Can people really be this stoopid?

So, I was at work, and was focused on completing my charting when I overheard some techs talking about Obama.....At first I was just listening, and then when one said that "I cain't vote for him, I cain't vote for a mooslim".......I kinda chuckled and kept working on my charts....One of the nurses spoke up and said "You know that he's not a muslim, right?" The tech said, well, everything he's seen says that he's a mooslim, and then he proceeded to say "Every president we've ever had, has been a christian......our founders were all good christians". I sit there for a second, but then, not being able to bite my tongue any longer, I reply, "You do realize that Washington was not a christian, I mean he was born an Episcopalian, but renounced this later, right?"...The guy looks at me, "Well, my pastor says that all of our founders were good christian men".......I say, "Well, I'm sorry to say that your pastor is completely and utterly WRONG on this point." SO, I show him some quotes.....

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...."
-Ben Franklin

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” Benjamin Franklin Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”

“He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.”

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”

“Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist.” Benjamin Franklin, from his autobiography


“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” George Washington Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” John Adams

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” John Adams, Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

“But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.” John Adams, letters to family and other leaders 1735-1826

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.” Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

“In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” James Madison, April 1, 1774



So I show him these...and unbelievably, he says, "well, I don't think that they wrote those, and I stand by what my pastor says"......

I reply, "Well, they believed in god, just not jesus. They were deists, the closest church in current existence to their belief structure is probably the Unitarian church."

His reply..."Well, I don't believe that, and sorry, but I think you're completely wrong".

I reply, "Of course, you have empiric evidence of my fallacies?"

He's like, "Nope, I have faith in my pastor"..

Now it's no secret that I am not religious, in fact, I would venture that organized religion has been the most evil creation that man has EVER devised, and has been responsible for more pain, suffering, and death, then almost everything else combined.

BUT, I also believe in the freedom for people to believe in what they want to. My problem is when people try to distort history for personal reasons.

:mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

Amen!
What I find really difficult to believe is that people actually do believe that Obama is a Muslim.
Thanks for those quotes, too. I've only seen a couple of them before.

What scares me the most is that guy will probably vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by physasst

"well, I don't think that they wrote those, and I stand by what my pastor says"......

---

People will believe what they want to believe. I'm at work (I'll admit it) and we were just talking about a wierd situation and just brushed it off as "the customer is always right". In sales, that's the equivalent of c'est la vie or whatever... :D

He is entitled to a vote. At least he has an opinion (even though it's wrong :) ) and votes accordingly. I get to share an office with someone who won't vote because "they're all liars" yet he still has plenty of uninformed opinions about just short of everything. Come to think of it, maybe the fact that he doesn't vote isn't so bad after all... :ihih:

Interesting quotes physasst. It appears you outmatched your opponent during that debate. It does not require a huge stretch of the imagination to conclude that a majority of our founding fathers would hold religion in the regard that you eluded to.

I'm afraid that the politics over the last 8 years, and more specifically the last 2 presidential elections, and the apparent impotence of democrats despite gaining a mojority in the congress, has left a bad taste in my mouth for politics in general. I find myself alligning with Yeats' logic...."A statesman is an easy man, he tells his lies by rote.
A journalist invents his lies, and rams them down your throat.
So stay at home and drink your beer and let the neighbors vote".

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frleal70

Interesting quotes physasst. It appears you outmatched your opponent during that debate. It does not require a huge stretch of the imagination to conclude that a majority of our founding fathers would hold religion in the regard that you eluded to.

I'm afraid that the politics over the last 8 years, and more specifically the last 2 presidential elections, and the apparent impotence of democrats despite gaining a mojority in the congress, has left a bad taste in my mouth for politics in general. I find myself alligning with Yeats' logic...."A statesman is an easy man, he tells his lies by rote.
A journalist invents his lies, and rams them down your throat.
So stay at home and drink your beer and let the neighbors vote".

Cheers

---

Yeah, well, I have been pretty disgusted, as we really don't have two parties anymore......they really are singularly one. Sure, there are small differences, but essentially, they are the same. I am a huge student of colonial history, and have studied our founders/framers rather extensively....I am also a rather STRICT constitutionalist, and believe in absolute separation of church and state.

In essence, I am a proud libertarian. SO, I will be voting for Barr for president....:thumbsup:

"we really don't have two parties anymore......they really are singularly one."

Hmm, I would really like to hear you expand upon this thought.

Rick

Quote:

---

"we really don't have two parties anymore......they really are singularly one."

