Uh-oh, Obama's been talking to God again.

[SDW2001]

He finished his brief remarks by saying, "We're going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/07/obama-gop-doesnt-own-faith-and-values/

Seg? Where are you? Seg? Seg? Interesting that you don't immediately pounce on an actual quote made by Obama as opposed to hearsay by George Bush.

But of course, it's not the same because Obama is not a Fanatical Evangelist™. Then again, I guess that just makes him a political hack trying to score the evangelical vote?


Seg? .....


Artman?.....


sammi?....


MarcUK?...



S---seg?....



<crickets>

[Jubelum]

It's OK for Democrats to talk to God on the two-way radio. Not OK for Republicans.

edit... radio, not phone. ;)

[hardeeharhar]

two-way phone?

Does anybody actually believe their is a conversation occurring, let alone a phone?

Stupid theists...

[spindler]

Why should the Republicans get all the uninformed votes? I don't mind religion or candidates talking about religion unless it is in a vague way about things like compassion, justice, charity, peace etc.

Liberals don't hate religion. Just because we hate self serving, hypocritical, aggressive, blame-the-other-guy-but-let-your-neighbor-slide religion doesn't mean we hate religion in general.

[Jubelum]

uninformed votes

:lol:

OK, OK, you guys can split them. The Republicans will get the uninformed idiots that carry Bibles, and you guys can have the uninformed that believe that a "free" government giveaway does not cost someone somewhere, and the uninformed that believe that an ever-bigger government is good for them in the long run.

BTW- Christianity is, by its nature, a collection of hypocrites- people who profess to hold to a perfect standard and then, as expected, fall short of perfection.
Such a thing written as a slur is trite, uninformed, and comical. Truly.

[mydo]

That's not even close to being the same thing. Where's the Obama quote that says "God told me to .... ":???:

[SDW2001]

That's not even close to being the same thing. Where's the Obama quote that says "God told me to .... ":???:

Um...hello? The Bush "quote" is not a quote at all. It's hearsay. The other link Seg had was speculative. Anyone? Anyone?

Edit: Oh look...even better....from the same article....

The senator from Illinois asked the multiracial crowd of nearly 4,000 people to keep him and his family in their prayers, and said he hoped to be "an instrument of God."

Seg and company would be going BATSHIT NUTS if Bush or anyone with an (R) next to his name said this.

[mydo]

Um...hello? The Bush "quote" is not a quote at all. It's hearsay. The other link Seg had was speculative. Anyone? Anyone?



Maybe be but two wrongs don't make right.

[Jubelum]

So, if this God thing is such a farce, where does that leave us?

It seems that if God is not the ultimate power, then the next in line would be Government. But hey, it's a religion to many on the left already. I really do not care to live in a world where Government, run by the kinds of immature, arrogant theorists I see posting around here, is the ultimate power over people's lives.

That's a slavery worse than religion.

[AsLan^]

The Real Ultimate Power (http://www.realultimatepower.net/)

[Jubelum]

Seg and company would be going BATSHIT NUTS if Bush or anyone with an (R) next to his name said this.

Yep. 100% right. BH Obama... A clean black that is an instrument of God. You see, SDW, religion is OK when it is pushing a progressive social movement. Otherwise, these are deluded, useful idiots.

For Obama, it's an Instrument of Mass Pandering.

[Jubelum]

The Real Ultimate Power (http://www.realultimatepower.net/)

Yes, the ninjas are finally taking back major territories from the Pirates. A welcome change.

[Jubelum]

You're right-- that would be a double standard.

I just think it is interesting that the Republican base is solidly these morons that identify as "Christian," and they can go right at that with no fear. Barak, Shrillary, et al, must be careful because a lot of their base does not like such "delusion." It's a hell of a tightrope act.

It cannot be good for that AUSCS and ACLU vote.

[tonton]

I don't get it.

Obama says he hopes he can be an "instrument of god". So what. There's no "God is talking to me" in that statement. Only an expression of faith. Are you saying Obama is nuts or hypocritical for saying he believes in God and wants to do what he believes God would want him to do?

On the other hand "God told me to {name action here}" is a pretty fucking scary statement that usually only deluded psychos make. I have no idea if the allegation that Bush made such a statement is true or not, but I certainly believe he's capable of it, and that Obama is not.

[segovius]

I'm here! :D

First - under the license I granted you to clone my threads and titles the small print said you had to clone exactly.

As I was praising Bush's stance on a related matter in the original (and - obviously -superior) thread while lambasting the Dems then you have to find something you like and respect about Obama now and praise him excessively for it while downgrading the Republicans. That's how it works.

The world is waiting.

Your Bush fixation has reached critical mass now. I think you may need treatment - you are asking me to do something I already did in the thread you are mimicking. Ie slag of the Dems.

Only you could not see that - because it was a few posts in...you could not get past the first Bush bit before your 'Bush-Criticism- Antennae' started revolving at terminal velocity and over-rode your monitor display.

I can see it now..

The night is dark and the good citizens of Stepford sleep the sleep of the just, safe in the knowledge that one man stands vigil against evil.

Alone in his secret high-tech lab, the man known only as SDW selflessly forgoes sleep to sit alone throughout the small hours, selflessly scanning a bank of monitors each displaying a thread from the anti-American cesspool that is PO.....

Suddenly an alarm rings......a monitor screen flashes, the brightness goes to 11....the words 'Bush' and 'God' flash large and repeatedly on the screen.

SDW swivels around to face the monitor - tense, alert...the 'Dem-Detector' kicks in. This time it is not a drill...

He quickly scans the first post; yes, the evidence is undeniable, the key words are all there: Bush, God, Washington Post...my God! It's happening!!

There is no time to lose...he does not need to read the second post...or any post - in fact, even if he did he could not. The 'Bush Slur Over-ride' has kicked in manually and blackened the screen to prevent innocent American eyes viewing such filth.

As the screen fades out to black and PO become illegible, words in red caps scroll flashing across the screen: America is under attack....America is under attack.....

SDW knows what he needs to do. He takes a breath and quickly salutes - right now he is all that stands between America and....and......and...there is no time to think of that.

With a shudder he switches to the 'Express Reply Thread Duplication Generator' - he stretches out a finger, feverishly he begins to type.......

[sammi jo]

Um...hello? The Bush "quote" is not a quote at all. It's hearsay. The other link Seg had was speculative. Anyone? Anyone?

Hearsay! OMFG :O A Bush Administration supporter condemning "hearsay" evidence! May I laugh yet?

Edit: Oh look...even better....from the same article....

Seg and company would be going BATSHIT NUTS if Bush or anyone with an (R) next to his name said this.

Anyone, regardless of their politics, who claims that "God speaks to them" can be summarily dismissed as being deluded or hallucinating (natural causes, hypnosis,chemicals, whatever)... enough to raise a forest of red flags in the eyes of any psychiatric professional.

[SDW2001]

I don't get it.

Obama says he hopes he can be an "instrument of god". So what. There's no "God is talking to me" in that statement. Only an expression of faith. Are you saying Obama is nuts or hypocritical for saying he believes in God and wants to do what he believes God would want him to do?

On the other hand "God told me to {name action here}" is a pretty fucking scary statement that usually only deluded psychos make. I have no idea if the allegation that Bush made such a statement is true or not, but I certainly believe he's capable of it, and that Obama is not.


The Bush quote is hearsay. Rinse. Repeat.

[SDW2001]

I'm here! :D

First - under the license I granted you to clone my threads and titles the small print said you had to clone exactly.

As I was praising Bush's stance on a related matter in the original (and - obviously -superior) thread while lambasting the Dems then you have to find something you like and respect about Obama now and praise him excessively for it while downgrading the Republicans. That's how it works.

The world is waiting.

Your Bush fixation has reached critical mass now. I think you may need treatment - you are asking me to do something I already did in the thread you are mimicking. Ie slag of the Dems.

Only you could not see that - because it was a few posts in...you could not get past the first Bush bit before your 'Bush-Criticism- Antennae' started revolving at terminal velocity and over-rode your monitor display.

I can see it now..

The night is dark and the good citizens of Stepford sleep the sleep of the just, safe in the knowledge that one man stands vigil against evil.

Alone in his secret high-tech lab, the man known only as SDW selflessly forgoes sleep to sit alone throughout the small hours, selflessly scanning a bank of monitors each displaying a thread from the anti-American cesspool that is PO.....

Suddenly an alarm rings......a monitor screen flashes, the brightness goes to 11....the words 'Bush' and 'God' flash large and repeatedly on the screen.

SDW swivels around to face the monitor - tense, alert...the 'Dem-Detector' kicks in. This time it is not a drill...

He quickly scans the first post; yes, the evidence is undeniable, the key words are all there: Bush, God, Washington Post...my God! It's happening!!

There is no time to lose...he does not need to read the second post...or any post - in fact, even if he did he could not. The 'Bush Slur Over-ride' has kicked in manually and blackened the screen to prevent innocent American eyes viewing such filth.

As the screen fades out to black and PO become illegible, words in red caps scroll flashing across the screen: America is under attack....America is under attack.....

