreement on this issue, what Timebuilder says usually is right. We just happen to disagree here. In any case, I don't have the capacity to accept the veracity of the Bible based on faith anymore than I can accept stories written about Zeus.

 

[Timebuilder]

A legitimate premise cannot be self supporting - in other words it cannot define it own truth... It would be like using a word to define itself, you know what I mean? The definition would have no real meaning. The "lord, liar or lunatic" statement exhibits this flaw. You may accept it if you want and I will certainly not criticize you for it.

I agree. The premise I use is the stipulation that the Bible is inerrant. Outside of that, there are any number of possibilities. That's why no one can successfully argue someone into salvation, or argue an atheist into becoming a believer. All one can do is to accurately present the Gospel, and if the seed falls on fertile ground, it will grow. The important thing, therefore is to spread the seed, and God will take care of where it lands. This is known as the Parable of the Sower, Luke 8:5-8.

 

[Soupbone]

TX,
My sincere humble apology. I never meant to sound condescending. I love a good debate and have no intention of yelling insults at anyone. Unfortunately I am not as articulate as Timebuilder. I will answer your thread tomorrow. I must take the family out to dinner. Until tomorrow...good night.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Fair enough. Enjoy dinner and we can continue this tomorrow. I enjoy a good debate too, but this can be a tough subject to debate.

Is HawkerF/O still out there? I was hoping he would answer the post I made to him.

 

[enigma]

Question for those of you who seem so bothered by Christianity/the Bible, etc.

First the set up. Christianity is the belief that the historical figure, Jesus Christ died, rose again and that acceptance of his gift is the only way to the Father. Jesus Christ advocated treating others in the way that one desires to be treated and advocated turning the other cheek when done wrong. He did not advocate forcing himself on anyone. Some choose to believe, some choose not to. For those that choose not to believe, I have a question.

Why do you care what the Bible says, or if Jesus was really God, or about anything connected to the Judeo-Christian Almighty God?

If you read the Bible, it clearly states that Jesus said that he was the way, the truth, etc. and that the only way to the Father was through him. If you reject that, then you reject the entire Bible, soooooooo, Why do you bother to debate the subject? I personally choose to believe that the the Hindus/Catholics/Mormons/Muslims/Seventh Day Adventists/Shintus/etc, are incorrect in their beliefs about the road to the afterlife. BUT, I don't attempt to read their sacred material and debunk it. I don't care to show them up. I tell them why I believe that Jesus is the true Savior of the world. It is up to them to reject or accept the good news.

Once again, stated just a little differently. Why do you attempt to argue against Jesus when you have already rejected his message?

regards,
8N

BTW, I'm not arguing against the Hindus/Catholics/Mormons/Muslims/SDA's/Shintus, etc. I just know that non of these religions are based upon Jesus as the Way, the Truth and the Life.

 

[Timebuilder]

All right, I'm up a couple of hours early. I'll hit the snooze room when I get to the airport.

I think most of the folks who are into arguing against the Savior are those who would like a "freedom from religion" along with a "freedom OF religion".

As far as the lack of making a logical argument for the truth of the Bible, it may be an example that God indeed has a sense of humor. Instead of allowing for a majority of supporting data, He allows His word, the Bible, to authenticate itself. Instead of allowing for a "belief buffet" where youy can choose whatever path you like, and beliefs are all equivalent (can you hear a hushed chorus of 'kum by ya' in the background?), He says instead that His way is the only way, surely drawing the ire of the "open minded"!

Ya gotta love the discipline and love of His plan. My way, or the highway. Everyone is welcome. Faith is a requirement. The logic of Man is not.

What a guy.

 

[mar]

I just know I'm gonna regret this

The problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long enough.

Enigma, pardon me, but you're flat out wrong about Catholics.

You're probably some sort of protestant. Don't you realize that that the Jesuits/Catholics *invented* Christianity?

It was the protestants who, for political reasons (get it? PROTESTant?) broke away from the Catholic church--but the fundamental belief structure is the same.