---

Wholeheartedly agree. A two headed monster, if you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by physasst

So, I was at work, and was focused on completing my charting when I overheard some techs talking about Obama.....At first I was just listening, and then when one said that "I cain't vote for him, I cain't vote for a mooslim".......I kinda chuckled and kept working on my charts....One of the nurses spoke up and said "You know that he's not a muslim, right?" The tech said, well, everything he's seen says that he's a mooslim, and then he proceeded to say "Every president we've ever had, has been a christian......our founders were all good christians". I sit there for a second, but then, not being able to bite my tongue any longer, I reply, "You do realize that Washington was not a christian, I mean he was born an Episcopalian, but renounced this later, right?"...The guy looks at me, "Well, my pastor says that all of our founders were good christian men".......I say, "Well, I'm sorry to say that your pastor is completely and utterly WRONG on this point." SO, I show him some quotes.....

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble...."
-Ben Franklin

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” Benjamin Franklin Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”

“He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.”

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”

“Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle’s Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist.” Benjamin Franklin, from his autobiography


“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society.” George Washington Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” John Adams

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” John Adams, Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

“But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.” John Adams, letters to family and other leaders 1735-1826

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.” Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

“In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” James Madison, April 1, 1774



So I show him these...and unbelievably, he says, "well, I don't think that they wrote those, and I stand by what my pastor says"......

I reply, "Well, they believed in god, just not jesus. They were deists, the closest church in current existence to their belief structure is probably the Unitarian church."

His reply..."Well, I don't believe that, and sorry, but I think you're completely wrong".

I reply, "Of course, you have empiric evidence of my fallacies?"

He's like, "Nope, I have faith in my pastor"..

Now it's no secret that I am not religious, in fact, I would venture that organized religion has been the most evil creation that man has EVER devised, and has been responsible for more pain, suffering, and death, then almost everything else combined.

BUT, I also believe in the freedom for people to believe in what they want to. My problem is when people try to distort history for personal reasons.

:mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

---

If it offers any solace, most Christians today aren't terribly Christian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by physasst

Now it's no secret that I am not religious, in fact, I would venture that organized religion has been the most evil creation that man has EVER devised, and has been responsible for more pain, suffering, and death, then almost everything else combined.

---

Actually, man did not devise religion. Jesus brought it to the world with His teachings. Unfortunately, man's evil ways has corrupted it and twisted it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walterick

"we really don't have two parties anymore......they really are singularly one."

Hmm, I would really like to hear you expand upon this thought.

Rick

---

Try asking someone from one of the European countries other than perhaps the UK... I was in Norway and nobody I talked to was really able to understand the hostility in our political system seeing as the two parties seem almost identical by their standards...somewhat conservative, with a few extremely minor points of contention. Together they fight for ages and ages and get nothing done.

There are many more religions than just <i>Christianity.</i>

And technically, God brought Jesus to the world, and then men created Christianity in an effort to articulate, understand, and proliferate Jesus' teachings. So no, God didn't create Christianity.

"the two parties seem almost identical by their standards...somewhat conservative, with a few extremely minor points of contention."

I am interested in this perspective, and making this point not right at you Harrison but to anyone who wants to respond.

Let's take a look:

<b>The environment</b>
Dems: save it; it is a priority
Pubs: not that important; okay to relax environmental standards

<b>The poor</b>
Dems: help them; it's the system's fault
Pubs: let them help themselves; it's the individual's fault

<b>The economy</b>
Dems: give money to poor people; the rich have enough
Pubs: give money to rich people; the poor would waste it

<b>The budget</b>
Dems: tax and spend; balance the budget
Pubs: cut taxes and spend; ignore the budget

<b>Foreign affairs</b>
Dems: create and support friendships abroad
Pubs: F'em, we're the world's greatest country

<b>Abortion/Roe v Wade</b>
Dems: yes
Pubs: no

<b>Health Care</b>
Dems: make it universal; everyone deserves it
Pubs: keep it private; you don't automatically deserve health care

<b>War in Iraq</b>
Dems: leave
Pubs: stay

even cultural issues like...
<b>Homosexuality</b>
Dems: okay
Pubs: not okay

<b>Evolution</b>
Dems: yes
Pubs: no; get it out of schools

These are some of the major hot-button issues in this country right now and though it's hard to encapsulate an entire party's position on an issue, I don't see how the parties are "the same" on any of these. Polar opposites is more like it.

