PDA

View Full Version : o-bow-ma



subroc
11-29-2009, 12:06 PM
Obama has bowed to the Saudi king

Obama has bowed to the Japanese emperor.

Obama has bowed in China.

What is it with obama? Does he think or believe he, as a man, is subservient or not equal to these other world leaders? When he does it he is obviously in an official capacity, does he think or believe the US president is subservient to other world leaders? Does he believe the United States of America is a subservient nation? Does he just not see the significance of such an action on the world stage?

What do you think, believe or feel when you see him bowing?

Also, how does the bowing in those situations square with not giving or offering a similar bow to the Queen of England?

Uncle Bill
11-29-2009, 01:36 PM
Just the other day we saw him bowing to the Burger King. Heh heh heh heh:rolleyes:



UB

Bob Gutermuth
11-29-2009, 02:03 PM
Osama loves to bow and scrape to other politicians almost as much as he likes to dis America.

zeus3925
11-29-2009, 02:30 PM
Bowing is not part of our culture, but it is in other cultures. It is not a always asign of subservience. It is a sign of respect to greet a person according to their culture, especially if you plan to do business with them. And it does not mean the loss of one drop of testosterone, either.

subroc
11-29-2009, 02:37 PM
Bowing is not part of our culture, but it is in other cultures. It is not a sign of subservience. It is a sign of respect to greet a person according to their culture, especially if you plan to do business with them. And it does not mean the loss of one drop of testosterone, either.

It is most definitely a sign of subservience depending on hight of bow compared to those around you etc. If you bow lower or at all in some cases you have given the more respected position to the other.

road kill
11-29-2009, 02:47 PM
Bowing is not part of our culture, but it is in other cultures. It is not a always asign of subservience. It is a sign of respect to greet a person according to their culture, especially if you plan to do business with them. And it does not mean the loss of one drop of testosterone, either.

Then bow to me....NOW!!;)

zeus3925
11-29-2009, 03:12 PM
Then bow to me....NOW!!;)

It isn't part of our mutual culture. So, suffer!:)

zeus3925
11-29-2009, 03:14 PM
It is most definitely a sign of subservience depending on hight of bow compared to those around you etc. If you bow lower or at all in some cases you have given the more respected position to the other.

In japanese culture, but, not always so in others.

Uncle Bill
11-29-2009, 04:33 PM
In japanese culture, but, not always so in others.


And you are viewing this from THEIR perspective?

How come you continue fooling yourself into thinking those towel-heads see it as you do? Much like so many other sheeple in this country, that is the height of ignorance.

They don't view it as respect, it's a show of power by the one being bowed to.

You may want to read up some on the Jihad way of life. It's more than just suicide and expecting a future of sex with virgins.

UB

Leddyman
11-29-2009, 10:09 PM
Bowing is not part of our culture, but it is in other cultures. It is not a always asign of subservience. It is a sign of respect to greet a person according to their culture, especially if you plan to do business with them. And it does not mean the loss of one drop of testosterone, either.

O.K. Brother man, I lived in Japan for 3 years. 1985-88. When you bow in respect you tip your head. Your shoulders don't get involved. The bow that Osama gave was from the waist. He lowered his shoulders almost to the man's waist. It was disgusting and a bow even a Japanese would see as a sign of subservience. They were laughing at him on Japanese language news.

zeus3925
11-30-2009, 06:16 AM
And you are viewing this from THEIR perspective?

How come you continue fooling yourself into thinking those towel-heads see it as you do? Much like so many other sheeple in this country, that is the height of ignorance.

They don't view it as respect, it's a show of power by the one being bowed to.

You may want to read up some on the Jihad way of life. It's more than just suicide and expecting a future of sex with virgins.

UB
That's my point. Not everyone on the planet see things the way us Yankees do. The American way is not the only way.

If you want to do business with people of other cultures, "You do as the Romans do." If the culture does not like seeing the bottom of people's feet, then you don't show yours if you want to cut any ice with them. Or you can wallow in your ignorance, push yourself on those you see as being from "lesser cultures", and be perceived as an arrogant SOB--you won't see the fingers go up behind your back.

As for Jihad, practice what you preach, Bill.

dnf777
11-30-2009, 06:28 AM
Leddy,
I've never been to Japan, but all the sources I can find describe a "head bow" as informal at best. For formal greetings a deep bow is agreed upon as appropriate. No biggie....I lived in Riyadh and al Karj for over 6 months, and never learned how to wrap a towel around my head properly.



http://gojapan.about.com/cs/etiquetteinjapan/a/bowing.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_Japan
http://www.picturetokyo.com/en/culture/bowing.html

YardleyLabs
11-30-2009, 06:59 AM
Personally, I'm glad that American Presidents have clearly known that there is never an excuse for bowing to a foreign representative. Why, if they did not, we might have been assaulted by images such as these over the years:

