Originally posted by crazy
Yea you are right, you really answer peoples questions and give valid answers, I guess I am crazy, what was I thinking.
You are not crazy (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt) and I hope that you did not think that I called you that. I said that expecting me to answer all of the questions that I get from people on this forum is crazy. I cannot.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[b]Inaugural Address of John F. KennedyFRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 1961
Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom--symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning--signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy admits that rights come from God (Jesus Christ). [/B]
Actually, Kennedy was the Anti-Christ, which is why God sent Oswald to kill him. 😐
Ok want to do me a favor and answer Robtard's questions on the first couple of pages, I just thought he had some good points.
edit : I seem to have mixed threads, nevermind! I read this forum way too often, it's like an addiction and now I forgot what I was thinking about. Thanks for the responses anyways.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In Congress mentions Jesus Christ. Don't be in denial, deal with it. Just kidding folks put your flame throwers, oozies, grenades, and rocket launchers down and just acquiesce to the facts.
And as has been pointed out the very days of the week are derived from Pagan tradition. It doesn't really mean that much.
Other problems - who is to say that they meant "God" when they said "creator"? I consider my creator my parents. Or the nations and experiences I have had. I see no reason why creator should automatically equal God.
And those rights that the creator gave to men - the Church, any Church doesn't always support the same rights. By rights shouldn't that include gays and people of other religions and all the rest? Are people created equal? Maybe, but you have implied they don't stay equal - after all we get the saved group and the damned group. Really the things said there in relation to the creator doesn't really jell with the acts of his followers.
John F. Kennedy admits that rights come from God (Jesus Christ).
And he is automatically right? I here, on KMC forums, admit rights come from humanity.
Doesn't that mean I could be right?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And as has been pointed out the very days of the week are derived from Pagan tradition. It doesn't really mean that much.Other problems - who is to say that they meant "God" when they said "creator"? I consider my creator my parents. Or the nations and experiences I have had. I see no reason why creator should automatically equal God.
And those rights that the creator gave to men - the Church, any Church doesn't always support the same rights. By rights shouldn't that include gays and people of other religions and all the rest? Are people created equal? Maybe, but you have implied they don't stay equal - after all we get the saved group and the damned group. Really the things said there in relation to the creator doesn't really jell with the acts of his followers.
And he is automatically right? I here, on KMC forums, admit rights come from humanity.
Doesn't that mean I could be right?
I knew it!
Imperial, I have said for the longest time that you invariably discount information, information that is incontrovertible, and written in plain, unambiguous, unequivocal language.
I knew that you were going to say,
"Well...how do we know that they meant Gaawd...."
I almost heard you saying that while I was writing. Dude, get it together. Stop being such a discounter and parser of words and just acquiesce. It will do you some good for once to just admit when you are wrong.
In the words of Jack Nicholson in the movie entitled "A Few Good Men":
"...you can't haandle the truth! (in Jack Nicholson's reverberating voice)"
😆 🙂 😉 😎 💃
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I knew it!Imperial, I have said for the longest time that you invariably discount information, information that is incontrovertible, and written in plain, unambiguous, unequivocal language.
I knew that you were going to say,
"Well...how do we know that they meant Gaawd...."
I almost heard you saying that while I was writing. Dude, get it together. Stop being such a discounter and parser of words and just acquiesce. It will do you some good for once to just admit when you are wrong.
In the words of Jack Nicholson in the movie entitled "A Few Good Men":
"...you can't handle the truth! (in Jack Nicholson's reverberating voice)"
And that is a rebuttal.... how? Whatever ties the original settlers might have had with Christianity none of the documentation provided from the founding of the US as a free nation reveal that the founding fathers necessarily meant what you are interpreting, that they believed in God or Jesus and saw the US as a Christian fortress. If anything it is the oppisite since the US by rights embraced and embraces all religions and their gods. So even if one accepts creator is religious in nature wouldn't it refer to the Muslim one? And the Jewish one? And maybe the Hindu one?
Tell me - insurance jargon - act of God. Does the fact insurance companies used that phrase indicative they are Christian institutions that believe some fat guy's 58 inch plasma TV was personally smited by God when a freak flood washed it away? No - it is merely using a long established term for a natural thing.