So again, with examples, please help me see how Democrats and Republicans are the same.

Thanks!
Rick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walterick

"the two parties seem almost identical by their standards...somewhat conservative, with a few extremely minor points of contention."

I am interested in this perspective, and making this point not right at you Harrison but to anyone who wants to respond.

Let's take a look:

<b>The environment</b>
Dems: save it; it is a priority
Pubs: not that important; okay to relax environmental standards

<b>The poor</b>
Dems: help them; it's the system's fault
Pubs: let them help themselves; it's the individual's fault

<b>The economy</b>
Dems: give money to poor people; the rich have enough
Pubs: give money to rich people; the poor would waste it

<b>The budget</b>
Dems: tax and spend; balance the budget
Pubs: cut taxes and spend; ignore the budget

<b>Foreign affairs</b>
Dems: create and support friendships abroad
Pubs: F'em, we're the world's greatest country

<b>Abortion/Roe v Wade</b>
Dems: yes
Pubs: no

<b>Health Care</b>
Dems: make it universal; everyone deserves it
Pubs: keep it private; you don't automatically deserve health care

<b>War in Iraq</b>
Dems: leave
Pubs: stay

even cultural issues like...
<b>Homosexuality</b>
Dems: okay
Pubs: not okay

<b>Evolution</b>
Dems: yes
Pubs: no; get it out of schools

These are some of the major hot-button issues in this country right now and though it's hard to encapsulate an entire party's position on an issue, I don't see how the parties are "the same" on any of these. Polar opposites is more like it.

So again, with examples, please help me see how Democrats and Republicans are the same.

Thanks!
Rick

---

See, this is my point....Those issues to the vast majority of Americans are important, but nothing is ever really done about them. It's a shell game, biggest one in history I might add. Both major parties are corporate pawns, and are performing the biggest ruse in the history of our country. The media, OWNED by the corporations is playing right into this. Issues that really matter, Crime, education, etc. they are the same. Look at the outcomes that result of their debates. They talk a huge game, but then compromise and mostly pass through bland agendas that benefit corporations. The republicans initiated this, but the democrats have done little but chastise them in public and secretly agree, and then share in the spoils, with them in private. Their cowardice and refusal to act is a betrayal of the american public. Look at the ridiculous compromise on the telecom bill. Another example of Pelosi giving GW a reach around.

The media is not without blame here either. Why is Paul not involved or discussed in any of the debates going forward.....? What about Barr?? (WHOM, I am definitely voting for.)

It's a sham,and the worst part, is we are all to blame. It's our country, and we need to hold our leaders accountable. I think public beheadings of congressional/administration officials who violate the constitution is a good start. Perhaps placing their corpses on spikes down Washington Ave, as a warning to all others who think that they can betray the american populace.

I have a friend who doesn't even like EITHER major party candidate, when I mentioned that I was voting for Barr, he said....."why, you're throwing away your vote"...WTF????? WAKE UP PEOPLE, I merely replied that at least I had the courage to vote with my convictions. If people start demanding more, then, and only then, will change occur, and the hollow empty talk of change so popular with the Obama-ites, but REAL change.

As pertains to Jesus, Well, if there is a Jesus, which I don't believe for a second, then he has a LOT TO answer for....and I for one, will hold him accountable.

:ihih: I think the difference is that the Democrats want to take away our guns and the Republicans want to take away our cameras.! :ihih:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frog

:ihih: I think the difference is that the Democrats want to take away our guns and the Republicans want to take away our cameras.! :ihih:

---

And I want to mount a camera on my gun, and a gun on my camera. Long live libertarians :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mn shutterbug

Actually, man did not devise religion. Jesus brought it to the world with His teachings. Unfortunately, man's evil ways has corrupted it and twisted it.

---

Are you completely discounting the Old Testament (Covenant)? Personally, I find the New Testament more compelling, but a lot of it is based on the Old Testament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walterick

These are some of the major hot-button issues in this country right now ............

So again, with examples, please help me see how Democrats and Republicans are the same.

Thanks!
Rick

---

Rick, for years now we've had a political system designed such that a candidate can win the popular vote, but lose the nomination/election- thereby usurping the will of the people- and THESE are the major hot-button issues right now???

As defined by whom, I wonder. The two parties in question perhaps?

Here's a radical idea. Take every one of your "hot-button' issues, and put them to a majority vote. No superdelegates, no electorate, just good, old-fashioned will-of-the-people stuff. One person, one vote. Majority rules. Debate over. Move on to something else.

