Obama's Dimestore "Mien Kampf"

[Universe Prince]

At least you admit you've been using them. That's something anyway.

[Universe Prince]

>>Pooh yi<< For starters.

Whatever the hell that means.

It's basically, as I was made to understand it, a Cajun version of "oy" or "oy vey". I'm not Cajun, but I did grow up in south Louisiana. Everyone else uses "oy". I say "pooh yi". Not sure why this is a problem.

Then there's:

>>Go right ahead. Just don't expect to eat at the adults' table any time soon.<<

Okay, that's fair. I shouldn't have said that. But before I said that, you said this: "Google is a mighty tool for the narcissist." So now we've pointed out each other making mean spirited remarks. I'm not perfect, and I said something I should not have. That said, my point in making the statement to Sirs about BT's month old comment was not that I'm perfect or that Sirs was making (as you put it) "shitty little remarks" but that I'm trying to find common ground. Context matters.

[sirs]

You couldn't be more wrong, Js       

How so?

By the ever famous pressing of a false premice, then providing quotes/facts/scripture to refute the false premice.  The false premice in this case that sirs was somehow advocating that Christians are to judge others and then to faciltate a change in behavior to fall inline as to what we judge to be right vs wrong.  If you had payed attention, you would have seen how clearly I made it that we are to judge others actions, in order to better make our OWN decisions

In other words, we indeed are obliged to judge others and their actions, and to judge what is right vs what is wrong, what is good vs what is evil, and in no way is it hippocritic to do so

[Plane]

>>I think that it's too early to say yet.  Everyone has this idea that Obama is going to take it, but if Hillary can take a couple of the remaining states (and it looks like she'll probably take PA) she'll hang on tighter.  The Clintons haven't had to suffer defeat, I doubt that they're going to do so graciously.<<

She would have to win REALLY big in the remaining contests, so to assume Obama will be the nominee, which I did, isn't any different form what the majority of people, who are supposed to know these things, are saying. So do you sill feel this way when I say Obama will be the nominee; "But hey, don't let those pesky little things called facts spoil your day," or were you just being an insufferable little prick?

Hmm?

The FACT is that the Democrats haven't nominated ANYONE yet.  The FACT is that Roosevelt was much more liberal than either Hillary or Obama ever thought of being.  Maybe you should catch on to what a FACT is, then you might not look as stupid as you usually do.

I would reply back to you about your insufferable little prick nonsense, but I really don't want to hear about your sex life (or lack thereof), no matter how infatuated you are with mine.

In what respect was FDR more radcally liberal than the modern Democratic cannadates?

[Plane]

This is a great thread , discounting the bits that are about the thread itself.

The importance of Fundamentalism is that it should be an effort to make Christianity what Christ himself would want it to be .

C.S. Lewis makes a similar point in "Mere Christianity" that a Christianity modified to a modern standard or a modified at all is adulterated Christianity the point of which is to make use of Christs appeal for purposes not found in scripture.

There is a sort of blindness anyone can suffer without being aware of it , having a thought and researching scripture , References and Google  for support of the point is getting the cart before the horse and prevents the real wisdom from being seen as the words are skimmed . Humble readers read to learn what they don't already know.


Connecting Hitler with any movement is insulting because Hitler is what Satan was , it may be true that Hitler was a vegetarian , but vegetarians don't appreciate the significance of this in a conversation about their vegetarianism. So it may be true that Hitler made use of Christian scripture when he could , but that the ultimate purpose of this use was contrary to Christ is also a truth.(Perhaps this dichotomy should be made clear?)

I had not learned much  of Hitlers useing Christian appeal before but I am not totally surprised , I don't think Jesus would be surprised either. 

Matthew 7:22-24 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

   

 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=7&verse=22&end_verse=24&version=9&context=context

[Plane]

I haven't read Mein Kampuf or Barak Obama's work either , Is there really a comparison to make or is the comparison made just to be irritateing?

I suppose I should read these , for myself , but for reasons of time budgeting I am unlikely to read the both very soon , which is more relivant to the life I lead?

[Universe Prince]

C.S. Lewis makes a similar point in "Mere Christianity" that a Christianity modified to a modern standard or a modified at all is adulterated Christianity the point of which is to make use of Christs appeal for purposes not found in scripture.

Every time I see that point made, I can't help but think of the fact that Jesus was in effect modifying the Judaism of the time because it had been modified by others. At this point, who determines what is pure Christianity and what is adulterated?

So it may be true that Hitler made use of Christian scripture when he could , but that the ultimate purpose of this use was contrary to Christ is also a truth.(Perhaps this dichotomy should be made clear?)

Should be? You mean it has not been yet? How much more explaining is needed before it becomes clear?