SDW knows what he needs to do. He takes a breath and quickly salutes - right now he is all that stands between America and....and......and...there is no time to think of that.

With a shudder he switches to the 'Express Reply Thread Duplication Generator' - he stretches out a finger, feverishly he begins to type.......

Well done. :lol: It changes nothing about your views, but well done!

[@_@ Artman]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/07/obama-gop-doesnt-own-faith-and-values/

Seg? Where are you? Seg? Seg? Interesting that you don't immediately pounce on an actual quote made by Obama as opposed to hearsay by George Bush.

But of course, it's not the same because Obama is not a Fanatical Evangelist™. Then again, I guess that just makes him a political hack trying to score the evangelical vote?


Seg? .....


Artman?.....


sammi?....


MarcUK?...



S---seg?....



<crickets>


:D I went to see the movie "The Kingdom" awesome movie.

[@_@ Artman]

two-way phone?

Does anybody actually believe their is a conversation occurring, let alone a phone?

Stupid theists...

http://www.funnyandjokes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/bush-bat-phone.jpg

http://www.privateline.com/PCS/images/hellochief.gif

"Hello Chief!"

[tonton]

The Bush quote is hearsay. Rinse. Repeat.

And that has exactly what do do with my point?

On one side we have hearsay that Bush is a raving lunatic who claims God spoke to him.

On the other side we have a documented statement by Obama that he believes in God and wants to do what he believes God would want him to do (wouldn't most religious people claim this!?).

Don't you see the difference?

[trumptman]

I would have to disagree with your characterization of Obama.

First attacking hearsay is logically and legally wrong in just about any form you can imagine with regard to Bush.

With Obama, he said he wanted to be an "instrument of God." This goes beyond just wanting to be a good and moral person. That statement literally means he wants to be a tool or the means by which God would accomplish his will or agenda.

Nick

[segovius]

This goes beyond just wanting to be a good and moral person. That statement literally means he wants to be a tool

Well, he's got that pegged then - he's one of the biggest tools I know.

[MarcUK]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/07/obama-gop-doesnt-own-faith-and-values/

MarcUK?...




Go away!

I have thought of a way to unify Gravity with all the other forces. Im working on it now. Expect something in a week or so. The last great bastion of Physics will be revealed on AppleOutsider shortly.

Prepare (some of you might want to prepare comments on my mental (in)stability just incase). The rest of you can request my autograph at a later date.

[SpamSandwich]

Just once, I'd like to see a known politician try to conjure up a ghost in one of their speeches. That would rock. :lol:

[@_@ Artman]

Just once, I'd like to see a known politician try to conjure up a ghost in one of their speeches. That would rock. :lol:

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Giuliani.jpg

Good enough? :smokey:

[segovius]

Just once, I'd like to see a known politician try to conjure up a ghost in one of their speeches. That would rock. :lol:

Why did you change it from Satan? Is it an atheist thing?

It doesn't quite work as well imo............................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................................................

[jimmac]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/07/obama-gop-doesnt-own-faith-and-values/

Seg? Where are you? Seg? Seg? Interesting that you don't immediately pounce on an actual quote made by Obama as opposed to hearsay by George Bush.

But of course, it's not the same because Obama is not a Fanatical Evangelist™. Then again, I guess that just makes him a political hack trying to score the evangelical vote?


Seg? .....


Artman?.....


sammi?....


MarcUK?...



S---seg?....



<crickets>


Sorry this is not even close to the same thing!

But nice lame try at yet another attempt to make something out of nothing.

SDW! Really you know from basic physics that matter( s ) can't be created or destroyed.;)

They simpy are or aren't.

In this case Bush was clearly making reference to being told how to act from a higher power. Obama simply was talking about having faith ( even if this conversation did take place ).

Get real or get out SDW !

[jimmac]

Well done. :lol: It changes nothing about your views, but well done!


" It changes nothing.....snip! "

No because delusional people often ignore reality even in the face of absolute proof.

And yes I know I almost called you a name.;)

[tonton]

I would have to disagree with your characterization of Obama.

First attacking hearsay is logically and legally wrong in just about any form you can imagine with regard to Bush.

With Obama, he said he wanted to be an "instrument of God." This goes beyond just wanting to be a good and moral person. That statement literally means he wants to be a tool or the means by which God would accomplish his will or agenda.

Nick

Well we'll have agree to disagree once again.

To me "being an instrument of God" means no more than acting on faith. Not overt direction.

[mydo]

I would have to disagree with your characterization of Obama.

With Obama, he said he wanted to be an "instrument of God." This goes beyond just wanting to be a good and moral person. That statement literally means he wants to be a tool or the means by which God would accomplish his will or agenda.

Nick

Spin SPIN SPIN spin spin spin spin SPIN. That's just pure and total crap spin. I'm an atheist but I know that the New Testament turn the other cheek and the golden rule. Too bad Bush doesn't embody these things.:no:

[Jubelum]

the New Testament turn the other cheek and the golden rule.

Do you understand the full context of the "turn the other cheek" thing, or are we talking slogan here?

[tonton]

Well I agree that Mydo's comment was a non-sequitur, not to mention that the Old Testament is inconsistent, outdated garbage to begin with (and says nothing about the "golden rule"), but...

I do agree that what Nick is doing is total spin. It honestly looks like he's grasping at straws looking for any argument, no matter how weak, to fight with.

Really... this is weak. No amount of spin or semantic manipulation will make it look otherwise. Come back when you have something solid.

[trumptman]

Well we'll have agree to disagree once again.

To me "being an instrument of God" means no more than acting on faith. Not overt direction.

No overt direction because the direction is given by God right?

I mean we aren't talking about some sort of strange coded parsing. I'm doing nothing more than using the definition of the words.

Instrument:

a person used by another merely as a means to some private end; tool or dupe.

Dupe:

a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person: a dupe of the opponents.

Those are the positive definitions since Obama was clearly speaking about himself and wouldn't degrade himself.

When you are an instrument, you are the unquestioning tool or means by which another party's (God or person) will or work is done.

As for having something solid, the first hand source for the words is pretty solid.

Here is the whole quote, you tell me if my "spin" is giving any different meaning within the entire phrase.

"Sometimes this is a difficult road being in politics. Sometimes you can become fearful, sometimes you can become vain, sometimes you can seek power just for power’s sake instead of because you want to do service to God. I just want all of you to pray that I can be an instrument of God in the same way that Pastor Ron and all of you are instruments of God . . . We’re going to keep on praising together. I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

He wants to be the instrument that creates God's Kingdom here on earth. I mean seriously if this were the words of Bush you would be ballistic by now.

Nick

[tonton]

No overt direction because the direction is given by God right?
Don't feign stupidity, please. I know you're not that dense.

What I'm saying, for the third time now, is that Obama is acting on his belief of what God wants. Not on any sort of direct communication from God. Don't you get it?

I mean we aren't talking about some sort of strange coded parsing.
No, we're not. On one hand we have someone (hypothetically) saying "God communicted directly with me and told me to do this." On the other we have someone saying "I believe God would want me to do things this way." NOT the same. Not at all.

I'm doing nothing more than using the definition of the words.
No you're not. You're squeezing juice from a raisin.

Instrument:

a person used by another merely as a means to some private end; tool or dupe.

Dupe:

a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person: a dupe of the opponents.
Is that Webster? I think Wiki Urban Dictionary doesn't count here.

Anyway, despite what a modern definition of "instrument" as it pertains to a person is on it's own, it's clear that an "instrument of God" simply means someone serving what he believes God would want. Just like I am an instrument of the human rights struggle in the activist actions I participate in. There's no more meaning to it than that.

Those are the positive definitions since Obama was clearly speaking about himself and wouldn't degrade himself.whatever... :rolleyes:

When you are an instrument, you are the unquestioning tool or means by which another party's (God or person) will or work is done.
Aren't you an instrument of the Republican party? Show me one instance of "questioning" on your part. Tool. ;)

As for having something solid, the first hand source for the words is pretty solid.
You're still trying to make this an argument about hearsay vs. quotation. It's not. So the rest of your point is moot.

Here is the whole quote, you tell me if my "spin" is giving any different meaning within the entire phrase.(quote)I still don't see anything in that quote that claims communication from God or following anyone's plans except based on his faith.

He wants to be the instrument that creates God's Kingdom here on earth. I mean seriously if this were the words of Bush you would be ballistic by now.

Only because I know that Bush's "God's Kingdom" is one that would blow up all the rag-heads and anyone else that chooses not to do business with the US under the terms of te US, and is also one that would put all the fags in involuntary "rehabilitation" programs, and leave poor people to work triple shifts or starve.

Anyway, my main point here is that Bush saying "I went in to Iraq because I think God would want me to end that oppressive regime," is acceptable, while Bush saying "I went in to Iraq because God told me to end that oppressive regime," is not.

It then becomes a question of whose faith agrees with my position more.

I would not support anyone whose faith would tell then that bombing civilians (including collateral damage) when there are still other options available is a good thing. Obama's faith does not tell him that.