Now take this same concept, and run it by both parties. You'll begin to see the similarities.

- Joe U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medley

Rick, for years now we've had a political system designed such that a candidate can win the popular vote, but lose the nomination/election- thereby usurping the will of the people- and THESE are the major hot-button issues right now???

As defined by whom, I wonder. The two parties in question perhaps?

Here's a radical idea. Take every one of your "hot-button' issues, and put them to a majority vote. No superdelegates, no electorate, just good, old-fashioned will-of-the-people stuff. One person, one vote. Majority rules. Debate over. Move on to something else.

Now take this same concept, and run it by both parties. You'll begin to see the similarities.

- Joe U.

---

Majority rule without powerful protection of minority rights becomes, "Tyranny of the People." If we had it, it's likely that blacks would be slaves, Jews wouldn't be able to move into Christian neighborhoods, and women wouldn't be allowed to vote. The reason we have big problems with our Republic (it's not a democracy, the Greeks and Romans tried democracy with disastrous results- it almost always devolved into some form of totalitarianism) is we've abandoned one of the key principles- that only the educated be allowed to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by California L33

Majority rule without powerful protection of minority rights becomes, "Tyranny of the People." If we had it, it's likely that blacks would be slaves, Jews wouldn't be able to move into Christian neighborhoods, and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.

---

.... which is why we have the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court to interpret the issues of the day accordingly. There is still a framework within which we must operate.

- Joe U.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by California L33

The reason we have big problems with our Republic (it's not a democracy, ... is we've abandoned one of the key principles- that only the educated be allowed to vote.

---

Of course, that brings up the bigger question of "who is educated"? That's not even close to simple and will vary greatly depending upon who you talk to.

I may be wrong (imagine that!), but I believe the original vote was limited to landowners... based on wealth, not intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by California L33

Are you completely discounting the Old Testament (Covenant)? Personally, I find the New Testament more compelling, but a lot of it is based on the Old Testament.

---

You got me there. I typed before I thunk. :blush2: Thanks for clarifying.

Well, in reading Barr's platform he doesn't really address most of these concerns, he seems focused on:

1) reducing government spending and repealing the IRS
2) limiting the spying and intrusive powers of the federal government
3) closing the borders
4) returning our military to a state of "non-intervention"

With the exception of the border problem, all of Barr's goals are responses to the actions of the Bush administration. I don't know that he has an eye toward addressing crime and education, at least he doesn't mention his stance on these issues on his website. I would be wary of Barr's stance on crime given his opinion that "Big Government... The Root of all Problems." Wouldn't reducing crime mean making government bigger and more intrusive? And what would a libertarian's point of view on education be? Reforming the educational system would again require intrusiveness on the part of the federal government.

But anyway, I was addressing the false notion that the platforms of Democrats and Republicans are the same. You are arguing that despite their platforms, neither actually accomplishes much, and in this they are the same. You blame corporate interests, the media, and "compromise" on the ineffectiveness of politicians. While I would agree that campaign policies need to be changed and corporations need to be kicked out politics, do you really see compromise as a negative political skill? I wonder how anything could get done in politics without it? Unless your political party controls 51-66% of the government, getting bills passed requires compromise!

Thanks for your responses.

"Here's a radical idea. Take every one of your "hot-button' issues, and put them to a majority vote. No superdelegates, no electorate, just good, old-fashioned will-of-the-people stuff. One person, one vote. Majority rules."

Thanks for your response.

Question: How does one put the issue of say "poverty" to a popular vote? What exactly is one voting on?

Or were you referring to the notion that most people would vote that is not a hot button issue, not sure.

Thanks

Walterick et al.

Here's a great thread from one of your sister sites, where we are discussing some of this ad nauseum.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/sho...32859#poststop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by walterick

Question: How does one put the issue of say "poverty" to a popular vote? What exactly is one voting on?

Thanks

---

You accomplish this by breaking the larger issue down into smaller, manageable chunks:

* Propose a sales tax exemption card for those living under the poverty level, as defined by certain criteria (tax returns comes right to mind, but there are other ways, I'm sure).

* While on the subject of tax returns, how about a tax credit for income beneath a certain level?

There are any number of ways to go about it. But, heres the catch: anything you do for the poor is going to cost money, and that money has to come from somewhere: new tax liabilities or reduced services. The voter needs to know what the cost of the proposal is: either an average increase of X number of dollars per household, or X number FEWER dollars for little Johnny's school. Feel-good policies without funding hurt everyone in the long run.