[Universe Prince]

I suppose I should read these , for myself , but for reasons of time budgeting I am unlikely to read the both very soon , which is more relivant to the life I lead?

I think that would much depend on the life you lead.

[Xavier_Onassis]

At this point, who determines what is pure Christianity and what is adulterated?

========================================
The leader of each and every sect and denomination knows precisely what this is: it is THEIR interpretation that is best: the others are either mistaken to some degree or outright heretical.

If Jesus had left behind a "Book of Jesus" that spelled it all out, then I imagine that we might have fewer denominations, sects and cults.

In the Jewish religion, the written word (such as the Ten Commandments, written in stone) are valued more than common spoken words. Had Jesus followed the traditions of his own religion, he would have written a Book of Jesus. But apparently, he didn't.

Mohammad was illiterate. Why would Allah choose an illiterate to write down what he said? How does that make sense?
Muslims say that Allah dictated the Suras to Mo and he had them transcribed later, and they are so perfect that this PROVES that they were Divine Words. Yeah, sure. Read it sometime. Among a few pearls of wisdom, there are a whole passel of Arab folk beliefs, wrapped up in a huge mess of gibberish. Okay, in Arabic, it rhymes. But really, so what? Does rhyming make anything true?

No, it just makes it easier to memorize. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" .

Or did OJ just have a pair of gloves that someone gave him as a gift that never fit well, and were shrunken from being all bloody? Who the Hell wears dress gloves in LA anyway?

But poetry SOUNDS truer, that much is true.


If we accept that Jesus or Mohammad were the ideal messengers of a perfect and all-knowing (meaning: He knows everything there is to know about people as well) God, then we are not thinking with a full deck.

To posit that a sinful thought I had in 2004 could be canceled out by someone enduring suffering on a cross in AD33 or thereabouts defies all logic about the nature of cause and effect. For starters, it rules out the unidirectional nature of time. The effect must always follow the cause: first, the act, then the forgiveness for said act.

You cannot fix a flat tire before it is punctured. You cannot cure the disease before it is contracted. There is also more than a bit of illogic in the concept that suffering is a good thing.

[Amianthus]

For starters, it rules out the unidirectional nature of time.

However, combining the effects of general relativity and quantum mechanics seems to indicate that time is not directional. Hawking has shown this in his works.

[Universe Prince]

If Jesus had left behind a "Book of Jesus" that spelled it all out, then I imagine that we might have fewer denominations, sects and cults.

I very seriously doubt that.

To posit that a sinful thought I had in 2004 could be canceled out by someone enduring suffering on a cross in AD33 or thereabouts defies all logic about the nature of cause and effect. For starters, it rules out the unidirectional nature of time. The effect must always follow the cause: first, the act, then the forgiveness for said act.

You are assuming many things. One of which is that God is constrained by linear time. That may not be so.

There is also more than a bit of illogic in the concept that suffering is a good thing.

The suffering wasn't the point or the end. It was the means to an end. Have you never endured something you did not like to achieve a goal you did like?

[Rich]

>>But before I said that, you said this: "Google is a mighty tool for the narcissist." So now we've pointed out each other making mean spirited remarks.<<

In my defense, that remark wasn't directed at you.

I'm willing to start over if you are.

[Universe Prince]

I'm willing to start over if you are.

Sure. I'm almost always willing to take another try at understanding.

[Plane]

C.S. Lewis makes a similar point in "Mere Christianity" that a Christianity modified to a modern standard or a modified at all is adulterated Christianity the point of which is to make use of Christs appeal for purposes not found in scripture.

Every time I see that point made, I can't help but think of the fact that Jesus was in effect modifying the Judaism of the time because it had been modified by others. At this point, who determines what is pure Christianity and what is adulterated?

If Jesus didn't have the right to expound and explain the word of God , then he was not Christ.

So it may be true that Hitler made use of Christian scripture when he could , but that the ultimate purpose of this use was contrary to Christ is also a truth.(Perhaps this dichotomy should be made clear?)

Should be? You mean it has not been yet? How much more explaining is needed before it becomes clear?

Should be early in the process made clear , like too early for the very likely misunderstanding to entrench itself. Was the origional article really makeing direct comparison between Hitler and Barak Obama? Was the point of bring ing Hitler into the conversation to measure one with the other? I hope not , so what was the purpose of bringing Hitlers use of scripture into the conversation?

It is in scripture that Satain uses scripture himsef when he can , a delightfully recursive concept.

[Plane]

You cannot fix a flat tire before it is punctured. You cannot cure the disease before it is contracted. There is also more than a bit of illogic in the concept that suffering is a good thing.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


You cannot pay next months light bill this month. You cannot vaccinate against the disease before it is contracted. There is also more than a bit of illogic in the concept that uninterupted happyness is a good thing.