| Author |
Message |
    
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 7006
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 07:49 pm: | 
|
" In an interview posted online Wednesday, Sarah Palin told Dr. James Dobson of “Focus on the Family” that she is confident God will do “the right thing for America” on Nov. 4.
Dobson asked the vice presidential hopeful if she is concerned about John McCain’s sagging poll numbers, but Palin stressed that she was “not discouraged at all.”
“To me, it motivates us, makes us work that much harder,” she told the influential Christian leader, whose radio show reaches millions of listeners daily. “And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”"
So, just suppose McCain and Palin lose....will she still say God did the right thing? Or will she say God screwed up? |
Keith M Williams
Member
Username: Grok
Post Number: 237
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 08:43 pm: |
|
She will say God is punishing us for our wicked ways. God has a plan. God is never wrong. In her world, the future is already written and we are just spectators. She is campaigning to spread the word, not change anyone’s mind.
I personally lean towards free will and karma.
(Message edited by grok on October 22, 2008) |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6039
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 09:01 pm: |
|
Our neighbor has a dog named Karma. "Good Karma / bad Karma" |
Keith M Williams
Member
Username: Grok
Post Number: 239
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 09:08 pm: |
|
My karma ran over my dogma.  |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1959
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 09:24 pm: |
|
I wonder if you guys would be so snarky if the chosen one ever mentions God. (unless it is to damn America)
When did it become a liberal tenent to shun God and religion? Is athiesm a pre-requisite to join the Democrat party? |
Steve Pierson
Intermediate Member
Username: Stevepierson
Post Number: 391
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 09:49 pm: |
|
I am a independent political conservative. I was raised as a Catholic, and now I lean toward agnosticism. I don't think that a belief in God is a requirement to join any political party.
At least I hope not ... |
Dirk Beer
New Member
Username: Rdbeer
Post Number: 20
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 09:56 pm: |
|
It's a liberal tenet to shun people who would like to establish state-sponsored religion.
It's a liberal tenet to think for yourself, rationally, instead of blindly believing.
Regarding that quote, my first thought was that maybe she actually believes "the chosen one" is a fellow American who would be a good choice for President. On the liberal side, I think there are probably a fair number of disciples of the chosen one who think McCain would be a decent President (even if he is not their first choice). |
Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett
Post Number: 1849
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 01:45 am: |
|
> When did it become a liberal tenent to shun God and religion? Is athiesm a pre-requisite to join the Democrat party?
I'm almost speechless. Bob, you really must not pay much attention to anything which does not reinforce your pre-existing world view.
Obama talks often and openly about his faith. We know exactly which church he belongs to, who his preacher was and is, and how frequently he has attended services.
Biden is a lifelong Roman Catholic. He is a regular church-goer and always has been. He nearly lost his faith when his first wife and daughter died and has written in detail about his slow return to faith a few years later.
For that matter, Bill Clinton also spoke often about his faith. He regularly attended services and backed faith-based initiatives for dispensing social services.
In contrast, McCain isn't sure which denomination he belongs to, does not attend church regularly, and almost never talks about his faith. One of his biggest obstacles early in the primaries was his difficult relationship with evangelicals.
So, now, which party embraces faith more openly? |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 9387
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 02:06 am: |
|
Indeed one of the reasons McCain chose Palin as his running mate was to appeal to and shore up his support with evangelicals. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1961
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 02:12 am: |
|
"Obama talks often and openly about his faith. We know exactly which church he belongs to, who his preacher was and is, and how frequently he has attended services."
And knowing all that, Sarah Palin still gets painted as a kook for mentioning her faith? That's rich!
And Biden is forbidden from taking communion at his own church as his views on abortion run counter to their teachings.
And Paul, you have said nothing to defend Palin against the attacks on her faith by Denny, Keith, & Dan so your words ring hollow. |
Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu
Post Number: 2031
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 02:13 am: |
|
So then why does the media and the left mock anyone from the right when they are open about their faith? Shouldn't they be mocking the Dems that are open about their faith as well??
Palin says she believe God will guide her in her political career and gets mocked for it. Obama says he uses his faith to guide him in everything he does and he gets credited for being a wholesome church-going man.
Nah, there's no double standard there.  |
Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley
Post Number: 5630
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 04:23 am: |
|
Now, how about those losing Dallas Cowboys?