Here's a great example from my home state. Last year in Oregon, an initiative was placed on the ballot to add a tax of about $1.00 to every pack of cigarettes, the proceeds of which went solely for children's healthcare. It seemed like a slam dunk- smokers disproportionally add to an already overburdened health care system, they are a minority voting block, and children got free or reduced cost health care.

Then taxpayers started asking questions: the amount? it's based on the projected cost of the health care, and the projected cigarette sales. Ok, but some smokers will die, and others will quit over the increased price of cigarettes. How will the loss of revenue be recouped? Well, the funding would then come from "other sources".

Yeah, the initiative was defeated. Turns out Oregon taxpayers are smarter than the government gave them credit for, and figured out for themselves what "other sources" meant.

I guess that's my whole point Rick. People aren't stupid. Every day, we do something our government can't seem to manage: we live within our means. When we don't, we become indebted, and need a plan to repay what we owe. Shouldn't our government(s) be held to the same standards? Sure, it means making some hard choices. But who better to make those choices than the people most affected by them?

Recently, Oregon has been discussing a plan to build a new bridge across the Columbia river, to ease the congestion of cars entering Washington via our interstate. 4.2 BILLION ( $4,200,000,000.00 ) dollars has already been earmarked for the construction of said bridge.

Yet the Sunday version of our state newspaper extolled about "Oregon's deteriorating infrastructure", how our highways, roads, and bridges are falling apart, and how Oregon has no money to fix them. There just no other way around it- taxpayers need to start approving those tax levies!!! But for some reason that nobody in the government can figure out, we just keep saying "no"...........

- Joe U.

If your main points are "the people should be making the decisions" and "the government needs to be financially responsible" then I suppose I agree to both. The only problem these days is not all the people have the time (or desire) to explore all the issues all the time in order to make an informed vote. In the case of your Oregon voters, if one had not heard about the "other means" clause, one would have probably still voted for the referendum.

In an ideal democracy, maybe all the major issues would be taken to the masses. In reality however, we don't have the time to research every nuance of every issue, so we vote for a woman or a man to go and sit in Washington for us and spend their days researching and exploring these issues, and then voting in our name. This is perhaps the truest sense of "representation." Is your representative always going to vote consistently in your favor? No, and that is one of the ethical dilemmas representatives face - do I vote my constituency, or vote my conscious?

This is a funky political system, wrought with problems and infiltrations on the part of the private sector (major corporations, namely perhaps big oil and pharma) but I can't see that it could be any other way. So many Americans make their political decisions based on the most effective tv add or what their minister said (!) or what they hear on talk radio. Is taking a vote to an uneducated democracy the better choice?

There are ways to make your vote heard, however. Raise your voice and those voices around you by writing letters to your representatives, creating petitions (I am doing one right now) participating in public polls when they call, and by all means VOTE!! (I know this is not directed at you.) Your representatives will listen. There are many examples in recent history of voters rising up and ousting long-term incumbents. That is the power of the vote :D

I have corrected way too many times people who think Barack is a muslim, silliness..

Yes the political system is rather a 2 headed monster as someone put it. But there are still important differences between the two major candidates. The leader still also does have an impact on the economy - and that is an agenda that even the most poor people in the country can agree with the major corporations - a good economy is good for everybody. The biggest problem as I see it is that the Israel lobby dominates and controls American politics and journalism. Ron Paul was the only candidate whos lips weren't affixed to the ass end of Israel, and I think this was the primary reason that mainstream media tried so hard to suppress and marginalize him.

As far as the whole Jesus thing - lol, wow. I am actually into theology and researching the varying religious methodologies. I started with Buddhism, and I still practice; though not exclusively - my preferred methodology falls most in line with the Mahayana traditions. I also however, have found Jesus to be very much a western incarnation of Buddha, the similarities are profound and abundant - but the culture, orthodoxy, tradition and practice as we see it today are VERY different. When I see "unbelievers" I am inclined to express an important reality about the Bible - it is a MYSTICAL book, and must be understood as a mystic would. It is not something cut and dry, and the language of it makes any literal interpretation silly utter nonsense. The only way that anyone should approach reading it must be with a mystical comprehension.