I believe the argument is just as sound that mentions of God in the documents had more to do with the concepts (that is that the rights inherent to all man are higher then government - which doesn't mean God, since philosophers have said similar using different words and not meaning God) and phrases common and well understood.
"In the year of our lord" - only taken literally if one believes in God. If one doesn't then it is just a remnant of Church dominance.
And are you saying, that if I lived in the US and assumed the phrase to me "The rights I am entitled to as a human, created by my parents and nation, are inalienable and above all other powers" would automatically be wrong?
Remind JIA that Kennedy was Catholic.
Did you know JIA that Kennedy was Catholic? Are Catholic views only right when they agree with you while at all other times they aren't Christian at all?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Are Catholic views only right when they agree with you while at all other times they aren't Christian at all?
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And that is a rebuttal.... how? Whatever ties the original settlers might have had with Christianity none of the documentation provided from the founding of the US as a free nation reveal that the founding fathers necessarily meant what you are interpreting, that they believed in God or Jesus and saw the US as a Christian fortress. If anything it is the oppisite since the US by rights embraced and embraces all religions and their gods. So even if one accepts creator is religious in nature wouldn't it refer to the Muslim one? And the Jewish one? And maybe the Hindu one?Tell me - insurance jargon - act of God. Does the fact insurance companies used that phrase indicative they are Christian institutions that believe some fat guy's 58 inch plasma TV was personally smited by God when a freak flood washed it away? No - it is merely using a long established term for a natural thing.
I believe the argument is just as sound that mentions of God in the documents had more to do with the concepts (that is that the rights inherent to all man are higher then government - which doesn't mean God, since philosophers have said similar using different words and not meaning God) and phrases common and well understood.
"In the year of our lord" - only taken literally if one believes in God. If one doesn't then it is just a remnant of Church dominance.
And are you saying, that if I lived in the US and assumed the phrase to me "The rights I am entitled to as a human, created by my parents and nation, are inalienable and above all other powers" would automatically be wrong?
Did you know JIA that Kennedy was Catholic? Are Catholic views only right when they agree with you while at all other times they aren't Christian at all?
Don't try and change the subject. We are not talking about insurance here. The fact that you say that JFK was a Catholic undermines your argument. For if he was a Catholic then that presupposes that he did in fact believe in God. Catholics do believe in God, they just hold some other beliefs, practices, and traditions that are very questionable--but that is another post, chapter, page, and subject. Stop trying to change the issue at hand (talking about JFK being Catholic). Let's stay focused on the discussion. JFK said God because he believed in God, meant God in his speech, and was referring to the God that most people mean when they say God. (That was really classic though [shakes index finger at you and squints eye]). Is there a song entitled, "Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide." I think I can hear the lyrics right now.
💃 😎 😉 😄 😛
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Don't try and change the subject. We are not talking about insurance here.
This from the dodger himself? Who is yet to explain why the months and days named after pagan figures are less relevant then the WORD "creator" in a document.
And it is relevant to the argument. You are arguing terminology used within an official document somehow proves:
A. That Jesus and God exist.
b. That they are relevant to the US.
c. That the founding fathers believed that morals and all the rest are derived from God.
Does the fact insurance agencies use the phrase "Act of God"mean anything theologically?
The fact that you say that JFK was a Catholic undermines your argument. For if he was a Catholic then that presupposes that he did in fact believe in God. Catholics do believe in God, they just hold some other beliefs, practices, and traditions that are very questionable--but that is another post, chapter, page, and subject. Stop trying to change the issue at hand (talking about JFK being Catholic).
I don't think I was trying to imply he wasn't religious. I noted the fact he believes in God does not make him an authority on the subject.
And I noted your hyprocrasy on the fact you'd be happy to declare Catholics non-Christian except when their views support you own.
Let's stay focused on the discussion. JFK said God because he believed in God, meant God in his speech, and was referring to the God that most people mean when they say God. (That was really classic though [shakes index finger at you and squints eye]). Is there a song entitled, "Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide." I think I can hear the lyrics right now.
Ah.... you do realise that was only half of what I was talking about, don't you? You have failed to address the matter of the creator and why it must mean God.