"Owie....my pinkie hurts."
Sarah Palin is a kook, BTW. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1962
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 11:33 am: |
|
Very insightful Chumbucket. |
Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett
Post Number: 1850
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 11:34 am: |
|
See, now that's the problem with trying to have a real discussion with Bob. He tosses out a polemic so patently untrue, uninformed, and unsubstantiated that it is difficult to tell if he's being satirical or moronic. Someone takes the time and trouble to point out that the most cursory review of the facts shows the statement to be a farce. But, instead of saying, "Okay, maybe my statement was slightly off the mark.", he just changes the subject. "You're not defending Palin! The Catholic Church is hard on dissenters!" There's no hope of any substantive engagement over ideas.
In this particular context, I feel no need to defend Palin, Bob, nor to condemn those, either here or in the press, who mock her, nor to open a discussion on the way the Catholic Church handles dissenting thought. My only intent was to show how patently moronic your statement was and to urge you to get your head out of the conservative echo chamber once in a while. |
Phil Lapp
Junior Member
Username: Phil_lapp
Post Number: 72
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 11:34 am: |
|
Can we agree that not all religion is the same? Obama, Biden, McCain, and Palin all come from very different traditions. Perhaps the only commonality is the name Christian. Outside of that, I don't know that someone from another planet would even know they believe in the same God. So, why is it that we care about this at all, except that this sort of thing tends to shape the person broader view of things.
For me, I will gladly take the liberation theologist who thinks that we need to help the underdog and work for justice for the oppressed. I think the Assembly of God type, who thinks we are living in the end times, only 6K years after it all started, is not someone that I want with their finger on the button. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1963
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 12:16 pm: |
|
"I will gladly take the liberation theologist who thinks that we need to help the underdog and work for justice for the oppressed"
Phil, are you aware of the origins of Liberation Theology? Are you saying that you are basically a Marxist? |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6044
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Gee Bob, I just hope that the killing fields are not too close to my house. That could smell real bad! |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1964
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Paul, you obviously are unable to detect when I am saying something tongue-in-cheek. Of course there are Christians in the Democrat party. The problem with Democrats is they have let the radicals and athiests take the wheel much like the Republicans have let the fundamentalists take theirs.
Mike hit the issue squarely on the nuts:
Democratic Christian = wholesome & pure
Republican Christian = apocalyptic kook zealot
It is this double standard that is the core of the issue. I find it interesting you only attack me for defending Sarah Palin while you are blind to the hypocrisy of the attack from Denny.
But we can all rest easy as the "Chosen One" is only days away from stealing the election with his Acorn votes. Obama will change the world and send all the bad people to the corn-field. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1965
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Dan, pull your head out of your ass and take 5 minutes to research the origins of Liberation Theology, and Black Liberation Theology in particular. But if you prefer to be an ignorant fool, you are free to continue on your course. |
Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett
Post Number: 1851
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Sure, Bob. It was just tongue-in-cheek. Uh-huh. Looking back at the post now, I can see that. Sure.
Stay at your post and fight once in a while. Just tossing firebombs and running away starts to look cowardly. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1966
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 01:07 pm: |
|
Ok how about I re-phrase it to take the elements of truth and get them out there.
I said "When did it become a liberal tenent to shun God and religion? Is athiesm a pre-requisite to join the Democrat party?"
The first question "When did it become a liberal tenent to shun God and religion?" has an element of truth as reflected by hordes of loony liberals mocking Conservative Christians and painting them with a broad brush, calling them "Fundies" and other disparaging names. In the Liberal world view, a Conservative Christian is more threatening than a Taliban/Al Quadeda Islamist Fundamentalist.
The second question, "Is athiesm a pre-requisite to join the Democrat party? was rhetorical and tongue in cheek.
I am back in my fox-hole Paul. |
Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett
Post Number: 1852
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 01:18 pm: |
|
To further a discussion of actual ideas, let's examine the statement:
The problem with Democrats is they have let the radicals and athiests take the wheel much like the Republicans have let the fundamentalists take theirs.
Until quite recently, this was strongly true. (See how easy it is to acknowledge when the other side is right?) One of the biggest mistakes the Dems made with the American electorate was to become so anti-religion. It alienated an enormous swath of centrists who disliked the intolerance or the hard right but couldn't stomach the antipathy which the Dems showed to their beliefs. The Dems reaped the benefits in election after election.