Having said that, I do have an appreciation for the frustration many atheists have with modern Christian culture. I share the frustration with you - it is insipid and insane to demand that the entire universe was manufactured in a perfect yet sentient entities oven. It is also equally insane to suppose that judgment is determined by whether or not you submit your will to the modern (and insane) Christian orthodoxies and culture, and highly deluded to think that anybody can hold some exclusivity over 'God'. Please just understand, Jesus was an incredibly awesome man, brilliant, deep, and truthful. There is no other *MAN* in recorded history of the western world whom I admire or respect more than he. I think the best way to understand the historical Jesus is to investigate the other non-canonized Gospels, epistles, and apocrypha, and to understand the fall and the problem with todays Christianity one needs to understand the religious movement of the first few centuries AD, and the culmination of the Apostles and so-called Saints such as Iraneus, and the problems of the Nicene Council and the universalization of Christianity. Christianity was not established to become a state religion, and this is the biggest problem I have found with its genealogy. The Thomas Gospel is incredibly profound - I have even found many Atheists who were very fond of it. link

There is also a sharp contrast between St Paul and Jesus, despite their being presented as being in unison. St Paul had a very different ministry and theology than Jesus, and 98% of modern Christians are actually more aligned with Paul than Jesus. That whole "believe or else", and "Jesus is the only way" crap - all from the pompous lips of that self-righteous moron...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

St Paul had a very different ministry and theology than Jesus, and 98% of modern Christians are actually more aligned with Paul than Jesus. That whole "believe or else", and "Jesus is the only way" crap - all from the pompous lips of that self-righteous moron...

---

Maybe you missed John 14:6 in your studies? "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"


The only other thing I have to say, regarding the original post, is that even a cursory study of early America yields the obvious influence of the Christian religion on our country. It most certainly was NOT designed to be a "Christian Nation" in the same sense as England, wherein the government and church were the same. However, nor was it designed to be seen, as many interpret it today, as meaning that government (and those in it) should never have anything to do with religion at all, in effect an "atheistic" administration. If you're debating where that line should be drawn today, that's quite reasonable. Has every president we've had been a "Christian?" Not if you ask me, but they may all have checked that box in a survey. My only point is that the influence of Christianity on our nations runs deep, and frankly we should all be quite glad, because the roots of equality, freedom, and individuality were drawn therefrom by the people who created this country. As to exactly what extent those men personally believed in Jesus themselves isn't of much consequence to me nor the existence of the country 232 years down the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brmill26

Maybe you missed John 14:6 in your studies? "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

---

John 14 as a whole is Jesus comforting his disciples who are scared and confused. He may be revealing himself to those he's converted, but he isn't threatening. He's reassuring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brmill26

Maybe you missed John 14:6 in your studies? "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

---

No I didn't miss those in my studies, in fact I've probably spent more time studying that particular passage than any other.

You need to investigate the character of John to understand this particular perspective and portrayal. Clearly the Jesus portrayed by John is a lot different than the one portrayed by Matthew, Mark or Luke. It is also, of the 4 canonical gospels, the least historically accurate. This particular quote has also already been textually criticized as an historical fabrication (Elaine Pagels) - that the event was created and designed to solve (at the time) what was the contemporary cultural conflict in the apostleships influence on methodology. There is no reason to believe this actually came from the lips of Jesus but the mind of a divided apostleship. This particular quote more than any other in the entire gospel, notice who he's responding to? Notice the preceding context of this passage? The dinner, the 'place' which Jesus is making for his apostles, and the 'way' which Thomas was confused about? It was an intellectual response to the methedology of Thomasine Christians, a significantly more mystical apostleship and a more gnostic philosophy. This was the way John rebuked the Thomasine Christians practice, and he threw out all ambiguity by making Thomas the confused apostle, there was clearly an ambition there. Again, I don't know how familiar you are with history - it sounds weird but you will understand it with some background on first century Christianity.

However none of that even matters, because look at the qualifiers in the sentance he allegedly stated, it is not the self-exalted rhetoric that you hear from Paul, its a deeper and more mystical expression then that. I love the mysticism of John and his gospel, but it seems he likes to hide his mysticism in the closet behind dry sacrament and tradition. Did you know the words "I am" appeared tens of times in the Gospel of John, and never in any other Gospel?

Please don't assume I'm carrying the same Theology of the likes of Hank Hanegraaf or James Dobson or the sorts, if thats theology then I am as atheist as they come.

Quote:

---

his particular quote has also already been textually criticized as an historical fabrication (Elaine Pagels) - that the event was created and designed to solve (at the time) what was the contemporary cultural conflict in the apostleships influence on methodology.