[trumptman]

I don't have to convince you against your will Tonton. You can be in denial. Everyone else clearly will understand and get it.

Nick

[Harald]

I don't have to convince you against your will Tonton. You can be in denial. Everyone else clearly will understand and get it.


Actually, it's pretty bloody obvious you're just unable to engage with the central point tonton makes. Disregarding the hearsay (which is something everyone acknowledges as present), you are unable to distinguish the difference between:

-- God telling you what to do
-- wishing to do the right thing by God


Thread over.

[tonton]

I don't have to convince you against your will Tonton. You can be in denial. Everyone else clearly will understand and get it.

Nick

Yeah I'm in denial. :)

[segovius]

I don't have to convince you against your will Tonton. You can be in denial. Everyone else clearly will understand and get it.

Nick

I don't understand or 'get it' and nor does Harald by the look of it so that's two more on the list at least - hardly 'everyone'.

But let's demolish your position from Scripture itself theologically.

Throughout the Bible - and we should at least argue within context as the Bible is essentially providing the framework and boundaries which contain the Bush/Obama argument you are advancing - there is a very clear distinction between 'being spoken to by God' and 'following God's plan'.

In fact the whole of the OT is based around this and NOWHERE are the two interchangeable, confused or synonymous.

1) The people who 'followed' or who were asked to follow God's instructions, are one distinct group; the Children of Israel, the people of Noah, various tribes and Kings etc...

2) The people God 'speaks to' are a separate and distinct group; Prophets such as Noah, Moses, Elijah and individuals such as David and Abraham etc.

This second group actually exist to inform and communicate to the first group. It is the entire foundation on Biblical theology - NOWHERE does God communicate to the followers except through Prophets.

Ergo, Bush is said to be taking the position of 'Prophet' (the whole gist of the issue re the hearsay actually - ie falsely elevating his status) while Obama is merely taking the traditional religious stance.

If you cannot draw a distinction between these two positions then you clearly should not be discussing religious matters as you are incapable of grasping the essential foundations of the paradigm.

[trumptman]

Actually, it's pretty bloody obvious you're just unable to engage with the central point tonton makes. Disregarding the hearsay (which is something everyone acknowledges as present), you are unable to distinguish the difference between:

-- God telling you what to do
-- wishing to do the right thing by God


Thread over.

Tonton doesn't make that point. He uses it to obcure the actual words of Obama. I don't give a darn what point he wants to make when it is in opposition to the actual words or the first hand source. That is why Tonton's point is spin and the words of Obama himself are not.

My point has nothing to do with Bush and as you and seg, in showing your own bias and in falling for a false dilemma refuse to understand, who Bush talks to has nothing to do with who Obama chooses to subjugate himself to with regard to his own free will.

Obama's statement has nothing to do with just desiring to be a moral person or do the right thing. He is askin to be an instrument in creating God's Kingdom here on earth. That means he wants to subjugate his own will for God's and establish his kingdom here on earth. PERIOD.

I don't understand or 'get it' and nor does Harald by the look of it so that's two more on the list at least - hardly 'everyone'.

But let's demolish your position from Scripture itself theologically.

Throughout the Bible - and we should at least argue within context as the Bible is essentially providing the framework and boundaries which contain the Bush/Obama argument you are advancing - there is a very clear distinction between 'being spoken to by God' and 'following God's plan'.

You get it a bit, but again have fallen for the false dilemma. Bush has nothing to do with the fact that Obama, as you note yourself, had expressed a clear desire to follow God's plan and subjugate his will to it.

Are we clear on that yet? Have we stopped foaming and the mouth and allowing the spittle to cloud the ability to read the screen due to BushHate™. I am not doing a comparison of Bush and Obama to see which is attempting to impose the more extreme version of Theocracy on America.


1) The people who 'followed' or who were asked to follow God's instructions, are one distinct group; the Children of Israel, the people of Noah, various tribes and Kings etc...

2) The people God 'speaks to' are a separate and distinct group; Prophets such as Noah, Moses, Elijah and individuals such as David and Abraham etc.

This second group actually exist to inform and communicate to the first group. It is the entire foundation on Biblical theology - NOWHERE does God communicate to the followers except through Prophets.

Ergo, Bush is said to be taking the position of 'Prophet' (the whole gist of the issue re the hearsay actually - ie falsely elevating his status) while Obama is merely taking the traditional religious stance.

There a lot to dig into here, and since to arrive at your strange conclusion, you have to ignore the fact the New Testament exists, that it gives Christians the means to communicate directly to God and that Bush and Obama both have this ability to communicate, and thus create some sort of strange distinction where Bush has placed himself higher on the theocratic scale than Obama.

You fail to recognize that even being on the scale is not acceptable and amount to establishing a theocracy. I'm not comparing Bush to Obama. I'm not making Obama 50% wrong and Bush 70% wrong and arguing that one is less or more wrong than the other. This is the nonsense that you and others have put forward and means that you have fallen for Tonton's spin. The only thing I even mentioned with regard to Bush is that a charge based on hearsay has no merit and that was all I have addressed with regard to him.

If you cannot draw a distinction between these two positions then you clearly should not be discussing religious matters as you are incapable of grasping the essential foundations of the paradigm.

If you cannot grasp that one has nothing to do with the other, then you lack enough reasoning to even be here.

In the United States, you are elected to do the will of the people. If you are going to subjugate your or their will to any religion of any sort, then the charge has been that you are attempting to create a theocracy.

Obama did not state that he desire to he a moral person and inform his views with the wisdom passed down through the ages. He said he wants to be president and act as an instrument to establish God's Kingdom here on earth.

Here, let me prevent the knee jerking again with a reminder... none of that has a thing to do with Bush, does not have to be better or worse than Bush, is not in any form or fashion a response to something Bush said, did or farted out his anus.

When you act as an instrument, you substitute your will for someone else's. The will substituted here is Obama's for God's and it doesn't matter whether Obama divines that will from writings, direct communication, or from words appearing in his Coco Puffs, the sentiment alone is enough for a charge of establishing a theocracy.

Again, to stop the reflex, the charge has nothing to do with Bush. It has everything to do with Obama's own words. There is NO comparison between the two. I'm not arguing that Bush is murder in the first degree while Obama is only attempted homicide. One has nothing to do with the other.

Talk about your binary thinking....:no: Get over your BushHate. Obama can utter a phrase, advocate a policy or even be an instrument of an interest and it can be wrong all by itself. Bush can and has nothing to do with it. Being unable to untangle the two means you have fallen for the false dilemma that Tonton has created here as part of his own spin. We don't have to choose between the two.

Nick

[segovius]

^^^^^^^^ You're floundering. I'm concerned.

Let's make it simple:

One view references the creator of the known universe personally issuing communication in this time frame here and now

The other view references someone wishing to follow traditional scripture from a previous historical time period which they believe issued from a divine source in times past.

In short; it is the difference between 'hearing voices' and believing something which may or may not be nonsense but nevertheless is a common belief.

If you cannot differentiate between those two positions we have a problem.

[trumptman]

I can distinguish between the two. Can you now realize that I'm not even discussing the former while still being able to differentiate it from the latter.

Here let me spell it for you. Claiming you are a prophet is worse than just reading a book.

Is that clear enough for you?

Now that we have established that the hearsay claim would be worse than the actual first hand claim within the words of Obama, can we now get onto the actual substantiated claim of Obama?

If you want to act as an instrument of Enron... good or bad for the American people?

If you want to act as an instrument of the Nazi party... good or bad for the American people?

If you want to act as an instrument to establish God's Kingdom here on earth via your presidential office... good or bad for the American people?

No direct communication with God himself required to answer any of those questions.

Thanks.

Nick

[segovius]

I can distinguish between the two. Can you now realize that I'm not even discussing the former while still being able to differentiate it from the latter.

That's not what you have been arguing so far though.

Here let me spell it for you. Claiming you are a prophet is worse than just reading a book.

Is that clear enough for you?

It's always been clear for me - I was worried from your statements it was not clear for you. Good.

Now that we have established that the hearsay claim would be worse than the actual first hand claim within the words of Obama, can we now get onto the actual substantiated claim of Obama?

At last. It's taken time but here we are....

If you want to act as an instrument of Enron... good or bad for the American people?

Depends on Enron's agenda. I'd also have concerns about whether it was good or bad for other people than Americans....

If you want to act as an instrument of the Nazi party... good or bad for the American people?

Well, many people thought at the time it was good for the American people. Bush's grandpappy for example.

And of course the US benefitted from all that Nazi research and the scientists they gave haven to to so it all depends doesn't it?

If you want to act as an instrument to establish God's Kingdom here on earth via your presidential office... good or bad for the American people?

Again, depends which God. If it was the same God Jesus talked about then it would be the best thing that ever happened to the American people (imho). If it was the 'God' that people like Robertson and Hagee have a hotline to then...well, that's the situation now isn't it?

I leave it to others to judge how good that is for everyone.

No direct communication with God himself required to answer any of those questions.

Thanks.

Nick

But after all that, you are still missing the point.

