Conquer Club

HaireWolf1 wrote:Obama believes in god but to him god is allah...small g

There is no actual proof of that, so why post it trying to give a bad name to those of us who have actual legitimate criticisms of the president?

Night Strike wrote:

HaireWolf1 wrote:Obama believes in god but to him god is allah...small g

There is no actual proof of that, so why post it trying to give a bad name to those of us who have actual legitimate criticisms of the president?

Good of you to catch that.

However, the question still remains. What would it matter if he did worship Allah instead of the Christian God? (or considered them the same?)

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

HaireWolf1 wrote:Obama believes in god but to him god is allah...small g

There is no actual proof of that, so why post it trying to give a bad name to those of us who have actual legitimate criticisms of the president?

Good of you to catch that.

However, the question still remains. What would it matter if he did worship Allah instead of the Christian God? (or considered them the same?)

I would believe that while we're in a war with Muslim extremists, a Muslim president would be less likely to aggressively pursue those terrorists. There are already questions about moderate Muslims politicians not taking a hard stand against militant Islamists, like people in Karsai's government taking bribes from Iran to protect the Taliban. Or them taking drug money from the Taliban directly. Granted, it's a different situation when their families are in the direct line of danger, but there would be legitimate questions raised. It would be similar to if we had a Japanese American president during World War II: would he have aggressively prosecuted the war effort?

Night Strike wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

HaireWolf1 wrote:Obama believes in god but to him god is allah...small g

There is no actual proof of that, so why post it trying to give a bad name to those of us who have actual legitimate criticisms of the president?

Good of you to catch that.

However, the question still remains. What would it matter if he did worship Allah instead of the Christian God? (or considered them the same?)

I would believe that while we're in a war with Muslim extremists, a Muslim president would be less likely to aggressively pursue those terrorists.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I would suggest that a Muslim President might be MORE likely to aggressively pursue those who he believes are defaming his religion. It's a bit of a different situation than Pakistan's President, since our President would have significantly more firepower to back him up than Pakistan has (thus he's in a less tenable situation in Pakistan).

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: We are not a Christian nation in a direct manner, but we were founded on Christian Principles. Without Christianity, we would have very different morals.

This is a circular argument, because the fact is that Christianity has been much shaped by the US, by the west, in general. Compare standard US Christianity to Greek Orthodoxy, for example.

Also, many of those things you attribute to Christianity can be found within other religions. In particular, you can see echoes of our constitution within the Iroquois Federation. What truly made the difference was not adherence to Christianity, but the realization that we could live together without agreeing about religion. It began with diversity within Christianity, simply because Christianity was the predominant religion. However, this claim that we are supposed to be only founded upon Christian faith implies that there is no true freedom. And, make no mistake, first comes questioning other religions, next comes narrowly defining what Christianity means. You already fall into that tract, as does jay. You each have more than once either outright stated or implied that I am not fully Christian because my political or economic views differ from your own. That is very dangerous indeed!

Phatscotty wrote: Our government system was/is based on morality to a certain extent. When society becomes immoral, government becomes immoral. The culture for corruption thrives in this environment.

Morality does not stem solely from Christianity. That is your mistake. Morality exists regardless of religion, even in atheism.

for the last time, your mistake is simple, you don't listen. You are banned from reading and responding to my posts. seriously, If I am so wrong and incorrect, why do you even waste the time?

Woodruff wrote:I agree absolutely, and yet I do not believe in any "creator". A creator is not at all necessary to believe that certain rights are innate to every person. I honestly don't understand why some individuals believe that the "creator" is so necessary to this argument.

Simple. A "creator" means "not you." It is in direct opposition to the other dictate that "might makes right." (Or in this case "might makes rights.") These rights can be claimed by people because they can. They weren't given by other people, nor can they be taken away by other people. Like the laws of physics, they simply ARE.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I am, above all else, a Christian. Yet, few things terrify me more than the thought that a particular church's beliefs, even my very own, would be held up as law.

But are they "Christian?"

