| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is one a "Moderate Christian"?
There isn't a scale, you either are one or you aren't...
|
Do you have any specific issues with the article in question you would like to raise, or will you continue to make general unsubstantiated claims of bias and use various smokescreens and misdirections to divert discussion of the article?
I think I have already stated my issues with the article and the fact that it is way to long to try and use a point for point basis for disagreement on this type of forum. I just thought that a few of the posters seem to be misunderstand specific words and might need a 4th grade refresher on their meanings and usage.
What about moderate Christians that do not bleive in a literal interpreation of the bible. Are you calling them atheists?
Nope. I just believe it was easier for me to reach a conclusion (true or false) that religious figures and politicians are disingenuous and lack actual faith because I don't believe there is a God to talk to them, therefore they have not talked to God.
Hoo hoo! Controversy. Relax friends, I'm not out to convert anyone.
How is one a "Moderate Christian"?
There isn't a scale, you either are one or you aren't...
There's definitely a spectrum of beliefs that Christians hold, ranging from fundamentalism to ... hm. Humanism is it?
Anyway, his point made sense to me. I was wrong to generalize, but I defended my point... I think. Now I'm wishing I had never broken the seal on the religious debate. But it was one of the points!
Meh. Just making a point/asking a rhetorical question...
I understand that you may not want to take the time to actually refute or offer any evidence why your interpretations of the article are more accurate/reflective of reality than another's take, but in that case why remain in the thread making disparaging comments about others and generally behaving in a dour way. That doesn't seem like any fun to me.
He's a heretic! Let's burn him! ;)
|
|
You say that like being cynical is a bad thing.Well, there's skeptical and there's cynical. I'm a little bit of both. I'm not so cynical that I would pretend to believe in God in order to win an elected office. I personally believe that most heads of state and religious leaders are precisely that cynical, simply because they claim to have communicated with the god I don't believe in.
But it is all as CJ says: opinion. Still nothing in the article strikes me as all that controversial, it's mostly the angry manner in which it is written that seems to have riled people. The GOP does:
ideologically support the wealthy
support wars and military intervention
enjoy the support of increasingly-influential religious organizations I don't know anyone who would argue these points, and they're the substance of the article. Certainly the phrasing is far from neutral, and you might debate the relevance of these points to the nations problems, depending on where you stand.
More than a little skeptical myself. Belief, or even non-Belief, in G~D should have nothing to do with skill or ability in office and in this believers opinion should be a non-issue in a political debate in this country. We all know that this is not true.
There are minor issues I might quibble about in the article but that basic substance of it, no not really controversial at all.
Some of which is stereotyping, whether it is factual or not is another subject and may change depending on whom is in office at one time or another.
|
|
I understand that you may not want to take the time to actually refute or offer any evidence why your interpretations of the article are more accurate/reflective of reality than another's take, but in that case why remain in the thread making disparaging comments about others and generally behaving in a dour way. That doesn't seem like any fun to me.He's a heretic! Let's burn him! ;)
While I may make some comments because I find people confusing facts and opinions. This does not mean I am attempting to make any disparaging remarks.
|
|
What about moderate Christians that do not bleive in a literal interpreation of the bible. Are you calling them atheists?Nope. I just believe it was easier for me to reach a conclusion (true or false) that religious figures and politicians are disingenuous and lack actual faith because I don't believe there is a God to talk to them, therefore they have not talked to God.
Hoo hoo! Controversy. Relax friends, I'm not out to convert anyone.
Hah! String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. Too late - you have been converted. I win your Meagre Soul...Muwahahaha!
You say that like being cynical is a bad thing.Well, there's skeptical and there's cynical. I'm a little bit of both. I'm not so cynical that I would pretend to believe in God in order to win an elected office. I personally believe that most heads of state and religious leaders are precisely that cynical, simply because they claim to have communicated with the god I don't believe in.
But it is all as CJ says: opinion. Still nothing in the article strikes me as all that controversial, it's mostly the angry manner in which it is written that seems to have riled people. The GOP does:
ideologically support the wealthy
support wars and military intervention
enjoy the support of increasingly-influential religious organizations I don't know anyone who would argue these points, and they're the substance of the article. Certainly the phrasing is far from neutral, and you might debate the relevance of these points to the nations problems, depending on where you stand.
More than a little skeptical myself. Belief, or even non-Belief, in G~D should have nothing to do with skill or ability in office and in this believers opinion should be a non-issue in a political debate in this country. We all know that this is not true.
There are minor issues I might quibble about in the article but that basic substance of it, no not really controversial at all.