To take your examples, the difference would be between acting in a way which one believes the CEO of Enron (or the Nazi party) would approve of and, oth, claiming, correctly or falsely, that the CEO of Enron (or Hitler) had ordered you do do something even if it was the same thing.

I put it to you that this is a very important distinction and you cannot just pay lip service to it and focus on one half of the equation while excluding the other.

[trumptman]

That's not what you have been arguing so far though.

Try again. (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=1154364&postcount=23)

It's always been clear for me - I was worried from your statements it was not clear for you. Good.

Dismissing a hearsay claim doesn't mean you can't understand the ramifications of the claims if they were true. Where do you get such nonsense?

At last. It's taken time but here we are....

Check the link to my first reply above, some of us have been here for a while. The weather's been fine.

Again, depends which God. If it was the same God Jesus talked about then it would be the best thing that ever happened to the American people (imho). If it was the 'God' that people like Robertson and Hagee have a hotline to then...well, that's the situation now isn't it?

I leave it to others to judge how good that is for everyone.

Well in the U.S. many fiercely contend there is a strict separation of church and state. Regardless of "which God" I would love them to explain how they square being an instrument to bring God's kingdom to earth with this separation.

But after all that, you are still missing the point.

To take your examples, the difference would be between acting in a way which one believes the CEO of Enron (or the Nazi party) would approve of and, oth, claiming, correctly or falsely, that the CEO of Enron (or Hitler) had ordered you do do something even if it was the same thing.

I put it to you that this is a very important distinction and you cannot just pay lip service to it and focus on one half of the equation while excluding the other.

The difference here is you get hung up on the means of communication. Obama clearly knows of the existence of the Bible, has read it and is acting on the teachings within it. The Bible declares in various verses to be the written word of God. The form of communication is really irrelevant. No matter the form of communication the intent to act on will of God is still there.

Bush claims that God spoke to him and indicated it is God's will for him to invade Iraq.
Obama claims that in reading the Bible it indicated it is God's will for him to invade Iran.

Does it really matter by what means Obama decided he must act as an instrument to create God' Kingdom here on earth? He has already decided to subjugate his own will to this belief whether it came from voices, the Bible, a cell phone call, whatever.

I think it dishonest to attempt to link this to simple moral values. Obama did not say he is attempting to act in a manner of which he believes God would approve. He said he wants to be the instrument to create his Kingdom on Earth. That is a very sharp difference.

As you love noting...

If you cannot differentiate between those two positions we have a problem.

Nick

[segovius]

Trumpt: ok, I concede you have a point - though the way you framed it left you wide open for legitimate criticism which still stands - re Obama's interpretation of 'God's will'.

For all we know Obama may well believe God speaks to him even more than Bush does...but we cannot infer that from what he said.

Going on what he did say though about installing 'the Kingdom', I would say that is very grave cause for concern.

We would need to know exactly what sort of 'Kingdom' is envisaged but we can probably be assured it is 'not a good thing' for the American people or anyone else. Especially people in the Middle East who are not Israeli.

Getting back to the nub of things though, I would have thought that God, should He desire to wipe out Iran, would not need the help of either Bush or Obama to do so.

The Old Testament God - who after all, specialized in death, destruction and genocide - was quite capable of sending floods, plagues or general mayhem when he felt (as He so often did) that certain countries needed 'wiping off the map'.

You may think this a trite comment and perspective but I would argue that it is very, very pertinent.

For just as the Taleban are living in the past medieval glories of Islam, then so are todays fundie Xians (again, as opposed to the real variety) living in the days of the OT where Jehovah was Israel's personal God, the Jews were the 'chosen people' and God's whole raison d'etre was to exterminate people's who occupied land that the tribes of Judah wished to possess.

And so it is today...the sane civilized world has moved on (yes, that does include SOME religious people) while loons like Bush, Obama, the Taleban and the Sauds continue to perceive things with the mentality of a dimly educated peasant born in a remote desert area thousands of years ago.

In a way that's ok. The danger is when they gain power and start to force others to devolve to that limited view also.

[trumptman]

Trumpt: ok, I concede you have a point - though the way you framed it left you wide open for legitimate criticism which still stands - re Obama's interpretation of 'God's will'.

In the future I will make sure to properly condemn the irrelevant hearsay claim so we can skip right past the BushHate™ and get straight to the meat of the discussion.

For all we know Obama may well believe God speaks to him even more than Bush does...but we cannot infer that from what he said.

Can we infer that Bush has nothing to do with Obama's own words about his own desires and will?

We would need to know exactly what sort of 'Kingdom' is envisaged but we can probably be assured it is 'not a good thing' for the American people or anyone else. Especially people in the Middle East who are not Israeli.

You make it sound like he couldn't commit to having American out of Iraq in five years or something like that.:lol:

Getting back to the nub of things though, I would have thought that God, should He desire to wipe out Iran, would not need the help of either Bush or Obama to do so.

Well obviously the people who believe they are the instruments by which his will is carried out would disagree with you.

The Old Testament God - who after all, specialized in death, destruction and genocide - was quite capable of sending floods, plagues or general mayhem when he felt (as He so often did) that certain countries needed 'wiping off the map'.

Oh Al Gore and his environmental religion already have this covered. Our unwillingness to listen to the god of Nature already this angry god sending hurricanes and soon much more upon us. There is a great article (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/10/09/break_through/) about the environmental religious underpinnings this week in Salon. Perhaps I will cook up a thread on it.

That said, there were plenty of armies raised in that Old Testament as well and plenty of bloodletting caused by them acting in the interest of God.

You may think this a trite comment and perspective but I would argue that it is very, very pertinent.

It is pertinent. I get very upset when people excuse authoritarian overtones simply because they have some good intentions behind them. "It takes a village" can sound pretty menacing if you don't happen to agree with what the leader of that village feels the plan for your life should be.

In a way that's ok. The danger is when they gain power and start to force others to devolve to that limited view also.

You are aware the man is running for president correct?:D Now that we are past the BushHate™ we can see that pointing out this danger isn't just some sort of comparative partisan nonsense.

Nick

[tonton]

If you want to act as an instrument to establish God's Kingdom here on earth via your presidential office... good or bad for the American people?

No direct communication with God himself required to answer any of those questions.

You see this is where you completely lose the argument.

Obama did not say he would "subjugate his will".

He merely said he would do what he believes God would want him to do.

Answer this question> ISN'T THAT WHAT ANY MAN OF FAITH WOULD DO? Are you saying that Bush, being a self-proclaimed Christian, takes any actions that he believes are against the will of the God he believes in? CALL THE PRESS!

And yes, to "subjugate" yourself to any will other than your own requires communication from the source of that will. Otherwise how the heck would he know what to do? Obama is not "subjugating" himself in any way, shape or form, his quote doesn't say that he would and he didn't intend to say that he would.

[jimmac]

You see this is where you completely lose the argument.

Obama did not say he would "subjugate his will".

He merely said he would do what he believes God would want him to do.

Answer this question> ISN'T THAT WHAT ANY MAN OF FAITH WOULD DO? Are you saying that Bush, being a self-proclaimed Christian, takes any actions that he believes are against the will of the God he believes in? CALL THE PRESS!

And yes, to "subjugate" yourself to any will other than your own requires communication from the source of that will. Otherwise how the heck would he know what to do? Obama is not "subjugating" himself in any way, shape or form, his quote doesn't say that he would and he didn't intend to say that he would.

In other words he's not saying he's having a heart to heart and getting replies on what to do.;)

[trumptman]

First I love how you play both sides of this. You don't even make sense anymore. Last reply then you can have the last word. If anyone cares to agree with you at that point, they'll have to buy you an extra large wedding present.

You see this is where you completely lose the argument.

Obama did not say he would "subjugate his will".

He merely said he would do what he believes God would want him to do.

I posted the definition of instrument. It is a passive role, not equal or superior role. If you believe something other than the definition of the word, that is fine by me. I even clarified some of the words within that definition by posting their definitions as well. If you want to ignore what the words spoken by Obama mean and substitute your own reality instead, you are welcome to do so.

You've done this throughout the thread. You've taken the actual words of Obama and tried to turn them into something else. Also your word play grows tiring. How is "doing what he believes God wants him to do" somehow doing his own will instead of the will of God? Then you start in on the nonsense where he isn't subjugating his own will to do the will of God, etc.

You're caught chasing your own tail. The words have to be taken at face value. They cannot and do not make sense with your spin on them. Obama cannot be exerting his own will above God's will and then acting as an instrument to God's will which by definition includes subjugation of self to God. It becomes nonsense.

Answer this question> ISN'T THAT WHAT ANY MAN OF FAITH WOULD DO? Are you saying that Bush, being a self-proclaimed Christian, takes any actions that he believes are against the will of the God he believes in? CALL THE PRESS!

Well this is why Democrats have, for the last few elections tossed any sort of strong believers. It is why Bush won Catholics in 2004 for example. They are willing to tolerate a sort of historical religiousness, much like the European view (basically part of your ethnic identity) but not actual religious action, belief and so forth. When the do act as any man of faith would do, they call them theocrats who want to inject religion into the public space.