PLAYER57832 wrote:Women are inferior to women... or just "different" (wink, wink)

In the Catholic Church, the highest person (other than God) is a woman. She gets that "extra special" honor. (Hyperdulia to be precise)

PLAYER57832 wrote:Wearing revealing clothing means a woman is "asking for it" and if she gets raped, well... not good, but it is partly her fault.

I really don't want to go here, but in a similiar manner if you flash your wallet around you are "asking for it" if you get your pocket picked. That's why mace is your best friend.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Women who are abused usually have done something to aggravate their husbands. Even in the few cases where that is not the case, it is her role to submit and therefore condemn her husband by her sanctity.

That's certainly not Catholic teaching.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Of course women just don't have the skills, are not as talented as men in certain areas [fill in the blank..]

I know a few nuns who would disagree. One set up a TV network when all the bishops tried and failed.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Blacks and whites should be separate.. it says so in the Bible.

I believe David was singing praises about a black lady back in the Old Testament. My Catholic Church in Key West Florida got burned down (the fire started in the middle of the pipe organ's pipes, if you can believe that) in 1890 because it was not segregated and the KKK didn't like that.

PLAYER57832 wrote:If your great, great, great, great, grandfather or grandmother was a bastard, then you bear the shame of that sin.

I pretty sure that there is a quote in the Gospels where Jesus says the Arabic equivalent of "You have got to be kidding me."

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I agree absolutely, and yet I do not believe in any "creator". A creator is not at all necessary to believe that certain rights are innate to every person. I honestly don't understand why some individuals believe that the "creator" is so necessary to this argument.

Simple. A "creator" means "not you." It is in direct opposition to the other dictate that "might makes right." (Or in this case "might makes rights.") These rights can be claimed by people because they can. They weren't given by other people, nor can they be taken away by other people. Like the laws of physics, they simply ARE.

Yet, this does not in any way counter what I said. The Creator is not necessary to recognize rights that are simply inherent to our being human.

Woodruff wrote:

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I agree absolutely, and yet I do not believe in any "creator". A creator is not at all necessary to believe that certain rights are innate to every person. I honestly don't understand why some individuals believe that the "creator" is so necessary to this argument.

Simple. A "creator" means "not you." It is in direct opposition to the other dictate that "might makes right." (Or in this case "might makes rights.") These rights can be claimed by people because they can. They weren't given by other people, nor can they be taken away by other people. Like the laws of physics, they simply ARE.

Yet, this does not in any way counter what I said. The Creator is not necessary to recognize rights that are simply inherent to our being human.

Yes, but these rights need to pass generations, and stand the test of time, rather, be timeless... If it were not for the Creator, Woodrow Wilson would have lit the match and FDR would have fanned the flames in the torching of the concept of "inalienable" I mean you can just imagine what a full court press from a cherry picked Supreme Court in the early 1930 together with the White House and the media, concerning the word-smithing of "inalienable".

HOW IS THIS THREAD STILL ALIVE

He should've taken the agnostic approach:

""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by some Creator, which we cannot truly know of, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: We are not a Christian nation in a direct manner, but we were founded on Christian Principles. Without Christianity, we would have very different morals.

This is a circular argument, because the fact is that Christianity has been much shaped by the US, by the west, in general. Compare standard US Christianity to Greek Orthodoxy, for example.

Also, many of those things you attribute to Christianity can be found within other religions. In particular, you can see echoes of our constitution within the Iroquois Federation. What truly made the difference was not adherence to Christianity, but the realization that we could live together without agreeing about religion. It began with diversity within Christianity, simply because Christianity was the predominant religion. However, this claim that we are supposed to be only founded upon Christian faith implies that there is no true freedom. And, make no mistake, first comes questioning other religions, next comes narrowly defining what Christianity means. You already fall into that tract, as does jay. You each have more than once either outright stated or implied that I am not fully Christian because my political or economic views differ from your own. That is very dangerous indeed!

Phatscotty wrote: Our government system was/is based on morality to a certain extent. When society becomes immoral, government becomes immoral. The culture for corruption thrives in this environment.

Morality does not stem solely from Christianity. That is your mistake. Morality exists regardless of religion, even in atheism.

for the last time, your mistake is simple, you don't listen.

Well, hard to listen on the internet, but I do read.