However, the Dems learned their lesson and have moved faith into the center of their platform. The change started about 4 years ago and was helpful in flipping Congress in '06. It has become one of the main stories of this electoral cycle, both at Presidential and Congressional level. The MSM covered it extensively before the economic mess crowded everything else off the front page. Only the conservative punditocracy, wedded to their simplistic views of the world, seemed to have missed this important story.
On the Republican side, the story is changing in the opposite way. With McCain's nomination, the fundamentalists nearly lost all control of the GOP. Their funk, and the likelihood that they would sit out the election, was one of the biggest stories in the MSM all spring. With the choice of Palin for VP, they are back in the fold. But their power is diminished. If McCain loses, there will be a battle within the GOP over whether it should remain the party of the fundamentalists or not, with no clear indication at the moment which side would win. Again, the MSM is all over this story.
So, the statement, while once quite true, is now out of date. Reality is more nuanced and fluid than the standard polemical "truisms". The conservative pundits will eventually catch up, but, for now, their clocks are a couple of years slow. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6045
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 01:33 pm: |
|
"Paul, you obviously are unable to detect when I am saying something tongue-in-cheek."
"Dan, pull your head out of your ass"
Uh huh?
Our youngest has been messing around with black smithing. I can't wait to start up my "Great Leap Forward" backyard smelter! I hope that I won't have to give up my homing pigeons or my books.
Did you know that National Homebrew Day sometimes falls on May Day? Won't that be something! |
Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 01:48 pm: |
|
The first question "When did it become a liberal tenent to shun God and religion?" has an element of truth as reflected by hordes of loony liberals mocking Conservative Christians and painting them with a broad brush, calling them "Fundies" and other disparaging names. In the Liberal world view, a Conservative Christian is more threatening than a Taliban/Al Quadeda Islamist Fundamentalist.
I'd say that it became a liberal tenet to shun God and religion around 1980, just around the time of Reagan's rise, although it has older roots. (See, once again I am conceding a point -- it is quite true that liberal orthodoxy was anti-religious for a couple of decades.) Certainly no earlier. It is interesting to look back at the anti-Vietnam War movement and see just how openly religious it was and how much backing it had from the churches themselves. It's hard to imagine now how much of the modern Left was born in church basements during coffee hour.
There truly has been too much mocking of conservative Christians by the Left. No question there. It is offensive and counter-productive. The only nuance I would add is that much of it relates to a perception that the Fundamentalists are willfully ignorant, anti-intellectual, and anti-learning, rejecting facts or logic which contradict their faith. Nothing enrages an intellectual more than an anti-intellectual. The evolution vs creationism fight is the central story, but it is broader than that. The movement that once produced Alan Bloom and Bill Bennett, true champions of intellectual rigor and educational excellence, now glorifies a kid who is leaving high school to get a job because he knocked up his girlfriend. No need for the extended family to rally around and make sure that he can finish school. Who needs a diploma?
Lastly, I have to say that the "Fundie vs. Taliban" thing is a complete straw man. Most lefties abhor violence of any sort and, particularly, violence against women. They are no friends of the Taliban. If anything, they damn the hard-core Christian literalists as being "Christian Taliban", expressing their contempt for both. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1967
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 02:10 pm: |
|
Paul,
While you make a good argument that the Democrats had turned away from their Christian roots and have made efforts to reverse this course, I think it is too little too late, and purely political.
For 20 years the Democratic candidate for President has sat in the pews of a church that espouses and promulgates Black Liberation Theology. A belief system that has it's roots in Marxism and the Communist revolution in Cuba in the 50's & 60's.
The fact that Democrats seem to have recently "got religion" can understandably be seen askance by those who are not faking it with a fake religion for political gain. |
Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 02:28 pm: |
|
Now I can't stop thinking about the historical shifts in the liberal and conservative movements.
Back when I was in college, at my oh-so-PC, East Coast, ultra-elitist, left-wing alma mater, the eggheads were still in control of the conservative movement. Bill Buckley, Alan Bloom, etc. were leading the charge against the hard left. Their main argument was not that the left wing had become morally bankrupt (that came later) but that it was intellectually bankrupt.