Will you call Obama whatever label Bush has had assigned to him for professing and exercising his religious beliefs in office. If you will then we are done here.

And yes, to "subjugate" yourself to any will other than your own requires communication from the source of that will. Otherwise how the heck would he know what to do? Obama is not "subjugating" himself in any way, shape or form, his quote doesn't say that he would and he didn't intend to say that he would.

As I noted and as Seg understood, that communication can take many forms be it spoken, written or whatever.

Let's take another, perhaps more appropriate form of the definition:

a means by which something is effected or done

If you are the means by which God effects something or gets something done, how does your own will rank within that relationship? If you are receiving communication, be it written, spoken, whatever and acting to insure it is completed, are you acting on your own will or on the will of another? You may not be doing it against your will, but I would not consider the two equal or the will of Obama, dominant in such an expression.

Nick

[jimmac]

First I love how you play both sides of this. You don't even make sense anymore. Last reply then you can have the last word. If anyone cares to agree with you at that point, they'll have to buy you an extra large wedding present.



I posted the definition of instrument. It is a passive role, not equal or superior role. If you believe something other than the definition of the word, that is fine by me. I even clarified some of the words within that definition by posting their definitions as well. If you want to ignore what the words spoken by Obama mean and substitute your own reality instead, you are welcome to do so.

You've done this throughout the thread. You've taken the actual words of Obama and tried to turn them into something else. Also your word play grows tiring. How is "doing what he believes God wants him to do" somehow doing his own will instead of the will of God? Then you start in on the nonsense where he isn't subjugating his own will to do the will of God, etc.

You're caught chasing your own tail. The words have to be taken at face value. They cannot and do not make sense with your spin on them. Obama cannot be exerting his own will above God's will and then acting as an instrument to God's will which by definition includes subjugation of self to God. It becomes nonsense.



Well this is why Democrats have, for the last few elections tossed any sort of strong believers. It is why Bush won Catholics in 2004 for example. They are willing to tolerate a sort of historical religiousness, much like the European view (basically part of your ethnic identity) but not actual religious action, belief and so forth. When the do act as any man of faith would do, they call them theocrats who want to inject religion into the public space.

Will you call Obama whatever label Bush has had assigned to him for professing and exercising his religious beliefs in office. If you will then we are done here.



As I noted and as Seg understood, that communication can take many forms be it spoken, written or whatever.

Let's take another, perhaps more appropriate form of the definition:

a means by which something is effected or done

If you are the means by which God effects something or gets something done, how does your own will rank within that relationship? If you are receiving communication, be it written, spoken, whatever and acting to insure it is completed, are you acting on your own will or on the will of another? You may not be doing it against your will, but I would not consider the two equal or the will of Obama, dominant in such an expression.

Nick


" As I noted and as Seg understood, that communication can take many forms be it spoken, written or whatever. "


Osmosis?:lol:

[SDW2001]

And that has exactly what do do with my point?

On one side we have hearsay that Bush is a raving lunatic who claims God spoke to him/

It's hearsay. What do you not understand? There is no evidence he said it whatsoever. How about this: I hear that Hillary Clinton likes to fuck dead dogs. Man...that's CRAZY! What a loon! See...no difference. It's still hearsay.



On the other side we have a documented statement by Obama that he believes in God and wants to do what he believes God would want him to do (wouldn't most religious people claim this!?).

Don't you see the difference?

Wrong. He said he wants to be an "instrument of God." He didn't merely say he believes in God and wants to follow his will with his life. Not at all. He was talking about policy, about making a "kingdom" in the context of government taking action. The fact that you would attack Bush and dismiss/jusitfy Obama's comment is just flabbergasting.

I would have to disagree with your characterization of Obama.

First attacking hearsay is logically and legally wrong in just about any form you can imagine with regard to Bush.

With Obama, he said he wanted to be an "instrument of God." This goes beyond just wanting to be a good and moral person. That statement literally means he wants to be a tool or the means by which God would accomplish his will or agenda.

Nick

Exactly.


Sorry this is not even close to the same thing!

Uh, that's the point, champ. Bush's statement is unproven. Obama's is a fact. Yet no concern. Hmmm.




But nice lame try at yet another attempt to make something out of nothing.

You mean how Seg posted a thread based on hearsay and a blogger's opinion?



SDW! Really you know from basic physics that matter( s ) can't be created or destroyed.;)

They simpy are or aren't.

In this case Bush was clearly making reference to being told how to act from a higher power. Obama simply was talking about having faith ( even if this conversation did take place ).

Get real or get out SDW !

Uh...except that no one can prove he actually made reference to anything, since the statement is unreliable hearsay. Read my point above. Let's say that someone calls you and tells you Obama likes to slaughter goats and drink their blood. Do you believe him? Do you start a thread about it? Of course not. It's an unproven allegation. There's as much evidence for that as there is for the Bush statement.

" It changes nothing.....snip! "

No because delusional people often ignore reality even in the face of absolute proof.

And yes I know I almost called you a name.;)

I would agree that someone delusional if he does not accept absolute proof. But what proof of anything (and I mean anything have you offered....ever? You've offered speculation and conjecture, as well as plausible explanations on occasions. But proof? I'm not aware o single instance. ARe you telling me the hearsay from Bush is "proof" he said it? Are you telling Obama didn't make the statements he did?

[tonton]

Okay... for the sake of argument, let's ignore Bush altogether. We won't mention another word of the "hearsay" issue.

Concentrate on what "instrument of God" means.

We absolutely disagree completely on that point.

A man of faith aspiring himself to be an "instrument of God" simply means he wants to follow what he believes God would want. Period. No direct communication. Just faith.

And Obama's faith to me is acceptable. Bush's faith is not. They are obviously men of vastly different religious beliefs.

[@_@ Artman]

I look at it this way. Don't make yourself an instrument of any religion. Make an yourself (or platform) and instrument of the Constitution and for which it stands, freedom of religion. All religions.

[Jubelum]

I look at it this way. Don't make yourself an instrument of any religion.

Smartest thing said in this thread.

It's OK to be guided by a moral compass, and if you find that compass within religion then so be it. But that's your business... not ours.

[SDW2001]

Okay... for the sake of argument, let's ignore Bush altogether. We won't mention another word of the "hearsay" issue.

Concentrate on what "instrument of God" means.

We absolutely disagree completely on that point.

A man of faith aspiring himself to be an "instrument of God" simply means he wants to follow what he believes God would want. Period. No direct communication. Just faith.

And Obama's faith to me is acceptable. Bush's faith is not. They are obviously men of vastly different religious beliefs.


First, if Obama were a Republican, I think you'd be throwing a fit. :smokey:

Secondly, the term "instrument of God" does not mean "just following what God wants," as if God wants you to stop smoking cigarettes or stop drinking, or what have you. I've spent a lot of time around many people of deep faith (me ex-wife's uncles are both ministers...one Baptist and the other Presbyterian), and never once have a I heard it used like that. It has always meant literally allowing God to use you as a tool of his will in whatever your chosen profession, pursuit, etc. As Obama is running for PResident, it's pretty clear what he meant. So I really think you're off base there. I realize my support for that statement is anecdotal, so perhaps you have something to add.

*Both* statements are hearsay*.

In both instances, someone other than the person making the statement is telling us about the statement. In one instance, we have hearsay with a reporter writing about what Obama is saying. In another, we have multilayered hearsay, with a reporter writing about what a Prime Minister said about what Bush said. That's hearsay in a nutshell. We generally exclude hearsay evidence in court because of reliability and accuracy issues.

I'd say of the two hearsay examples, the Obama quote is way more reliable because lots of different news agencies corroborated his words, whereas the Bush quote is less reliable because we're relying solely on what the Prime Minister said (not to mention the fact that I'm guessing we're reading a probably paraphrased translation of a translation of a translation). But whether one's more reliable than the other doesn't change the fact that both statements are hearsay.

*The issue is a red herring anyway. This isn't a courtroom. Reporters always rely on sources to provide them with material for a story. If we excluded out of hand everything reporters ever said because everytime they used a source it's necessarily hearsay, then what good is that?

I don't think both comments are hearsay at all. As you point out, you'd have to dismiss every quote from every reporter as hearsay. What we have is a direct quote from Obama. We also have a quote from someone that claims to have heard a Bush statement. Those two don't equate. In a courtroom, there is no doubt to which one would be given more credibility.

[tonton]

I ask you again. Is GWB making any decisions that he thinks are AGAINST the will of God?

[tonton]

First, if Obama were a Republican, I think you'd be throwing a fit.

No. If Obama believed in the same "religious" principles as Bush, then I'd be throwing a fit, no matter what his political party.

[SDW2001]

I ask you again. Is GWB making any decisions that he thinks are AGAINST the will of God?

No. If Obama believed in the same "religious" principles as Bush, then I'd be throwing a fit, no matter what his political party.


1. No, I don't think so. That said, what does that have to do with anything in this thread?

2. And what religious principles are those? Please point out the similarities and differences, and why you perceive them the way you do.