You believe that morality comes only from religion. This is just plain wrong. And I am not the only one to say that.

Army of GOD wrote:HOW IS THIS THREAD STILL ALIVE

He should've taken the agnostic approach:

""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by some Creator, which we cannot truly know of, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""

Because it was created by The Phat One!


Lesson learned by the Brilliant One: When you quote something, quote it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote: We are not a Christian nation in a direct manner, but we were founded on Christian Principles. Without Christianity, we would have very different morals.

This is a circular argument, because the fact is that Christianity has been much shaped by the US, by the west, in general. Compare standard US Christianity to Greek Orthodoxy, for example.

Also, many of those things you attribute to Christianity can be found within other religions. In particular, you can see echoes of our constitution within the Iroquois Federation. What truly made the difference was not adherence to Christianity, but the realization that we could live together without agreeing about religion. It began with diversity within Christianity, simply because Christianity was the predominant religion. However, this claim that we are supposed to be only founded upon Christian faith implies that there is no true freedom. And, make no mistake, first comes questioning other religions, next comes narrowly defining what Christianity means. You already fall into that tract, as does jay. You each have more than once either outright stated or implied that I am not fully Christian because my political or economic views differ from your own. That is very dangerous indeed!

Phatscotty wrote: Our government system was/is based on morality to a certain extent. When society becomes immoral, government becomes immoral. The culture for corruption thrives in this environment.

Morality does not stem solely from Christianity. That is your mistake. Morality exists regardless of religion, even in atheism.

for the last time, your mistake is simple, you don't listen.

Well, hard to listen on the internet, but I do read.

You believe that morality comes only from religion. This is just plain wrong. And I am not the only one to say that.

WRONG. That is not what I said, as that is NOWHERE close to what I believe.

Woodruff wrote:Yet, this does not in any way counter what I said. The Creator is not necessary to recognize rights that are simply inherent to our being human.

Yes it does, because to explain it otherwise is ... well rather complex. More to the point is the question of why omit it in the first place. There are two answers. The first is that the person is a hard core strong athiest (as opposed to the weak almost agnostic Jefferson) who is deathly afraid of any god cootis. Obama is not that type of person. The second is the self righteous who thinks that his own might is the font of all rights to the lesser ones. (He has become his own creator if only of rights.) This one is more in touch with what Obama really believes, as he is constantly in love with himself.

Remember this is the same guy (who also coined the term "separation of church and state" because he didn't want to proclaim a national holiday) who wrote "the God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time." (Note that "creator" was actually a committee edit, Jefferson originally used "God.")

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is a circular argument, because the fact is that Christianity has been much shaped by the US, by the west, in general. Compare standard US Christianity to Greek Orthodoxy, for example.

First of all, if you want to compare Greek Orthodoxy to any of the Western Christian branches I would be most happy to do that on another thread. But that has a lot to do with West/East divides in attitude. There is a significant development of "freedom of religion" developed in the US that flows back into some elements of Christiantiy in the United States, but that is another topic for another thread.

More over, modern Greek Orthodoxy is based on a large part on a very rocky history and perpetual bashing by generations of Muslim empires. The current seat of original Eastern Orthodoxy in what was known as Constantinople is currently a religion under seige by the Turkish government, forced by complexity of law to die a slow and painful death. Most of the Orthodox (from a Greek derivation) are generally self governing (autoclepheous) and things gets even more complex when the Russian Orthodox are considered.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I agree absolutely, and yet I do not believe in any "creator". A creator is not at all necessary to believe that certain rights are innate to every person. I honestly don't understand why some individuals believe that the "creator" is so necessary to this argument.

Simple. A "creator" means "not you." It is in direct opposition to the other dictate that "might makes right." (Or in this case "might makes rights.") These rights can be claimed by people because they can. They weren't given by other people, nor can they be taken away by other people. Like the laws of physics, they simply ARE.

Yet, this does not in any way counter what I said. The Creator is not necessary to recognize rights that are simply inherent to our being human.

Yes, but these rights need to pass generations, and stand the test of time, rather, be timeless... If it were not for the Creator, Woodrow Wilson would have lit the match and FDR would have fanned the flames in the torching of the concept of "inalienable" I mean you can just imagine what a full court press from a cherry picked Supreme Court in the early 1930 together with the White House and the media, concerning the word-smithing of "inalienable".