I never said JFK wasn't talking about God. I did say that that hardly makes the claim any more verifiable. If one can produce Christian leaders and claim it is somehow proof it seems hypocrticialy to turn away from all the other leaders - the athiests, the other religions. There have been a lot of leaders in history, and a massive number believed in different things. So JFK believed in God? This proves what? Other then he believes in God? Bush believes in God as well.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
This from the dodger himself? Who is yet to explain why the months and days named after pagan figures are less relevant then the WORD "creator" in a document.And it is relevant to the argument. You are arguing terminology used within an official document somehow proves:
A. That Jesus and God exist.
b. That they are relevant to the US.
c. That the founding fathers believed that morals and all the rest are derived from God.
Does the fact insurance agencies use the phrase "Act of God"mean anything theologically?
I don't think I was trying to imply he wasn't religious. I noted the fact he believes in God does not make him an authority on the subject.
And I noted your hyprocrasy on the fact you'd be happy to declare Catholics non-Christian except when their views support you own.
Ah.... you do realise that was only half of what I was talking about, don't you? You have failed to address the matter of the creator and why it must mean God.
I never said JFK wasn't talking about God. I did say that that hardly makes the claim any more verifiable. If one can produce Christian leaders and claim it is somehow proof it seems hypocrticialy to turn away from all the other leaders - the atheists, the other religions. There have been a lot of leaders in history, and a massive number believed in different things. So JFK believed in God? This proves what? Other then he believes in God? Bush believes in God as well.
Now in regard to D-joe. I intentionally chose to ignore Debbiejoe's post for two reasons. First, (no disrespect D-joe) but I think that her comments in general are "out there." They sound (and look with all those ellipses and what not) very detached. Second, I did not see how in the world that it related to my post about Christ being the only One to divide history. It sounded like apples and kiwi fruit (not oranges). Not to mention all of the other bizarre things that she has said from mithra to Paul and everything in between. None of what she says makes any rational sense to me. She still has yet to support her negative comments about Paul.
And it is relevant to the argument. You are arguing terminology used within an official document somehow proves:
A. That Jesus and God exist.
b. That they are relevant to the US.
c. That the founding fathers believed that morals and all the rest are derived from God.
Does the fact insurance agencies use the phrase "Act of God" mean anything theologically?
A: This discussion is not about whether God exists or not, but about what the founding Fathers and John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the youngest elected president, said about God (which would automatically presuppose that God exists).
B: Your boy Andrew Jackson (the seventh President of these here United States) stated and I quote:
"You must remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing."
"The Bible is the foundation upon which our republic rests."
"You have the highest of human trusts committed to your care. Providence [this word Providence is a reference to God because it is capitalized. Are you going to argue over this too Samura? Yeah, you probably will carry on Andrew Jackson] has showered on this favored land blessings without number, and has chosen you as the guardians of freedom, to preserve it for the benefit of the human race. May He color=darkblue][did A.J. capitalize the letter “h” in the pronoun "He?" So then he must be...gasp…once again referring to...God?!? Yes, that is right Samura, carry on A.J.][/color] who holds in his hands the destinies of nations, make you worthy of the favors He has bestowed, and enabled you with pure hearts and hands and sleepless vigilance, to guard and defend to the end of time, the great charge He has committed to your keeping."
George Washington's Farewell Address (Sept. 19, 1796):
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens...
"'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government...
"Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue?"
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
http://members.iquest.net/~macihms/WebInfo/Quotes/Foundfath.html
Sir Isaac Newton (1642/3¨C1727):
When Newton was investigating the movement of the planets, he quite clearly saw the hand of God at work. He wrote:
‘This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”. …
The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect.’2
‘Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.’3
[This quote is taken from the following link on the writings and memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton]:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views
Preach! Was Sir Isaac Newton a minister of the gospel?!? Just kidding but man he sure sounds mighty ecclesiastic.
C: Again, this ain't (sorry, is not) the issue at hand. I simply wanted you to see that the Founding Fathers and JFK mentioned God in their writings/speeches.
D: I put a fourth letter for you Samura just in case you forgot to. Now where was I? Oh, you asked the question,
Does the fact insurance agencies use the phrase "Act of God" mean anything theologically
If JFK had said Act of God in an contractual setting then you might have a valid argument--but the fact is, he did not so quit beating a dead horse (Poor horse I¡¯ll give you a proper burial). You need a new, stronger, argument to base your opposing points of view on instead of this weak, gossamer, unconvincing one about contractual niceties.