Some of which is stereotyping, whether it is factual or not is another subject and may change depending on whom is in office at one time or another.
I don't think people should run for office on how religous they are. That does not mean people do not do it.
President Obama would take heat from the right wing press if he boycotted the national prayer breakfast for example. Doesn't mean I do not want him to go. The reason is I believe the group running it is corrupt not that they claim to be Christain.
But what of the issues of democracy? How many people vote in America? Our election here in Denmark is just over. We are to have a new government it seems. Something like 88% of those able to vote did in fact vote! We'll most likely get our first Prime minister who's a lady.
Again, if the honorable Jon Stewart is considered the most reliable source for news, what does that tell you? I like The Daily Show, I think Jon Stewart is brilliant. But bottom-line is that it is a comedy-show, albeit with a newsy core.
What do I want with all of this? I dunno, I suppose. But if it's true what some of you say, that what's in that article isn't exactly news to you, what do you think might make the situation better? Or isn't it neccessary for it to get better?
Hah! String Theory invalidates Religion and Evolution. Too late - you have been converted. I win your Meagre Soul...Muwahahaha!What about moderate Christians that do not bleive in a literal interpreation of the bible. Are you calling them atheists?Nope. I just believe it was easier for me to reach a conclusion (true or false) that religious figures and politicians are disingenuous and lack actual faith because I don't believe there is a God to talk to them, therefore they have not talked to God.
Hoo hoo! Controversy. Relax friends, I'm not out to convert anyone.
As always, Citizen Dingo ftw.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again, if the honorable Jon Stewart is considered the most reliable source for news, what does that tell you? I like The Daily Show, I think Jon Stewart is brilliant. But bottom-line is that it is a comedy-show, albeit with a newsy core.
-It means that every other news agency simply doesn't know how to deal with the sheer inanity of politics (CNN), or they're making a living tossing gasoline on the fire of inane politics (fox)
CNN simply doesn't think evil enough. They simply cannot wrap their minds around how disingenuous the right wing has gotten in its quest to make the rich richer and the rest of the country suck it with a *&%# eating grin. They're too spineless to point out what's actually going on because that would be taking a side, and they're trying to be neutral.
In short, they're falling for the golden mean fallacy. If the dems want to eat 0 kittens, and the republicans want to eat a million kittens, CNN feels compelled to present both sides as if they were equal for fear of being seen as biased. They put two people on to argue their points, but often let them lie through their teeth without calling them on the complete and total malarky that they're spouting.
It doesn't help that the shows are trying to pad out their content, spending so much time telling you "What house hold product is going to make your spleen shoot out of your eyeball sockets? Find out.... after we talk about this story"
In short, they're falling for the golden mean fallacy. If the dems want to eat 0 kittens, and the republicans want to eat a million kittens, CNN feels compelled to present both sides as if they were equal for fear of being seen as biased. ...
You mean like some one who is both a Paladin and a Hellknight?
Again, if the honorable Jon Stewart is considered the most reliable source for news, what does that tell you? I like The Daily Show, I think Jon Stewart is brilliant. But bottom-line is that it is a comedy-show, albeit with a newsy core.-It means that every other news agency simply doesn't know how to deal with the sheer inanity of politics (CNN), or they're making a living tossing gasoline on the fire of inane politics (fox)
CNN simply doesn't think evil enough. They simply cannot wrap their minds around how disingenuous the right wing has gotten in its quest to make the rich richer and the rest of the country suck it with a *&%# eating grin. They're too spineless to point out what's actually going on because that would be taking a side, and they're trying to be neutral.
In short, they're falling for the golden mean fallacy. If the dems want to eat 0 kittens, and the republicans want to eat a million kittens, CNN feels compelled to present both sides as if they were equal for fear of being seen as biased. They put two people on to argue their points, but often let them lie through their teeth without calling them on the complete and total malarky that they're spouting.
It doesn't help that the shows are trying to pad out their content, spending so much time telling you "What house hold product is going to make your spleen shoot out of your eyeball sockets? Find out.... after we talk about this story"
Hee... So it's like the house is on fire, and the solutions is to go to the bathroom and lock the door and wait till it's over? I'm amazed that nobody want to bite into this hot potato. Or, mayby I'm not. Maybe it would put the biter at such a great risk thatit would have been better not to bite.
So where are we?
1) Oh, it's probably not as bad as some try to make it look like, and even if it is bad, nobody in their right mind would ever actually do some of that bad stuff "the other side" is claiming. They think the thing is blown way out of proportion.