[tonton]

1. No, I don't think so. That said, what does that have to do with anything in this thread?
Are you really unable to grasp my point? Once again, I honestly think you're smarter than that.

Plain language a twelve year-old could understand: You're criticizing Obama because according to your (spun) interpretation of what he said, you think he will not make any decisions except those that his God would support. At the same time you think Bush is righteous because (you claim) he doesn't make any decisions except those that his God would support.

2. And what religious principles are those? Please point out the similarities and differences, and why you perceive them the way you do.
1. Bush opposes tolerance (love thy neighbor). Example: Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. Although Obama opposes gay marriage, he supports legal civil union and believes individual states should make the their own decisions on the issue. Read my signature. I believe Obama, being an "instrument of God" would agree with my (and Jesus') position on this.
2. Bush supports war (thou shalt not kill), even when significant civilian casualties are involved. Obama opposes the war in Iraq because of the cost of civilian lives, and wants to end the killings.
3. Abortion.

You know what, I'm gonna stop here, because it puts the final nail in the coffin of "tool".

Barack Obama:

"I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place. "

Who is the "tool"? The abortion protester ("I don't care if more women are at danger or if it takes away their individual rights, taking the life of a fetus is murder according to God,") or Mr. Obama, who although a Christian who personally opposes abortion, weighs the consequences and makes the appropriate decision?

If there's a God, I would agree that God supports a woman's right to choose. And so would Barack Obama. Bush would not. Big (expletive for emphasis) religious difference.

Next up... torture. Let's see what Bush and Obama's faith tells them on that one.

[SDW2001]

Are you really unable to grasp my point? Once again, I honestly think you're smarter than that.

Plain language a twelve year-old could understand: You're criticizing Obama because according to your (spun) interpretation of what he said, you think he will not make any decisions except those that his God would support. At the same time you think Bush is righteous because (you claim) he doesn't make any decisions except those that his God would support.

First of all, I haven't "spun" anything. Your'e the one trying to take what he actually said and make it mean something that no reasonable person would agree it means. His quote was a clear as day. But of course, he must have meant something else. It couldn't be that he's either A) a religious wingnut or B) pandering for votes. Not at all. But that Dubya? Well, he's either one of those. Maybe both!

I also haven't claimed Bush is "righteous" or that he never makes a wrong call. That thinking with respect to prayer and guidance shows that you just don't understand the two ideas at all.

If anything, Bush's comments have been far less concerning than Obama's. Listen to what Bush has said. He's said he prays for guidance, moral courage, help choosing a path, etc. And Obama? He flat out says he wants to create a "kingdom" and be an "instrument of God".....and Bush is the zealot. Wow. Just...wow. :wow:




1. Bush opposes tolerance (love thy neighbor). Example: Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. Although Obama opposes gay marriage, he supports legal civil union and believes individual states should make the their own decisions on the issue. Read my signature. I believe Obama, being an "instrument of God" would agree with my (and Jesus') position on this.

While I don't support a Constitutional amendment, that doesn't mean Bush is intolerant. Opposing gay marriage does not mean one is intolerant. Frankly, I'm really sick of those that say that it does. Also, does Bush oppose civil unions? Lastly, Bush knew such an amendment would not pass. It was a political stunt for 04 election. Make of that what you will.



2. Bush supports war (thou shalt not kill), even when significant civilian casualties are involved. Obama opposes the war in Iraq because of the cost of civilian lives, and wants to end the killings.

All wars have significant civilian casualties. Thou Shalt Not Kill is not applied universally, by anyone. If that's going to be the standard, then Obama will have to oppose ALL war....including his own idea to send troops into Pakistan.


3. Abortion.

Bush opposes abortion, no? Is he not pro-life? How is that not a "biblical position?"


You know what, I'm gonna stop here, because it puts the final nail in the coffin of "tool".

Barack Obama:

"I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place. "

Who is the "tool"? The abortion protester ("I don't care if more women are at danger or if it takes away their individual rights, taking the life of a fetus is murder according to God,") or Mr. Obama, who although a Christian who personally opposes abortion, weighs the consequences and makes the appropriate decision?

If there's a God, I would agree that God supports a woman's right to choose. And so would Barack Obama. Bush would not. Big (expletive for emphasis) religious difference.

Next up... torture. Let's see what Bush and Obama's faith tells them on that one.

That is absolute lunacy. Many Christians oppose abortion of biblical grounds. You can't take one person who makes an inflammatory statement and pervert it into the pro-choice position being more biblically adherent. That's fucking ridiculous. It really is. :lol:

[SDW2001]

Are you really unable to grasp my point? Once again, I honestly think you're smarter than that.

Plain language a twelve year-old could understand: You're criticizing Obama because according to your (spun) interpretation of what he said, you think he will not make any decisions except those that his God would support. At the same time you think Bush is righteous because (you claim) he doesn't make any decisions except those that his God would support.

First of all, I haven't "spun" anything. Your'e the one trying to take what he actually said and make it mean something that no reasonable person would agree it means. His quote was a clear as day. But of course, he must have meant something else. It couldn't be that he's either A) a religious wingnut or B) pandering for votes. Not at all. But that Dubya? Well, he's either one of those. Maybe both!

I also haven't claimed Bush is "righteous" or that he never makes a wrong call. That thinking with respect to prayer and guidance shows that you just don't understand the two ideas at all.

If anything, Bush's comments have been far less concerning than Obama's. Listen to what Bush has said. He's said he prays for guidance, moral courage, help choosing a path, etc. And Obama? He flat out says he wants to create a "kingdom" and be an "instrument of God".....and Bush is the zealot. Wow. Just...wow. :wow:




1. Bush opposes tolerance (love thy neighbor). Example: Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. Although Obama opposes gay marriage, he supports legal civil union and believes individual states should make the their own decisions on the issue. Read my signature. I believe Obama, being an "instrument of God" would agree with my (and Jesus') position on this.

While I don't support a Constitutional amendment, that doesn't mean Bush is intolerant. Opposing gay marriage does not mean one is intolerant. Frankly, I'm really sick of those that say that it does. Also, does Bush oppose civil unions? Lastly, Bush knew such an amendment would not pass. It was a political stunt for 04 election. Make of that what you will.



2. Bush supports war (thou shalt not kill), even when significant civilian casualties are involved. Obama opposes the war in Iraq because of the cost of civilian lives, and wants to end the killings.

All wars have significant civilian casualties. Thou Shalt Not Kill is not applied universally, by anyone. If that's going to be the standard, then Obama will have to oppose ALL war....including his own idea to send troops into Pakistan.


3. Abortion.

Bush opposes abortion, no? Is he not pro-life? How is that not a "biblical position?"


You know what, I'm gonna stop here, because it puts the final nail in the coffin of "tool".

Barack Obama:

"I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved when making that decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place. "

Who is the "tool"? The abortion protester ("I don't care if more women are at danger or if it takes away their individual rights, taking the life of a fetus is murder according to God,") or Mr. Obama, who although a Christian who personally opposes abortion, weighs the consequences and makes the appropriate decision?

If there's a God, I would agree that God supports a woman's right to choose. And so would Barack Obama. Bush would not. Big (expletive for emphasis) religious difference.

Next up... torture. Let's see what Bush and Obama's faith tells them on that one.

That is absolute lunacy. Many Christians oppose abortion on biblical grounds. You can't take one person who makes an inflammatory statement and pervert it into the pro-choice position being more biblically adherent. That's fucking ridiculous. It really is. :lol:

[tonton]

That is absolute lunacy. Many Christians oppose abortion of biblical grounds. You can't take one person who makes an inflammatory statement and pervert it into the pro-choice position being more biblically adherent. That's fucking ridiculous. It really is. :lol:

Um... don't you remember why I posted that example of religious difference? :err:

[segovius]

That is absolute lunacy. Many Christians oppose abortion of biblical grounds:

Got to call you on that: show me these Biblical grounds.

Chapter and verse please.

<hint: if you wheel out 'thou shalt not kill' then you'll need to do a bit of spinning to explain the killing by 'Xians' you support>

[Jubelum]

Surely we can find some things to argue over here (http://www.epm.org/articles/abortohs.html)...

[segovius]

Surely we can find some things to argue over here (http://www.epm.org/articles/abortohs.html)...

Or how about here. (http://www.libchrist.com/other/abortion/exodus.html)

The verses in Exodus clearly show that though the death penalty was mandatory for all murder of human beings it did not apply to miscarriages caused by humans - hence the foetus was not viewed Biblically as being human at that point.

The loud explosion you are hearing is the Christianist (and SDW's) argument - and illogical assumptions - imploding.

[segovius]

God's been on the phone again.....

This time it's the old-time Prophet Pat Robertson. (http://www.kotv.com/news/national/story/?id=137985)

[@_@ Artman]

God's been on the phone again.....

This time it's the old-time Prophet Pat Robertson. (http://www.kotv.com/news/national/story/?id=137985)

Rev. Pat Robertson later apologized.

Sorry, ain't gonna take his...I want God's.