And I noted your hyprocrasy on the fact you'd be happy to declare Catholics non-Christian except when their views support you own.
You are still trying to divert my attention elsewhere Samura. We are taaaalking about what the Founding Fathers (or namely Thomas Jefferson since he penned the Declaration of Independence) and John Fitzgerald Kennedy said in key U.S. documents and Inaugural Addresses. All of these other obstacles that you keep throwing in my way are merely hurdles to hinder me on my way toward the finish line as it were. Cut out the smokescreens pal and deal with the facts like a man: head on. Stop cowering (I don¡¯t really mean that, if it is one thing that I can say about you is that you are not a coward. I have never seen you back down or run from anything that I have posted. Good job Imperial Samura.) behind smokescreens and brush fires.
Ah.... you do realise that was only half of what I was talking about, don't you? You have failed to address the matter of the creator and why it must mean God.
Uh, Samura...there is a grand canyon-size difference between "creator" (what you deliberately wrote) and Cre-a-tor with a capital "C (what JFK said)." The word Creator is capitalized in the Declaration of Independence and in John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address to denote that the fact that they are (not maybe, not perhaps, not it is plausible, not it is believable, not it is conceivable--but are ) referring to none other than God Almighty. By the way did you know that Jesus Christ is God Almighty? The whole insurance thing (plus everything else non-germane to this discussion) is a smokescreen to divert my attention away from the issue at hand. Creator with a capital "C" always mean God, the Creator. My invisible pet knows this so how come you dispute, deny, and argue this fact? Only someone in rank denial could come to the astute conclusion that Creator does not mean God in the traditional sense.
I don't think I was trying to imply he wasn't religious. I noted the fact he believes in God does not make him an authority on the subject.
I didn't say that J-Fitz was an authority on any subject. I said JFK admits that rights (natural, human rights, the inalienable ones) come from God.
I never said JFK wasn't talking about God. I did say that that hardly makes the claim any more verifiable. If one can produce Christian leaders and claim it is somehow proof it seems hypocrticialy to turn away from all the other leaders - the atheists, the other religions. There have been a lot of leaders in history, and a massive number believed in different things. So JFK believed in God? This proves what? Other then he believes in God? Bush believes in God as well.
How did this discussion go from: "John F. Kennedy admits that rights come from God (Jesus Christ)." To us talking about Bush? This is the absolute worse example of using non-pertinent queries to side-track and change the course of a discussion that I have ever experienced. 😱
The End.
🙂 😉 😄 🤣 💃
He didn't 'admit' it, he professed that as an opinion.
Samura is simply pointing out that the fact that JFK expressed such an opinion is no more reelvant than YOU expressing them; it neither proves nor changes anything, and that if a person who believes in God is somehow of more value than one who does not- which is what you infer- then Bush should get the same treatment.
Your line of reasoning seemed to be to use JFK as a role-model; normally considered a great President, believed in God, hence great Presidents believe in God. The comparison with Bush is therefore very relevant and your attempt to label it 'non-pertinent' (horribly awkward phrase as that is) is somewhat laughable. He IS being pertinent; you are being evasive.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
He didn't 'admit' it, he professed that as an opinion.Samura is simply pointing out that the fact that JFK expressed such an opinion is no more reelvant than YOU expressing them; it neither proves nor changes anything, and that if a person who believes in God is somehow of more value than one who does not- which is what you infer- then Bush should get the same treatment.
Your line of reasoning seemed to be to use JFK as a role-model; normally considered a great President, believed in God, hence great Presidents believe in God. The comparison with Bush is therefore very relevant and your attempt to label it 'non-pertinent' (horribly awkward phrase as that is) is somewhat laughable. He IS being pertinent; you are being evasive.