2) OMG! It is as bad as I feared, but there ain't a golddang thing I can do about it. I think I'll go hide under my bed! They are scared into passivity.
3) Dang! This can't be right! I'll go shout it out loud and clear. I don't care if "the other side", or infact "any side" will label me crazy. They go out and are quickly being label as paranoid crazymaniacs, or simply ridiculed.
4) If you can't beat them, join them! Let me in on this deal, so I at least can be on the winning team. They know bad stuff is going on but in the end, they couldn't care less as long as they got some of the cake.
5) .... Can't think of more... It seems to me that noone is big enough to do anything, if ther is something to be done, at all...
I'm just curious as to what motivates you guys and just how aware of where you stand... But of course, I'm just a crazy Dane, what do I matter....?
|
I seem to be doing well so far.
Or some of us feel that your "making a mountain out of a mole hill." As such, we prefer calm, reasoned, insightful, discussion rather than say "throwing fuel upon the fire." Which seems to me at least, to be the "order of the day."
Indeed! But who are to make these calm, reasoned, insightful discussions? If you suddenly realize that things are not as they are supposed to be, and you at the same time realize that nobody around you knows or, even care, what are you to do?
But I'm probably not the right person to discuss these things. I admit that my insights in these matters are severely limited. On the other hand, my access to news are not as burdened by the golden mean fallacy as mentioned above. Or so I choose to believe ;-)
How do you avoid falling into group 3 from above, when/if you try, as you say, make calm, reasoned, insightful discussions and is either ignored or ridiculed. Let's face it, nobody likes to have their dirty laundry flauntered out in public. Nobody.
I seem to be doing well so far.
** spoiler omitted **
I wondered what kept you :-)
|
|
Or some of us feel that your "making a mountain out of a mole hill." As such, we prefer calm, reasoned, insightful, discussion rather than say "throwing fuel upon the fire." Which seems to me at least, to be the "order of the day."
Indeed! But who are to make these calm, reasoned, insightful discussions? If you suddenly realize that things are not as they are supposed to be, and you at the same time realize that nobody around you knows or, even care, what are you to do?
We can always try now. I have been. I am thinking of going the TOZ route though because so far I do not see much of a point.
Are things not as they should be, or not as you wish them, or perhaps perceive them?
Does no one care? Or rather do you feel that no one cares?
There are always 3 sides to a story, yours, mine and the truth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or some of us feel that your "making a mountain out of a mole hill." As such, we prefer calm, reasoned, insightful, discussion rather than say "throwing fuel upon the fire." Which seems to me at least, to be the "order of the day."
So you're saying that it's a mole hill that both parties are beholden to their capital masters instead of representing the people?
It's a mole hill that the GOP held the country hostage with the debt limit vote?Or some of the other numerous legislation that would benefit the American people they have voted against.
Or are you just so ingrained in the party that you think these are sound tactics and nothing out of the ordinary?
All in the name of spiting Obama.
|
|
Or some of us feel that your "making a mountain out of a mole hill." As such, we prefer calm, reasoned, insightful, discussion rather than say "throwing fuel upon the fire." Which seems to me at least, to be the "order of the day."
So you're saying that it's a mole hill that both parties are beholden to their capital masters instead of representing the people?
It's a mole hill that the GOP held the country hostage with the debt limit vote?
Or some of the other numerous legislation that would benefit the American people they have voted against.
Or are you just so ingrained in the party that you think these are sound tactics and nothing out of the ordinary?
All in the name of spiting Obama.
No I am saying that this specific commentary from this specific writer is trying to do nothing more than inflame passions and does not help for honest debate.
I am ingrained in no party and vote how I choose, being a registered republican does not preclude this. I have always voted for the candidate I felt could best lead.
Being registered Republican gives me the option to choose someone for that party that is not coming across as b@&@&+$ insane such as Bachmann. Whether she is or not is up to her family doctor not I. Her rhetoric however makes me wonder.
I may not care for most of Obama's economic policies, and a few others as well. does not mean I think he needs to be out of office just because, and frankly if they can't offer a better candidate I am just a likely to vote for him as against.
Sound tactics, well it depends which version of which tactics are you listening to? Because all of the current views from both sides of the "free press" sounds a little fishy to me.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for the MSNBC PoV there Gentle Giant. (Hint, the House passed debt ceiling extensions, it's the Senate and the President who were saying "Debt ceiling has to extend past next election or no deal, no matter what.")
I think the important thing to remember when it comes to politics is not every person on the left is of the Bernie Sanders mold, nor is every person on the right of the Ron Paul mold.
