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!