[jimmac]

It's hearsay. What do you not understand? There is no evidence he said it whatsoever. How about this: I hear that Hillary Clinton likes to fuck dead dogs. Man...that's CRAZY! What a loon! See...no difference. It's still hearsay.



Wrong. He said he wants to be an "instrument of God." He didn't merely say he believes in God and wants to follow his will with his life. Not at all. He was talking about policy, about making a "kingdom" in the context of government taking action. The fact that you would attack Bush and dismiss/jusitfy Obama's comment is just flabbergasting.



Exactly.




Uh, that's the point, champ. Bush's statement is unproven. Obama's is a fact. Yet no concern. Hmmm.




You mean how Seg posted a thread based on hearsay and a blogger's opinion?



Uh...except that no one can prove he actually made reference to anything, since the statement is unreliable hearsay. Read my point above. Let's say that someone calls you and tells you Obama likes to slaughter goats and drink their blood. Do you believe him? Do you start a thread about it? Of course not. It's an unproven allegation. There's as much evidence for that as there is for the Bush statement.



I would agree that someone delusional if he does not accept absolute proof. But what proof of anything (and I mean anything have you offered....ever? You've offered speculation and conjecture, as well as plausible explanations on occasions. But proof? I'm not aware o single instance. ARe you telling me the hearsay from Bush is "proof" he said it? Are you telling Obama didn't make the statements he did?

For the last paragraph. This has mainly with your statement that I never offer proof :


Listen " Champ " how about the website listing the events leading up to the war that had facts with links and references that you could look up yourself? All you countered with is the usual " That's an anti war site " crap.

I mean if you didn't believe the facts provided there it was easy to verify them yourself with a link to the reference. You really can't get any more black and white than that.

[SDW2001]

Got to call you on that: show me these Biblical grounds.

Chapter and verse please.

<hint: if you wheel out 'thou shalt not kill' then you'll need to do a bit of spinning to explain the killing by 'Xians' you support>

It's not me making the claim directly. I'm saying that many Christians take this position. As for me, I don't claim to know the exact chapters and verses. But I have encountered may Christians that do. This is something that could be debated endlessly, so I don't see you and I will solve it. The point is that there are devout Christians who have what they see as irrefutable biblical evidence. It's not for me or you to tell them they're wrong.

For the last paragraph. This has mainly with your statement that I never offer proof :


Listen " Champ " how about the website listing the events leading up to the war that had facts with links and references that you could look up yourself? All you countered with is the usual " That's an anti war site " crap.

I mean if you didn't believe the facts provided there it was easy to verify them yourself with a link to the reference. You really can't get any more black and white than that.

Pathetic. That website is NOT merely a presentation of facts. It is a website written in that format, but that's not actually what it is. It is a website that portends to be impartial and neutral. And yes, it does list many "factual" events, but those facts are used in such a way as to support and anti-administration, anti-war point of view. It amazes me that you can't see this and that you continue to put the website out there as an impartial one.

[segovius]

It's not me making the claim directly. I'm saying that many Christians take this position. As for me, I don't claim to know the exact chapters and verses. But I have encountered may Christians that do. This is something that could be debated endlessly, so I don't see you and I will solve it. The point is that there are devout Christians who have what they see as irrefutable biblical evidence. It's not for me or you to tell them they're wrong.

Yes it is.

And here is why: we, as humans, should be dedicated to finding the truth. All human achievement has been effected through this method from showing the world is not flat to discovering America (not sure how good that last one is but hey).

If we take this position then we WILL find the truth when it can be found.

Certain things cannot be found out - or not yet anyway - such as whether God exists or not and these are open to belief and personal opinion.

However, certain things in this area ARE possible to prove one way or another. Either the Bible says this or it doesn't. There is no middle ground, it's black or white.

As it happens it says no such thing and strongly implies otherwise so it IS our place to point this out just as it is our place to point out the world is spherical to those in need of that bit of knowledge.

[SDW2001]

Yes it is.

And here is why: we, as humans, should be dedicated to finding the truth. All human achievement has been effected through this method from showing the world is not flat to discovering America (not sure how good that last one is but hey).

If we take this position then we WILL find the truth when it can be found.

Certain things cannot be found out - or not yet anyway - such as whether God exists or not and these are open to belief and personal opinion.

However, certain things in this area ARE possible to prove one way or another. Either the Bible says this or it doesn't. There is no middle ground, it's black or white.

As it happens it says no such thing and strongly implies otherwise so it IS our place to point this out just as it is our place to point out the world is spherical to those in need of that bit of knowledge.

If you want to attack Christians for believing what they do about homosexuality, then go ahead. There will be many that can point exactly to that supports their position. There will be some that agree with you as well. That doesn't make the ones that oppose it on biblical grounds bigots or even wrong. It means they have different views than you.

As for me, I don't make that argument. I believe homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon in many animal species. That said, I don't think that it can be equated with race because there can be an element of choice involved...an element of experimentation if you will. I believe that some gays choose to live as "the gay lifestyle," while for most it's not a choice at all. I also oppose gay marriage on those grounds, and on the grounds that marriage has been defined the way it has since pretty much the dawn of time.

So for me, it really doesn't have anything to do with the bible. I'm just saying that for many, it does. And you really have no right to tell them they're wrong just because you interpret the bible differently.

[tonton]

Ok... to get back on topic:

It's clear Obama following God is not a bad thing, according to the way he makes it obvious he believes.

It's also clear that to say he's going to follow what he thinks God would want, he is definitely not precluding his own prerogative in the best interests of the people.

End of thread.

[SDW2001]

Ok... to get back on topic:

It's clear Bush following God is not a bad thing, according to the way he makes it obvious he believes.

It's also clear that to say he's going to follow what he thinks God would want, he is definitely not precluding his own prerogative in the best interests of the people.

End of thread.

Fixed that for you. Go ahead...explain the difference to me.

[tonton]

Fixed that for you. Go ahead...explain the difference to me.

So we have a difference of opinion. To me, what Bush does and advocates doing is quite frankly following the path of a false prophet, if he indeed is following any path other than self-interest.

I've already explained the difference in beliefs between the two.

Obama would not advocate torture. Obama would not prolong a situation that is resulting in continued civilian deaths. Obama would not take away a woman's choice. Obama would not condemn those that believe differently than he does about marriage, and take away their right to make an individual choice on the matter.

So I don't care whether his choices are based in his belief in God or not. They are the right ones. But if it's his belief in God that makes him stick to those choices, that's even better. On the contrary, if Bush's belief in God makes him stick with HIS choices, then he deserves the criticism he gets for zealotry toward a false prophet.

[Gilsch]

Blah blah blah.

All I want is a two way phone to God with unlimited minutes. Does anyone know if the iPhones are two way? I might just get me one of those.;)

[SDW2001]

So we have a difference of opinion. To me, what Bush does and advocates doing is quite frankly following the path of a false prophet, if he indeed is following any path other than self-interest.

I've already explained the difference in beliefs between the two.

No, you have not.



Obama would not advocate torture.

Neither does George Bush.

Obama would not prolong a situation that is resulting in continued civilian deaths.

Yes, he did. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama2aug02,1,7725440.story)

Obama would not take away a woman's choice.

Neither has Geroge Bush. He doesn't have the power to do so, and neither does any future President.

Obama would not condemn those that believe differently than he does about marriage, and take away their right to make an individual choice on the matter.

Bush has not condemned anyone. What he has said is that the definition of marriage should not be changed. Thats not condemning. Oh, and Obama doesn't feel much differently. (http://www.logoonline.com/news/story.jhtml?id=1552297&disableFeatureRedirect=true&contentypeID=1299)

So I don't care whether his choices are based in his belief in God or not. They are the right ones.

That's pretty arrogant.

But if it's his belief in God that makes him stick to those choices, that's even better.

So it's only better if you agree with him? Oh wait...you address this next....

On the contrary, if Bush's belief in God makes him stick with HIS choices, then he deserves the criticism he gets for zealotry toward a false prophet.

Hysterical. Bush's God™ is a Bigot God™. Obama follows the True, Just and Liberal God™. Gee, I wonder who the close minded fanatic is here?

[tonton]

Actually I don't care whose god is the right one. I'm an atheist. I think they're both wrong. But I know whose God I would want someone to follow if there were one.

Oh and by the way... the gay marriage thing... did you read Obama's statement on it? Care to compare it with Bush's push for a constitutional amendment?

Water boarding... torture... tomay-to... tomah-to...

And you honestly think Bush "wouldn't if he could" with regard to choice? What he can do is attempt to load up the Supremus Courtus with his (conservative) bible thumpers.

[tonton]

Civilian deaths, DW. Civilian deaths. You know very well what Obama would do in Pakistan, and it ain't what Bush is doing in Iraq.

[segovius]

Actually I don't care whose god is the right one. I'm an atheist. I think they're both wrong. But I know whose God I would want someone to follow if there were one.

Oh and by the way... the gay marriage thing... did you read Obama's statement on it? Care to compare it with Bush's push for a constitutional amendment?

Water boarding... torture... tomay-to... tomah-to...

And you honestly think Bush "wouldn't if he could" with regard to choice? What he can do is attempt to load up the Supremus Courtus with his (conservative) bible thumpers.