The problem with making broad generizations is that they're not true anymore. Sure you can say that the Republicans are the party of the Millionares (ignoring Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs, George Soros, et al) Or that they're the party of Big Business (again, ignoring Goldman Sachs, GE, etc) or 'Anti-science' (ignoring Global Warming, Solar Power). You can also say that the Democrats are the party of Big Governemt (ignoring Medicare D, NCLB) or that they suck on defense (ignoring Sen Lieberman).
The key (for Americans) is to judge our individual politicians* by their actions and words. When a man admits he committed war crimes in Vietnam, I then ask why he's in office. When a man admits he cheated on his wife, I don't have any reason to assume he won't cheat on 'me' as my elected official.
When you have a senator saying that 'raising the debt ceiling is a sign of failure of leadership' then saying a couple of years later that not raising the debt ceiling is a sign of failure of Leadership, what does that tell us? It tells us that either a) he has realized that it's not a failure of leadership or b) he's demogoging the point for political gain. I'll accept a man who 'grows in office' over a hack any day of the week.
I'm a small government Conservative (DO my job for 2 weeks, you will be too). I also know that putterings of either party aside, Medicare, Social Security and likely Medicaid won't exist, or be functional by the time I'm old enough to collect. Guess what? I'd cheerfully forfit the amount I've paid into the system if a) Steps were taking to save it for the 50+ who are expecting it and b) If it would mean my Godkids have a chance at not being broke by it. I try** to avoid hyperbolic statements when making generalizations about 'the other side'. Heck, as much as I joke about our hosts being 'Hippy Dippy Tree Huggers' I'd buy 'em a beer if they ever get back to Columbus.
*
**
I'm a small government Conservative (DO my job for 2 weeks, you will be too). I also know that putterings of either party aside, Medicare, Social Security and likely Medicaid won't exist, or be functional by the time I'm old enough to collect. Guess what? I'd cheerfully forfit the amount I've paid into the system if a) Steps were taking to save it for the 50+ who are expecting it and b) If it would mean my Godkids have a chance at not being broke by it. I try** to avoid hyperbolic statements when making generalizations about 'the other side'. Heck, as much as I joke about our hosts being 'Hippy Dippy Tree Huggers' I'd buy 'em a beer if they ever get back to Columbus.
I'd like to reply to this by providing a link that both describes some of the tactics from the original article and also comments on what you write here:
Robert Reich Debunks 6 Big GOP Lies About The EconomyNow, if you stay true to the rest of what you write in this thread, you'll dismiss it based on the sender instead of the actual message.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a small government Conservative (DO my job for 2 weeks, you will be too). I also know that putterings of either party aside, Medicare, Social Security and likely Medicaid won't exist, or be functional by the time I'm old enough to collect. Guess what? I'd cheerfully forfit the amount I've paid into the system if a) Steps were taking to save it for the 50+ who are expecting it and b) If it would mean my Godkids have a chance at not being broke by it. I try** to avoid hyperbolic statements when making generalizations about 'the other side'. Heck, as much as I joke about our hosts being 'Hippy Dippy Tree Huggers' I'd buy 'em a beer if they ever get back to Columbus.I'd like to reply to this by providing a link that both describes some of the tactics from the original article and also comments on what you write here:
Robert Reich Debunks 6 Big GOP Lies About The Economy
Now, if you stay true to the rest of what you write in this thread, you'll dismiss it based on the sender instead of the actual message.
Well 1) I can't access you tube from work, and 2) you've just proved my point. Why should I bother to talk with you when you have your pre-judged notions of who I am and won't let little things like facts get in your way.
Judging by the syntax and nature of the challenge given, i think GG might be missing a "won't" in his last sentence, MM. At least I hope he is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Judging by the syntax and nature of the challenge given, i think GG might be missing a "won't" in his last sentence, MM. At least I hope he is.
Actually I'm not, Matthew started out in his very first post dismissing the article because it was posted on truth-out.org, instead of discussing the actual substance of the article. His next post was more deriding of the source/sender instead of the substance.
Then he goes on to deride my questions as the MSNBC PoV (i.e. the "liberal" and thus easily discarded view), without providing any answers to the questions I posed.So why should I expect that he'd discuss the substance of my latest link?
Why should I bother to talk with you when you have your pre-judged notions of who I am and won't let little things like facts get in your way.
See above.
How about we limit ourselves to discussing the substance of the article, then?
Getting baited into attacking each other's stereotypes is a trap.