---

Apparently, stoopidity (or are we really talking about naivity and ignorance?) is not limited to just Christians. Elaine Pagels is about as much a scholar as some of our founding fathers were Christians:

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43736

Though I am not Catholic, I concur with the writer's assessment regarding the validity (or rather the lack thereof) of Pagel's alleged historical "scholarship."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schrackman

Apparently, stoopidity (or are we really talking about naivity and ignorance?) is not limited to just Christians. Elaine Pagels is about as much a scholar as some of our founding fathers were Christians:

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=43736

Though I am not Catholic, I concur with the writer's assessment regarding the validity (or rather the lack thereof) of Pagel's alleged historical "scholarship."

---

Hi dumbass! Thanks for calling me stupid, ignorant, and naive. I guess earning a PHD at Harvard, having 3 of the largest global foundations and fellowships offer 6-7 figure grants for your work, and earning a chair as the professor of religious studies at an Ivy League school (Princeton) doesn't qualify one as a "scholar". What criteria do you hold to call someone a scholar then? Please, do tell, I thought being faculty at Ivy League was about as good as it gets, but apparently there is something starkly wrong about my understanding, please, do tell.

Now, perhaps you wish to challenge my statements? Do you understand the methodological conflicts of theological practice of the first century? Second, third, or fourth century? Do you understand their spiraling rammifications? Are you familiar with the empirical textual criticisms applied to the written gospels? To the sectarian orthodoxies, to their brutal "unification" in the dark ages? Try me. Or, apologize for being a snotty brat.

Hopefully you can debate, throwing out more articles on Pagels published from a Catholic source. Objective! Good show!

I'm sorry I just have to reitterate, I'm just blown away. Pagels has been one of the most revolutionary and successful scholars of the 20th/21st century, even one of the most revolutionary scholars of the Christian culture. Having maintained such objectivity as to go against the grain of conformity and even the Catholic church, her pursuit of truth and knowledge cut through any and all cultural barriers. The Nag Hammadi Library was the greatest discovery of the Christian culture since Jesus - and she has done the most work and exposition on it. For you to call her "not a scholar" is conceit of such epic proportions that I can't even begin to describe the fallacy of your assertion. Please, I am offended that someone like you can be so ignorantly proud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Hi dumbass!

---

Ah, now that's quite an intellectual response there.

Quote:

---

Thanks for calling me stupid, ignorant, and naive.

---

I didn't call you stupid, ignorant or naive. I merely intimated that such things are not limited to Christians but to anyone who is not careful to check out the facts for themselves. If that applies to you, or anyone else, well, what can I say?

Quote:

---

I guess earning a PHD at Harvard, having 3 of the largest global foundations and fellowships offer 6-7 figure grants for your work, and earning a chair as the professor of religious studies at an Ivy League school (Princeton) doesn't qualify one as a "scholar". What criteria do you hold to call someone a scholar then? Please, do tell, I thought being faculty at Ivy League was about as good as it gets, but apparently there is something starkly wrong about my understanding, please, do tell.

---

Pagels' achievements do not make her infallible, nor more trustworthy than the scheister down the street. She's human and subject to character flaws just like anybody else. The writer in the link I provided put forth a good case to question her scholarship. But like those Christians who decided to believe their pastor regardless of the facts, you seem to believe Pagel regardless of whatever facts are brought against her, presumably under the guise of "bias" (as if Pagels–or you for that matter–doesn't have any of her own biases).

Quote:

---

Now, perhaps you wish to challenge my statements? Do you understand the methodological conflicts of theological practice of the first century? Second, third, or fourth century? Do you understand their spiraling rammifications? Are you familiar with the empirical textual criticisms applied to the written gospels? To the sectarian orthodoxies, to their brutal "unification" in the dark ages? Try me. Or, apologize for being a snotty brat.

---

Sorry, but I've realized long ago that debating such things is a waste of time with people who choose to regularly employ ad hominems, simply because they have already demonstrated a complete lack of respect for their opponents and aren't likely to change anytime soon just for little 'ol me.

Have a great day.

Elaine Pagels is my favorite contemporary scholar. I have read into all of her works and have been profoundly impacted and awakened by her historical and biblical discoveries. Here is something that you don't find out watching Fox News. The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of lost scripture was discovered in Egypt in 1945. The texts easily outweigh the current New Testament in sheer vollume, and the find is the most profound since the 1st century..