Why do you always run to the side of my opposer? Do you always take the side of atheists? How about being neutral, I mean aren't you a moderator? I notice that you do this frequently but never on the side of Christians. Matter of fact why not just not comment at all? I know it is that atheistic brotherhood that you are a part of. The old motto goes something like this: when you see a fellow atheist getting himself trounced in a non-lethal discussion with a Christian, givest him/her the right hand of help. Throwest in your two cents which is buttest a life preserver for the pitifully routed, which if fate is on the sidest of the fellow, will savest him from gettingest furtherest whipped. Just kidding I am not here to win anything folks.
This post froze up, it was supposed to read like this
Originally posted by Ushgarak
He didn't 'admit' it, he professed that as an opinion.Samura is simply pointing out that the fact that JFK expressed such an opinion is no more reelvant than YOU expressing them; it neither proves nor changes anything, and that if a person who believes in God is somehow of more value than one who does not- which is what you infer- then Bush should get the same treatment.
Your line of reasoning seemed to be to use JFK as a role-model; normally considered a great President, believed in God, hence great Presidents believe in God. The comparison with Bush is therefore very relevant and your attempt to label it 'non-pertinent' (horribly awkward phrase as that is) is somewhat laughable. He IS being pertinent; you are being evasive.
Why do you always run to the side of my opposer? Do you always take the side of atheists? How about being neutral, I mean aren't you a moderator? I notice that you do this frequently but never on the side of Christians. Matter of fact why not just not comment at all?
I know! it is that atheistic brotherhood that you are a part of (I keep forgetting).
The old creed that goes something like this:
When thou seest a fellow atheist getting himself trounced in a harmless discussion with a Christian, givest him/her the right hand of help (run with reckless abandon to his/her side). Throwest in your two cents which is buttest a life preserver for the pitifully routed, which if fate is on the sidest of the fellow or fellowette, will savest him/her from gettingest furtherest whipped.
Just kidding I am not here to win anything folks.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveLooking for the words "Jesus Christ", looking, looking, looking...
[b]The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies In Congress mentions Jesus Christ. Don't be in denial, deal with it. Just kidding folks put your flame throwers, oozies, grenades, and rocket launchers down and just acquiesce to the facts. [/B]
nope don't see it. "by their Creator" means any "god" not just yours, deal with it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Now in regard to D-joe. I intentionally chose to ignore Debbiejoe's post for two reasons. First, (no disrespect D-joe) but I think that her comments in general are "out there." They sound (and look with all those ellipses and what not) very detached. Second, I did not see how in the world that it related to my post about Christ being the only One to divide history. It sounded like apples and kiwi fruit (not oranges). Not to mention all of the other bizarre things that she has said from mithra to Paul and everything in between. None of what she says makes any rational sense to me. She still has yet to support her negative comments about Paul.
So - because she presents alternate theories you feel no need to respond to her at all, even when she presents a perfectly valid and completely accurate set of facts? He is you claim from the opening post:
The U.S. Constitution does not mention Buddha, Allah, or any other god. But the Constitution signers acknowledge the Lord. There was no need to say, "...in the year of our Lord ...." for the Constitution to be binding.
Many pointed out that such an acknowledgment was nothing significant - merely a form a dating. You responded about how exceptional it was then that Jesus was used in the division of history when other deities weren't. People, including Debbiejo pointed out that wasn't true - the very days of the week and months of the year are derived from Pagan gods and pagan men. As such it is asked - does this mean anything?
The answer is no. The fact they said "year of the lord" is a fairly neutral statement that does not support your argument. Not even when you try to alter it by muddying the waters.
[b]A: This discussion is not about whether God exists or not, but about what the founding Fathers and John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the youngest elected president, said about God (which would automatically presuppose that God exists).[/b]
Ah, so now you are trying to equate JFK with the founding fathers, even though Adem Poe provided some references regarding the founding fathers views on such a subject?
"You have the highest of human trusts committed to your care. Providence [this word Providence is a reference to God because it is capitalized. Are you going to argue over this too Samura? Yeah, you probably will carry on Andrew Jackson] has showered on this favored land blessings without number, and has chosen you as the guardians of freedom, to preserve it for the benefit of the human race. [B]May He color=darkblue][did A.J. capitalize the letter “h” in the pronoun "He?" So then he must be...gasp…once again referring to...God?!? Yes, that is right Samura, carry on A.J.][/color] who holds in his hands the destinies of nations, make you worthy of the favors He has bestowed, and enabled you with pure hearts and hands and sleepless vigilance, to guard and defend to the end of time, the great charge He has committed to your keeping." [/I] [/b]
And? If you don't mind me saying I didn't think the debate was about whether people believed in God. We know they have, and continue to do so. You can provide a thousand quotes of a person professing similar, and I can provide a thousand of a person saying the same but without claiming God is responsible. In the end it doesn't actually prove either the claim God exists, that he is responsible for morals or that Christianity is in the blood of the US.