I don't care where the article was published, I read it, and parts of it hold up with my independent opinion culled from many sources, none of which is MSNBC or Fox or CNN or any of that.
Talk about the article's words. Let's not be dismissive, except of further partisan behavior. Many of the posters thus far are not on a side, or at least are attempting to remain unbiased.
My mistake, then. I found that last post a bit clumsy sounding, and thought you might have been challenging him on other grounds. Apologies.
How about we limit ourselves to discussing the substance of the article, then?
Getting baited into attacking each other's stereotypes is a trap.
I don't care where the article was published, I read it, and parts of it hold up with my independent opinion culled from many sources, none of which is MSNBC or Fox or CNN or any of that.
Talk about the article's words. Let's not be dismissive, except of further partisan behavior. Many of the posters thus far are not on a side, or at least are attempting to remain unbiased.
I agree. I posed some questions about some of the things mentioned in the article and got drawn into a non-productive argument with Matthew.
I hope he'll be able to discuss the substance and I'll do my best to refrain from making any comments on what he does or does not think.
Hee... So it's like the house is on fire, and the solutions is to go to the bathroom and lock the door and wait till it's over? I'm amazed that nobody want to bite into this hot potato. Or, mayby I'm not. Maybe it would put the biter at such a great risk thatit would have been better not to bite.
So where are we?
1) Oh, it's probably not as bad as some try to make it look like, and even if it is bad, nobody in their right mind would ever actually do some of that bad stuff "the other side" is claiming. They think the thing is blown way out of proportion.
-I think its understated, if anything.
2) OMG! It is as bad as I feared, but there ain't a golddang thing I can do about it. I think I'll go hide under my bed! They are scared into passivity.
-what can any individual do about it? Nothing. Its like there's a state wide forest fire and not only is the state not helping with the fire, they're actively promoting the idea that that shared resources would be communism.... all while funneling state money to protect the few areas where the rich live.
3) Dang! This can't be right! I'll go shout it out loud and clear. I don't care if "the other side", or infact "any side" will label me crazy. They go out and are quickly being label as paranoid crazymaniacs, or simply ridiculed.
-They will label you crazy, or unamerican, or a socialist communist muslim atheist.. pretty much anything to ad hom you until your point doesn't matter, and then bribe an "expert" to present a different view , and a lobyist to legislate that different view.
4) If you can't beat them, join them! Let me in on this deal, so I at least can be on the winning team. They know bad stuff is going on but in the end, they couldn't care less as long as they got some of the cake.
-It takes a lot of money to get into that game.
I'm just curious as to what motivates you guys and just how aware of where you stand... But of course, I'm just a crazy Dane, what do I matter....?
what motivates who to do what? You lost me.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well When Gentle Giant decides to post facts, rather than "The Republicans held the debt ceiling hostage." Then maybe he'll have an argument worth replying to.
So that I am talking, and he's saying "I know what Matthew is going to say." I guess that proves my point.
Oh wait, I'm judging him based on his words and actions *gasp* consistancy.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
AS to the article itself...
Well starting with "Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult" Yeah, that's unbiased, sure. It sets out clearly this is going to be unbiased reporting.
(Not to mention calling Allen West a crazy)
Funny, who just said yesterday he wished he didn't have a congress to deal with? Back in July too, right before he did just that. But hey, it's those Republicans that are obsessed with race. Just ask Allen West, er, I mean Marco Rubio, er I mean Clarence Thomas, er....
I think he's confused with Carville's most recent book: 40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation. He certainly does write as one who's angry and embittered.
And now the tactics listed in the article
"The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.
And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love"
So Faith is bad, unless my side has it. That or the writer must a) be terrified of that dreaded Theocrat President Obama, or b) Think that the President is lying through his teeth about being a man of faith.
Same old same old.
But hey, Gentle Giant already made up his mind on what I might write, so why confuse him with facts.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
None of which invaldiates my link where it's the Senate Democrats, to a man who said they'd not vote for the bills passed in the house, because they refused to budge on having another vote before the election.
Again, the senate said "Do this or it will not pass" despite multiple bills passed in the house, Caedwyr.
Now I'll be the first to argue that the President doesn't really consider the Republicans terrorists, despite what his VP said.
After all, the president negotiates with terrorists.
MM, your earlier post reads a bit like a ramble and ends poorly -I had a hard time following. Can you edit /format /parse it a bit and/or give me some links?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Anyone know who Michael Morris is?
Just wondering since the administration's negotiating with terrorists was well known
(I'm being kind and not even including Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn in my lists)