And conservative eggheads were right. The lefties I had to deal with in the philosophy, sociology, and women's studies departments (the school required even physics majors like me to take classes in other areas) were intellectual frauds and cowards. Facts and thoughts which contradicted liberal orthodoxy were rigorously purged, as were inconvenient thinkers.
The conversion of the American conservative movement into the pre-eminent anti-intellectual force happened later. I'm not sure I can put a date on it, but it was more or less co-incident with the consolidation of the hard-core Christian literalists' power within the GOP. The recent expulsion of Bill Buckley Jr from the conservative movement may be the final move in that chess game.
[Amusing ironies abound. My my oh-so-PC, East Coast, ultra-elitist, left-wing alma mater was originally a seminary and was run by Puritan churchmen for more than 100 years. It still retains a divinity school, and all of its charity outreach is run through the (Protestant) Chaplain's Office. The Catholic church on campus was strongly involved in anti-Vietnam War movement and the housing of Black Panthers during the Bobby Seale trial. Today (well, this past spring), the Divinity School hosted a huge gabfest between Christians and moderate Muslims, including several of the top leaders in American Evangelicalism, specifically as a counterweight to the Taliban and Muslim fundamentalism. Life is just too complex to fit into simple boxes.] |
Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett
Post Number: 1855
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 02:33 pm: |
|
...not faking it with a fake religion...
I think I missed a step in the login there. What makes their religion "fake"? |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6046
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 02:45 pm: |
|
Paul, their religion is "fake" because they are Democrats. Isn't that obvious? |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1968
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 03:23 pm: |
|
I am referring to Liberation Theology. It is simply Marxism made to appear like Christianity. Smoke and mirrors, pot-pourri, and political pixie dust. |
Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett
Post Number: 1856
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 03:42 pm: |
|
Um, okay. I'll bite.
Just for the sake of argument, I'll go with your definition (although I reserve the right to question its substance later) and that it is the sum total of Obama's faith (ditto, especially since he seems to me like a genuinely prayerful Christian). How do you make the jump to the broad-brush statement that all apparently-religious Democrats belong to "fake religions"? Is Roman Catholicism fake? Bill Clinton's Baptist denomination? My Quaker meeting contains some local Democratic political aspirants -- is Quakerism fake?
You have, quite rightly, admonished some left-wingers for making overly broad negative statements about religious right-wingers. Aren't you engaging in the same thing here? |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6047
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 03:44 pm: |
|
Marx did the world a great favor when he observed, correctly in my opinion, that religion is the opiate of the masses. Without that statement, there would have been no stopping world wide communism. I can imagine few things more potent than the combination of religion and communism - stripped of its anti-religious stand. I offer as an example, the Dark Ages.
(Message edited by listermann on October 23, 2008) |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1970
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 04:28 pm: |
|
Again Paul, I am referring to Liberation Theology and the church that the "Anointed One" attends. Sorry if it sounds like I was painting all Democrats with the brush intended for Obama, Reverend Wright, and James Cone. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1971
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 05:12 pm: |
|
 |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 7007
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 05:18 pm: |
|
Bob, if you see that as an attack on her faith, I really don't know what to say. I don't do stuff like that, and you don't know me well enough to accuse me of it. It was a very honest, straightforward question. I was passing no judgments. I'm sorry that you have such preconceived notions that you can't even recognize an honest question.
(Message edited by denny on October 23, 2008) |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1972
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 05:26 pm: |
|
Cut the crap Conn. The whole point of you posing that question was a jab at her faith. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 7008
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 05:32 pm: |
|
Man, you're HOPELESS! Like I said, I don't do that •••• and YOU don't know me well enough to accuse me of it! If you see everything that disagrees with your point of view as an attack, then there's absolutely no point in trying to hold a civil discussion with you. I was seriously trying to understand how she'd view things if they didn't work out like she thought they would. Maybe you should hold the name calling until you can get a real understanding of interaction with other people. |
Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley
Post Number: 5634
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 06:24 pm: |
|
I agree with Denny re: Bob Wall is hopeless.
Fortunately, the time draw nears where HOPE and CHANGE take back this country!  |
Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 06:34 pm: |
|
Okay. So, let me get this straight. You didn't really mean what you clearly said about Democrats and their religions just as earlier in the thread the stuff you said about Democrats and atheism was all just a joke. Or most of it. Kinda.
I'm confused. Just what ARE you saying, then?