Re the torture; it looks like evidence has come to light - from a General - to suggest that Bush personally gave the orders. (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/General_claims_Bush_gave_marching_orders_1022.html )

As the methods outlined in the article are those of the world's worst tyrannical regimes it seems unlikely that anyone, let alone Obama, would condone these measures.

Or put another way, to order this sort of thing one must be a psychopath in the Saddam, Pol Pot,
Josef Mengele mould....they don't come along that often.

[@_@ Artman]

Re the torture; it looks like evidence has come to light - from a General - to suggest that Bush personally gave the orders. (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/General_claims_Bush_gave_marching_orders_1022.html )

As the methods outlined in the article are those of the world's worst tyrannical regimes it seems unlikely that anyone, let alone Obama, would condone these measures.

Or put another way, to order this sort of thing one must be a psychopath in the Saddam, Pol Pot,
Josef Mengele mould....they don't come along that often.

All this is happening and Bush is still president...

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/sinnatra_2007/SpockFascinating.jpg

[SDW2001]

Actually I don't care whose god is the right one. I'm an atheist. I think they're both wrong. But I know whose God I would want someone to follow if there were one.

That's silly. They both believe in the same God. But the difference is Obama can talk about literally being a TOOL, and Bush gets criticized for saying G-O-D.



Oh and by the way... the gay marriage thing... did you read Obama's statement on it? Care to compare it with Bush's push for a constitutional amendment?

Well first, I don't agree with a Constitutional amendment. But as for their positions, they are basically the same. The amendment is a non-starter and they both know it...always have. It was a political stunt for the 2004 election. It has no chance of becoming law, so therefore it's irrelevant to take a position on it. The only thing that matters is whether or not one favors/opposes gay marriage. both oppose it, yet Bush is indicted for it. Oh, and question: If Obama opposes an amendment AND gay marriage, why? I have my answer. I'd like to hear his.



Water boarding... torture... tomay-to... tomah-to...

And you honestly think Bush "wouldn't if he could" with regard to choice? What he can do is attempt to load up the Supremus Courtus with his (conservative) bible thumpers.

You mean...eh originalist judges? I am not aware of the ones he's appointed being "bible thumpers." Tell me, why is that fantastically liberal judges, ones who rely on other nation's laws in making decisions instead of our Constitution are OK, but not those who think the lone job of a SCJ is to interpret the US Constitution?


Civilian deaths, DW. Civilian deaths. You know very well what Obama would do in Pakistan, and it ain't what Bush is doing in Iraq.

Actually, no, I don't. Please explain it to me. And what is Bush doing in Iraq exactly? Short of pulling out, what would Obama do so differently? Maybe he'd stop air raiding villages (http://www.examiner.com/a-880543~Obama_s_comments_on_Afghanistan_draw_sharp_ rebuke_from_Romney_campaign.html), or terrorizing Iraqi's in the dead of night? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47765)

[SDW2001]

Re the torture; it looks like evidence has come to light - from a General - to suggest that Bush personally gave the orders. (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/General_claims_Bush_gave_marching_orders_1022.html )

As the methods outlined in the article are those of the world's worst tyrannical regimes it seems unlikely that anyone, let alone Obama, would condone these measures.

Or put another way, to order this sort of thing one must be a psychopath in the Saddam, Pol Pot,
Josef Mengele mould....they don't come along that often.

Pathetic link. Pathetic. The "documentation" from the "investigation" comes from two lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union.

[@_@ Artman]

Pathetic link. Pathetic. The "documentation" from the "investigation" comes from two lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Well who else would you call to read over 100,000 government documents (that you can view yourself) (http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/search/search.html) and find such tidbits for their report:

"The documents show unambiguously that the administration has adopted some of the methods of the most tyrannical regimes," write Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh. "Documents from Guantanamo describe prisoners shackled in excruciating 'stress positions,' held in freezing-cold cells, forcibly stripped, hooded, terrorized with military dogs, and deprived of human contact for months."

or...

The ACLU also found that an Army investigator reported Rumsfeld was "personally involved" in overseeing the interrogation of a Guantanamo prisoner Mohammed al Qahtani. The prisoner was forced to parade naked in front of female interrogators wearing women's underwear on his head and was led around on a leash while being forced to perform dog tricks.

Oh wait, I'm off topic anyway. We're talking about Obama and God. If anything, I'd rather have a president with a soul than one who thinks he does.

http://bqqq.com/bush_scratch_head.jpg

[SDW2001]

Well who else would you call to read over 100,000 government documents (that you can view yourself) (http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/search/search.html) and find such tidbits for their report:



or...



Oh wait, I'm off topic anyway. We're talking about Obama and God. If anything, I'd rather have a president with a soul than one who thinks he does.

http://bqqq.com/bush_scratch_head.jpg


I trust absolutely nothing the ACLU does. Nothing. They are an absolute leftist, anti-American organization that has one thing going for them: A name that states otherwise.

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.sfgate.com/n/pictures/2000/10/24/bush-shrug.jpg

http://www.daykeeperjournal.com/images/amm-bush-shrug.jpg

http://fauxnewschannel.com/bush_shrug.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/W/B/bush_osama_shrug.jpg

[SDW2001]

http://www.sfgate.com/n/pictures/2000/10/24/bush-shrug.jpg

http://www.daykeeperjournal.com/images/amm-bush-shrug.jpg

http://fauxnewschannel.com/bush_shrug.jpg

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/W/B/bush_osama_shrug.jpg

The man does look a chimp sometimes, I must say.

[jimmac]

The man does look a chimp sometimes, I must say.



That's hairless ape!;)

[Ke^in]

Stupid theists...

You know being tolerant and not bigoted isn't about accepting people's views or ideals.

It's about how you treat and talk about those you disagree with.

"You know the man you hate? You look more like him Everyday!"

"Hi-Di-Ho two good shoes wont save your soul"

[Ke^in]

BTW I wonder what the anti-Bush zealots had to say when Clinton murdered all those Iraqi's when the bombed it because it had Nuclear and WMD programs back in 98 had to say? Oh and they did have prisoner camps during Clinton's run. But no one was interested in that.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. . . . Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. . . . Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

[segovius]

I am not pro rah rah Bush fan, and I can't wait for him to get out of office.

Yes. I can see that.

I have a nice bridge here - used to be in Brooklyn. You can buy it if you like.

[@_@ Artman]

:lol:

:wow:

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/clinton08.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/aaaahx3.gif

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/panicyh1.gif

[@_@ Artman]

Is God Running for President? (http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_mary_sha_071028_is_god _running_for_p.htm)

I was reading the Letters section in the October 15 issue of Newsweek magazine, and found an interesting letter from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The letter was in response to an article in a previous edition that apparently had focused on Romney primarily as a practicing Mormon.

In the letter, Romney wrote, "I am an American running for president, not a Mormon running for president."

He goes on to say, "I would have thought that more important to my potential presidency would be my record as a governor, 25-year business leader, Olympic CEO, father, husband -- and American."

Indeed.

I am no fan of Mitt Romney, but I have to agree with him here.

I have thought the same thing through the past two decades' worth of elections, which often have seemed more like contests to prove who's more holy, not who's more qualified to run this country.

And I thought the same thing during a recent Democratic candidates' debate, when each was asked to share his or her favorite Bible verse.

I wondered if that question would have been asked if a non-Christian candidate had been standing on that stage.

And I wondered if this nation will ever evolve to where we really might see a non-Christian candidate standing on that stage. (Jewish Senator Joe Lieberman doesn't count. During his 2000 vice-presidential run, he managed to out-God all the other candidates.)

George W. Bush not only invokes his God in virtually every speech he makes, he also openly admits that he takes his instructions from his God. And look where that has gotten us. It brings to mind the words of Sinclair Lewis, who said, "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

The religious right and their supporters in Washington have brainwashed the American public into believing that Christianity is patriotic. In fact, according to a recent survey (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19031) by the First Amendment Center, 65 percent of Americans believe that the nation's founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation and 55 percent believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation.

Hogwash. They need to read the Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html), which makes no mention of God or Christianity. And they need to acquaint themselves with the Bill of Rights.

It was with good reason that this nation's founders wrote the "separation clause" into the First Amendment (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/), which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

It was to protect the minority from tyranny of the majority. Our founders did not want this nation to sink into theocracy. They knew that theocracy always leads to oppression and loss of freedom.

Our founders wanted to establish a democracy in which the government serves all the people, not just the Christian ones.

For these reasons, we should not be compelled to vote for someone because he or she can recite passages from the Bible. In fact, we should be suspicious of those who do so in a political context. It's pandering, and it's often hypocritical (http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/right113004.cfm).

We need to vote for candidates who will take their instructions not from some deity, but rather from the people.

We need to vote for candidates who will take their instructions not from some holy book, but rather from the Constitution.

Otherwise, we're no longer the America that our founders had envisioned, and we're no better than the theocratic dictatorships that we criticize.

I'm no fan of Romney either, but I hope he would stand by this statement from now on (I doubt it).