If JFK had said Act of God in an contractual setting then you might have a valid argument--but the fact is, he did not so quit beating a dead horse (Poor horse I¡¯ll give you a proper burial). You need a new, stronger, argument to base your opposing points of view on instead of this weak, gossamer, unconvincing one about contractual niceties.
Funny, but I wasn't referring to JFK when I was talking about that, but rather the use of potential religious terminology in documents.
JFK = Christian. Use of "the year of our lord" or "Creator" in government declarations = not indicative or committal to the assumption God is inherently involved. As you have just admitted - the phrase "Act of God" does not signify religious belief or adherence. Likewise using "In the year of our lord" does not. Nor does creator necessarily.
You are still trying to divert my attention elsewhere Samura. We are taaaalking about what the Founding Fathers (or namely Thomas Jefferson since he penned the Declaration of Independence) and John Fitzgerald Kennedy said in key U.S. documents and Inaugural Addresses. All of these other obstacles that you keep throwing in my way are merely hurdles to hinder me on my way toward the finish line as it were. Cut out the smokescreens pal and deal with the facts like a man: head on. Stop cowering (I don¡¯t really mean that, if it is one thing that I can say about you is that you are not a coward. I have never seen you back down or run from anything that I have posted. Good job Imperial Samura.) behind smokescreens and brush fires.
Umm... this from the person who regularly just posts blocks a text asking "Do you want to be saved? Then say this prayer" regardless of the actual topic? I was merely noting the hypocritical nature of certain Christian groups (not you specifically...) who are happy to quote Catholics when the Catholics support them but later on will be perfectly happy saying about how Catholics aren't true Christians.
How did this discussion go from: "John F. Kennedy admits that rights come from God (Jesus Christ)." To us talking about Bush? This is the absolute worse example of using non-pertinent queries to side-track and change the course of a discussion that I have ever experienced.
I couldn't say it any better then the way Ushgarak said it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why do you always run to the side of my opposer? Do you always take the side of atheists? How about being neutral, I mean aren't you a moderator? I notice that you do this frequently but never on the side of Christians. Matter of fact why not just not comment at all? I know it is that atheistic brotherhood that you are a part of. The old motto goes something like this: when you see a fellow atheist getting himself trounced in a non-lethal discussion with a Christian, givest him/her the right hand of help. Throwest in your two cents which is buttest a life preserver for the pitifully routed, which if fate is on the sidest of the fellow, will savest him from gettingest furtherest whipped. Just kidding I am not here to win anything folks.
First of all - moderators are allowed to debate as well. The designation "moderator"doesn't mean they have to be impartial.
Second: There is no Atheist brotherhood.
Third: I notice instead of actually trying to refute what he said you instead chose to cry foul.
Forth: You have to tell me where you buy your glasses, if your eyes are really telling you I was being trounced... well, I think there is something wrong with them.
Fifth: How about the fact he was right? You were purposely misinterpreting what I had said, and discounting the point about Bush does not strengthen your argument. Was is he wrong in pointing this out? I think not.
Sixth: I find it ironic that you object so loudly to a mod interjecting a logical view into the debate, yet not when certain Christians on this forum occasionally get into a sugery sycophantic cycle:
P.1: "Well said my brother in God."
p2: "Thankyou my brother in God."
P1: "Well I just have to complement a person when they are showing the word of God to the people so well."
p2: "Yes, I feel the same when I see your posts, you are a true child of God."
P3: "Don't say that about P1 and P2 they are just doing the right thing as Jesus said in the Bible. They are very good in doing this."
P1 & P2: "Thank you P3, it is good to see someone here understands our duty."
And so on and so on. I can see how Ushgarak post is clearly an example of "Atheist sticking up for Atheists" (which might not even be accurate)