And, if you are just going to say later that you don't really mean it, should we bother listening? |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1973
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 06:47 pm: |
|
Ok Denny, If I am so off-base, then why did you pose the question?
What was the intended purpose?
What was the response you were looking for?
I have a hard time believing you were simply curious about Palin's thought process. From my perspective, you loaded your question in a provocative manner. Are you this curious about how Obama filters his successes and failures through his religious prism? |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 9392
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 06:53 pm: |
|
Politics aside, I respect all of the candidates' expressions of their faith. My interpretation is that Denny's post focuses on those, including Sarah Palin, who seem to feel that God will somehow intervene in human affairs to effect the "right" (again moral rather than political) course of events. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1975
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 07:09 pm: |
|
Thanks Bill, but I'd have preferred if Denny had answered the questions himself. |
davidw
Senior Member
Username: Davidw
Post Number: 1881
Registered: 03-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 07:11 pm: |
|
To answer your question Denny, she will most certainly think that God did the right thing. Now, she likely won't say that in public where the media can have their fun with it; but as a Christian she'll realize that even when we have our own desires and wishes God's answer is often times "No" or "Not right now". The premise being that things happen in Gods time, not when we want them to transpire. Might take her a while to accept it, but that's human nature, selfish beings that we are. |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 9393
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 07:31 pm: |
|
"With God On Our Side"
Oh my name it is nothin'
My age it means less
The country I come from
Is called the Midwest
I's taught and brought up there
The laws to abide
And that land that I live in
Has God on its side.
Oh the history books tell it
They tell it so well
The cavalries charged
The Indians fell
The cavalries charged
The Indians died
Oh the country was young
With God on its side.
Oh the Spanish-American
War had its day
And the Civil War too
Was soon laid away
And the names of the heroes
I's made to memorize
With guns in their hands
And God on their side.
Oh the First World War, boys
It closed out its fate
The reason for fighting
I never got straight
But I learned to accept it
Accept it with pride
For you don't count the dead
When God's on your side.
When the Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side.
I've learned to hate Russians
All through my whole life
If another war starts
It's them we must fight
To hate them and fear them
To run and to hide
And accept it all bravely
With God on my side.
But now we got weapons
Of the chemical dust
If fire them we're forced to
Then fire them we must
One push of the button
And a shot the world wide
And you never ask questions
When God's on your side.
In a many dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ
Was betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.
So now as I'm leavin'
I'm weary as Hell
The confusion I'm feelin'
Ain't no tongue can tell
The words fill my head
And fall to the floor
If God's on our side
He'll stop the next war.
-- Bob Dylan
Copyright ©1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 7009
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 09:16 pm: |
|
Bob, davidw is the only one who has addressed the question I was asking. It's a phenomenon that fascinates me. Maybe if I put it in a different context it will be more clear to you....let's look at the war in Iraq. I've heard the president and many others state that God is on our side there. But obviously, the people we're fighting feel that God is on their side. One side or the other is going to lose. How does the losing side feel about the fact that God didn't "do the right thing"? THAT was the context of that question, and I think it was clear from the beginning. You apparently feel so defensive that you look at it completely differently. You didn't give me the benefit of the doubt that you _might_ have been wrong. Why is that? You didn't even try to understand what I was getting at, and when I tried to tell you that you were off base, you insulted me. That's what the problem is with discourse these days, on BOTH sides of the political aisle. People are SO ready to be offended and believe that their beliefs are the ONLY correct ones, that simple decency and consideration have gone by the wayside.
I hope that you can understand that explanation. I await your apology. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6051
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 09:24 pm: |
|
Mysterious ways . . . . |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1976
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 10:12 pm: |
|
Denny,
I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I took the whole premise of posing the question as a dig at people of faith. Sorry if I offended you, but I was feeling piled on and lashed out. You took the brunt.
Sometimes we say things online we'd never say to someone's face. The one exception to this follows:
Bite me Listermann. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 7011
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 11:04 pm: |
|
Thanks, Bob...apology gladly accepted. I understand why you did it, but I hope we both learned something here. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6052
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 11:18 pm: |
|
Thanks Bob! |
Dirk Beer
New Member
Username: Rdbeer
Post Number: 21
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 11:30 pm: |
|
Maybe she really does think that God is doing the right thing, even if Obama is elected, because she thinks Obama is a decent choice. Am I being naive?