This presumes, once again, that man cannot have morals or an ethical perspective outside of religion, which is clearly a false conclusion.

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Yet, this does not in any way counter what I said. The Creator is not necessary to recognize rights that are simply inherent to our being human.

Yes it does, because to explain it otherwise is ... well rather complex. More to the point is the question of why omit it in the first place. There are two answers. The first is that the person is a hard core strong athiest (as opposed to the weak almost agnostic Jefferson) who is deathly afraid of any god cootis. Obama is not that type of person. The second is the self righteous who thinks that his own might is the font of all rights to the lesser ones. (He has become his own creator if only of rights.) This one is more in touch with what Obama really believes, as he is constantly in love with himself.
Remember this is the same guy (who also coined the term "separation of church and state" because he didn't want to proclaim a national holiday) who wrote "the God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time." (Note that "creator" was actually a committee edit, Jefferson originally used "God.")

No sir, it does not. For instance, I am absolutely NOT a "hard core strong atheist"...I am much more along the lines of an agnostic atheist, and very open-minded about it. The ONLY time that I would use that phrase when stating the Declaration is if I were in a school environment of some sort, and then only because I personally believe that as a teacher I am an example in front of my students and so I should be as exact as I can be. But outside of that environment, I personally would not use that phrase, as it is unnecessary.

Let me put it another way...I liken it almost exactly to the idea behind the historical religious sayings on our government buildings and such. I am in favor of keeping those sayings on the building FOR THEIR HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, but not at all for any sort of real reference to them. That's exactly how I see this...I would never propose that the phrase must be eliminated from stating the Declaration, but only because of it's historical significance, not because of any real reference being applied. If a real reference is being applied IN EITHER CASE, then I would absolutely expect that it should be eliminated. It is superflous to the reality of what the document does and means. It's function is the same as the human appendix.

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:This is a circular argument, because the fact is that Christianity has been much shaped by the US, by the west, in general. Compare standard US Christianity to Greek Orthodoxy, for example.

First of all, if you want to compare Greek Orthodoxy to any of the Western Christian branches I would be most happy to do that on another thread. But that has a lot to do with West/East divides in attitude. There is a significant development of "freedom of religion" developed in the US that flows back into some elements of Christiantiy in the United States, but that is another topic for another thread.

More over, modern Greek Orthodoxy is based on a large part on a very rocky history and perpetual bashing by generations of Muslim empires. The current seat of original Eastern Orthodoxy in what was known as Constantinople is currently a religion under seige by the Turkish government, forced by complexity of law to die a slow and painful death. Most of the Orthodox (from a Greek derivation) are generally self governing (autoclepheous) and things gets even more complex when the Russian Orthodox are considered.

Thank you for making my point. The politics, many things, even climate , of a region shapes the religion as much as the religion shapes the culture.

Re: Obama Drops "Creator" from Declaration

And now Obama has America's motto in his sights.

Members of Congress on Monday called on President Obama to issue a public correction after he incorrectly labeled E pluribus unum the U.S.'s motto in a speech last month, rather than "In God We Trust."

The lawmakers, members of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, also said the president was making "a pattern" of dropping the word "Creator" when he recites the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... -us-motto/

Oh, Phatscotty... always wanting to say the last word in these threads!

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, Phatscotty... always wanting to say the last word in these threads!

well? Look at what it means for all the people who defended Obama on the grounds that it was a 1 time accident?

I love looking back at what people thought at the time...

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, Phatscotty... always wanting to say the last word in these threads!

well? Look at what it means for all the people who defended Obama on the grounds that it was a 1 time accident?

I love looking back at what people thought at the time...

hey, "everyone have their works on earth", phatscotty!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Oh, Phatscotty... always wanting to say the last word in these threads!

well? Look at what it means for all the people who defended Obama on the grounds that it was a 1 time accident?

I love looking back at what people thought at the time...

hey, "everyone have their works on earth", phatscotty!

It was either this or I start an "Is Obama a Non-theist" poll