She has also done some of the most progressive scholastic works and has contributed to the most important scientific communities and media cultures on the exposition of the Nag Hammadi, shes a regular on the history channel, the discovery channel, and national geographic. For you to call her posture into question!? In light of all that is factual, in light of all that is true, you dare to condescend to her stature? Who, then, are you to look down on such a profound person? Then you post some snot nosed link to a catholic church propoganda mill? Have you no self-respect?

And I am regularly employing ad hominem because you need to find your place in the food chain. You're talking about someone whos found a chair on Princeton Faculty as if she was some suburban 2nd grade school teacher. Show some respect.

Your retorts sound like the Freshmen of a high school debate class... The schiester down the street? Youre a coward, you know that. You call her the 'schiester down the street'. History will speak vollumes of her for centuries, even millenia if the human race lasts as long. What have you done with your life? Eat your popcorn and watch and eat all the pop-culture crap you can have, carry those ideas you've been spoon fed from birth, the TV is your friend.

By the way, I don't mind your calling me an idiot, ignorant or naive. Thats just playground fun. I took offense to your pompous attitude towards Pagels. If you actually have some misunderstandings of Elaine Pagels works, become the scientist and read her scientifically. Don't read her with the Catholic or Christian stigma, read her as a scientist. Clearly you're opinion about her is just another trendy, misinformed, uneducated page of regressive popular culture. Care to challenge? State any hypothesis surrounding the Nag Hammadi Library and the works of the New Testament, and I will take you to school. I'll follow rules of manners and avoid personal attacks, I don't need any to demolish what little argument you have for your position.

Try me? Or recognize that you might be just a bit too misinformed for your own good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

Elaine Pagels is my favorite contemporary scholar….She has also done some of the most progressive scholastic works and has contributed to the most important scientific communities and media cultures on the exposition of the Nag Hammadi, shes a regular on the history channel, the discovery channel, and national geographic. For you to call her posture into question!? In light of all that is factual, in light of all that is true, you dare to condescend to her stature? Who, then, are you to look down on such a profound person? Then you post some snot nosed link to a catholic church propoganda mill? Have you no self-respect?

---

Good grief. I think you’ve read so much of Pagels you’re starting to sound like the self-congratulatory Yale elites themselves. Here’s a good read should you dare come down from that lofty cloud upon which you’re riding: http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su...resiewicz.html

Quote:

---

And I am regularly employing ad hominem because you need to find your place in the food chain.

---

No, you employ ad hominem simply because you’re rude.

Quote:

---

Your retorts sound like the Freshmen of a high school debate class...The schiester down the street? You’re a coward, you know that. You call her the 'schiester down the street'.

---

This is the second time you’ve failed to read my reply correctly. If you continuously misconstrue what I say, what makes you think you can assure me of an honest debate?

Now, to correct you (that is, if it’s even possible), I did not call Pagels a scheister. I simply stated her achievements cannot be taken as conclusive that she is any more honest a scholar than the scheister down the street. For this one must examine her writings and the references she utilizes to back up what she says. The writer I linked you to did just that and found her wanting as a scholar. It’s up to you to read it and honestly compare the counter argument he makes for your own benefit, not mine.

Quote:

---

State any hypothesis surrounding the Nag Hammadi Library and the works of the New Testament, and I will take you to school. I'll follow rules of manners and avoid personal attacks….

---

Listen to yourself…“I’ll take you to school.” Are you really that full of yourself? You couldn’t even follow the rules of manners and avoid personal attacks in just a few posts, and you honestly believe you’ll behave in a debate? I think I’ve had enough of your kind of “schooling.”

Do yourself a favor and give that link a good read. And have yourself a great night.

This discussion needs to have all personal attacks removed

<font size=5>IMMEDIATELY.<font size=2>

I am not taking sides but all personal insults and attacks must cease immediately. This is a heated subject but you CANNOT insult another poster in this thread or any other. I am bringing this to the attention of Photo-John and he will take any action he sees fit from here on out.

So please, let's argue professionally and CUT THE NAME CALLING!!

Rick

I am jumping in here to back Rick up on this. I have provided the Off-Topic foroum so that there's a place to discuss this stuff. However, personal attacks or insults will not be tolerated. Anyone who can't keep it civil will have their posts removed and I may decide to close this thread. Rational, respectful discussion is encouraged. But name-calling or any type of mud-slinging are unacceptable.

Thanks for understanding, cooperating, and playing nice :)

You guys are right. I apologize on my part.