Jesus is the one and only son of god and he was killed but rose again. If you believe that (as Catholics do) then you're a Christian.

Everything else is just decoration (or better: decorum).

It's this holier-than-thou, exclusionary, almost arrogant attitude demonstrated by so-called Christians that really turns people off.

I guess Catholics just aren't *good enough* Christians--or the *right kind* of Christians to actually participate in the saving of the human race.

Well, for chrissakes, whose team are you on anyway?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Once again, stated just a little differently. Why do you attempt to argue against Jesus when you have already rejected his message?

Christ's message was "love thy neighbor, love thyself, and love thy God." Rejected his message? His message sounds pretty good to me.

What I reject is humanity taking advantage of his teachings by forming organized religions intent on controlling others.

What I reject is people being slaughtered by the billions throughout history for the sake of religious correctness. (How often does an agnostic deliberately fly an airliner full of people into a building?)

What I reject is people who substitute faith for logic, people who "surrender their life to God" because they're incapable of being responsible for their own actions. I reject those who think their belief in an invisible man in the sky is more important than their spouses, children, and friends.

I reject the idea that you can't live a good, moral life without adhering to the teachings of an organized church.

I reject a argument in favor of a particular religion that is founded in that religion. That kind of circular logic doesn't impress me.

And I absoultely reject an unrepentant scab (TurboS7...a.k.a. "Frank Burns") talking about his faith in the Almighty God...the very height of hypocrisy.

I really, truly believe that Christ would be sickened by the way his teachings have been corrupted and misused over the centuries.

 

[bulldog]

tphoon1244

Amen brother, I'm with ya!!!

 

[PCL_128]

And I absoultely reject an unrepentant scab (TurboS7...a.k.a. "Frank Burns") talking about his faith in the Almighty God...the very height of hypocrisy.

Thank you for someone finally saying that.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Can we please go back to talking about airplanes now? This thread is giving me indigestion!

 

[46Driver]

What does being a scab have to do with religion one way or the other??? Just curious about the analogy...

 

[Soupbone]

Well I tried to answer you TX, twice, but for some reason it didn't take so I will try again later.
Mar,
good post, but one thing that is a common misconception. Baptist are not protestants. We did not protest anything. Our origins came from John "the Baptist". And you are exactly right, there is only one way to salvation. The religions just interpret the Bible differently.

Typhoon,
another good post...but just one comment. Being a good moral person is great, but in the end it doesn't mean squat if I person doesn't know Christ.

TX, I will reply to you later, but thanks for reminding me to keep this debate interesting without throwing insults or sounding condescending.

I love debating religion, politics, airplanes, whatever...that is why I love this forum. Most people have excellent points to make. Others unfortunately love to insult just because someone doesn't agree with them.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Good morning soup,

Part of the problem with the reply not working may be that there is a size limit on posts - I've run into that too. You may have to try breaking your reply into two separate back to back replies. Keep trying - I'll be around the board today.

Typhoon, great post.

Enigma:

Why do you care what the Bible says, or if Jesus was really God, or about anything connected to the Judeo-Christian Almighty God?

You ask a good question. The answer is that I didn't bring up the subject and I tried to avoid getting into this discussion (again). However, there are people in the "believing" camp that routinely make posts about their christianity - heck, lots of people on these boards even use bible verses as part of their autosignature. Now, I do not disrespect anyone for their belief as long as they are consistent with their own standards (in other words, as long as your not a hypocrite I will respect you even if you disagree with me).

The reason I (and Typhoon1244 and others) get into this conversation (over and over again) is that some other folks out there make some pretty sweeping statements that we don't agree with, and just like we would on any other topic on this board we say "hey, I disagree with that."

Now, more specifically... The reason that we discuss the bible is that it is held out to be its own self justifying evidence when these disagreements come up. Frequently, in order to respond to those of us non belivers out here, people will use a bible verse. So my question to you, enigma, is how can we discuss this topic with those who would discuss it with us if we can't talk about the subject matter????