I guess that would mean she has been incredibly dishonest in her speeches and interviews, but she is a politician after all, and I wouldn't hold it against her that much.
Dishonest politicians are easy for me to understand, but I find it hard to believe that there are actually sane people who honestly believe that God is only on _their_ side.
I guess I'm not answering Denny's question, just attempting to deny its premise |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1977
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 11:37 pm: |
|
"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party - and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose."
--Abraham Lincoln |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6053
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 11:39 pm: |
|
How could an ostensibly sane person believe that the deity of their choice in NOT on their side? |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1978
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 12:00 am: |
|
Dan, it is not if God is on your side, it is if you are on God's side.
Hopefully, some day you will get it. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6054
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 12:06 am: |
|
How could an ostensibly sane person believe that they are not on the side of the deity of their choice? |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1979
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 12:10 am: |
|
I won't argue with an atheist about God. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 6056
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 01:47 am: |
|
Don't blame you. |
dhacker
Senior Member
Username: Dhacker
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 03:10 am: |
|
(A rare appearance by the Hackman who usually avoids these hollow debates)
Succinct and to the point . . .
The Creator does not give a rat's patootie about American politics or any earthborn government.
His master plan supercedes and eclipses anything conceived by humans, despite their fooling themselves into believing otherwise. |
Steve Pierson
Intermediate Member
Username: Stevepierson
Post Number: 392
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 04:11 am: |
|
Amen, hacker.
Some days I believe that God is a cosmic joker.
Other days I think that we are a forgotten experiment tucked away on a high shelf in the back of God's great laboratory.
It is obvious that he isn't paying much attention to what's going on around here. |
Phil Lapp
Junior Member
Username: Phil_lapp
Post Number: 73
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 11:56 am: |
|
Oh, its the AM, and hopefully the natives got some sleep. Damn, I sorry to say I have a day job, so I can't post here all day.
Bob: having gone a college that had a class titled "Marxism and Christianity," I am pretty suspect from the get go. However, it would seem to me that taking only the actions and words of Jesus, he was pretty clearly a marxist and a supporter of liberation theology. Helping the hookers, hanging with lepers, kicking the merchants out of the temple.
To Dhacker and Steve, agreed. The idea that the Creator is even remotely interested in this level of discourse is an affront to creation. Happy friday. |
Mike Huss
Senior Member
Username: Mikhu
Post Number: 2034
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 03:58 pm: |
|
Obviously God is unconcerned with politics. He's far too busy making sure NFL players score TD's.
 |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1982
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 04:10 pm: |
|
Jesus was neither a Marxist nor a Capitalist. The moment people try to assign labels to Jesus or God, they are immediately wrong.
And plenty of politicians on both sides of the aisle hang with hookers and are treated as lepers. |
Dirk Beer
New Member
Username: Rdbeer
Post Number: 22
Registered: 04-2007
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 05:11 pm: |
|
> How could an ostensibly sane person believe
> that they are not on the side of the deity of
> their choice?
I guess you have no problem understanding a Sarah Palin who is certain her party is God's party, then.
I always figured people thought of God as something greater than or outside of themselves, so it doesn't make sense to me that a believer would be certain that they are always aligned with their God. |
Paul Hayslett
Senior Member
Username: Paulhayslett
Post Number: 1863
Registered: 02-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 08:09 pm: |
|
A true believer is always attempting to be aligned with his God, while accepting that no mere human can be absolutely sure he is reading the compass correctly.
An unthinking zealot is always certain he is aligned with his God. What this mainly shows is how much he believes in himself, that he thinks himself capable of knowing God's desires with such certainty.
"The company of those who seek the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the company of those who think they've found it." -- Terry Pratchett |
Keith M Williams
Member
Username: Grok
Post Number: 243
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 24, 2008 - 08:40 pm: |
|
It took me a long time to find this.
"As long as a man knows very well the strength and weaknesses of his teaching, his art, his religion, its power is still slight. The pupil and apostle who, blinded by the authority of the master and by the piety he feels toward him, pays no attention to the weaknesses of a teaching, a religion, and soon usually has for that reason more power than the master. The influence of a man has never yet grown great without his blind pupils. To help a perception to achieve victory often means merely to unite it with stupidity so intimately that the weight of the latter also enforces the victory of the former."
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human |
World Expressions