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/20091116-fncbow1.jpg

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/20091116-fncbow2.jpg

And the next thing you know, our senses might even be assaulted by the likes of this:

http://www.hermes-press.com/bush_kiss.jpg

As I was growing up, I was taught that it was a sign of politeness to honor the traditions of those you were meeting. In France, that meant kissing the person you were greeting on both cheeks regardless of gender, a custom that did not sit well with my East Tennessee back ground. In Italy, it meant bowing when introduced to members of the aristocracy or the diragenti. Interestingly, one of the factors that affected the depth of the bow was the relative heights of those involved since the bower would seek to bring his head to a level no higher than the head of the person to whom he was bowing. In most of the Middle East, it meant no physical contact between genders. It is actually the job of the protocol office in the State Department to advise the President on etiquette for each country. Personally, I am not always convinced that the advice given is good.

dnf777
11-30-2009, 08:25 AM
Come on Jeff! Quit polluting the thread with facts and etiquette! Just bash Obama wildly every chance you get...and if you don't get any chances, just make them up!!

Everyone here knows that he should've just slapped him on the back, given a quick shoulder rub, and asked, "How's that pig comin' along?" Make us PROUD, man!

road kill
11-30-2009, 08:30 AM
Come on Jeff! Quit polluting the thread with facts and etiquette! Just bash Obama wildly every chance you get...and if you don't get any chances, just make them up!!

Everyone here knows that he should've just slapped him on the back, given a quick shoulder rub, and asked, "How's that pig comin' along?" Make us PROUD, man!

That was Chavez!!:D

Leddyman
11-30-2009, 12:44 PM
Leddy,
I've never been to Japan, but all the sources I can find describe a "head bow" as informal at best. For formal greetings a deep bow is agreed upon as appropriate. No biggie....I lived in Riyadh and al Karj for over 6 months, and never learned how to wrap a towel around my head properly.



http://gojapan.about.com/cs/etiquetteinjapan/a/bowing.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_Japan
http://www.picturetokyo.com/en/culture/bowing.html

So that is exactly what I was saying. It would have been appropriate for him to give the informal head bow which is used between equals if he really felt like bowing. The deep waist bow is formal and indicates subservience. So you agree with me.

zeus3925
11-30-2009, 12:56 PM
So that is exactly what I was saying. It would have been appropriate for him to give the informal head bow which is used between equals if he really felt like bowing. The deep waist bow is formal and indicates subservience. So you agree with me.

The question is how far did the emperor bow?

dnf777
11-30-2009, 01:05 PM
So that is exactly what I was saying. It would have been appropriate for him to give the informal head bow which is used between equals if he really felt like bowing. The deep waist bow is formal and indicates subservience. So you agree with me.

I think meeting with a foreign head of state, who is a close ally, in his state home, requires more than a "hey dude!" Here's a hint: if you're both wearing dark colored suits, its time to be a little more formal. He acted perfectly appropriately, for visiting a friendly head of state, in my, and most of the world's opinion.

Hew
11-30-2009, 02:48 PM
Yardley,

Two of your photo examples are a little messed up.

The second is the famous photo of Ike spittin' on de Gaulle's extended hand just before calling him a "frog SOB." ;-)

The third is photo shopped nonsense.

Uncle Bill
12-01-2009, 12:37 PM
Yardley,

Two of your photo examples are a little messed up.

The second is the famous photo of Ike spittin' on de Gaulle's extended hand just before calling him a "frog SOB." ;-)

The third is photo shopped nonsense.


You can't tell Yardley that...he's a pro photog. Certainly he wouldn't be fooled by photo shopped nonsense.:rolleyes:

No more than the various mugwumps that hang out here..."I WAS a Republican"... attempting to make all believe they are independant, and hike down the middle of the road, while exhibiting more socialism than the liberal left. What a joke, especially since they can't even convince themselves what they believe in.

UB

dnf777
12-01-2009, 01:05 PM
You can't tell Yardley that...he's a pro photog. Certainly he wouldn't be fooled by photo shopped nonsense.:rolleyes:

No more than the various mugwumps that hang out here..."I WAS a Republican"... attempting to make all believe they are independant, and hike down the middle of the road, while exhibiting more socialism than the liberal left. What a joke, especially since they can't even convince themselves what they believe in.

UB

That means SOOOOO much, coming from a radical extremists who lets Rush and Beck spoon-feed thoughts into the head! Who supported the administrations who are responsible for the MASSIVE debt we've run up! I'm not sure what your definition of a mugwump is, but if its anything but what I see in your attitude towards this country, so be it!

Have a nice day!

YardleyLabs
12-01-2009, 01:59 PM
You can't tell Yardley that...he's a pro photog. Certainly he wouldn't be fooled by photo shopped nonsense.:rolleyes:

No more than the various mugwumps that hang out here..."I WAS a Republican"... attempting to make all believe they are independant, and hike down the middle of the road, while exhibiting more socialism than the liberal left. What a joke, especially since they can't even convince themselves what they believe in.

UB
If you prefer, I could post the non-photo shopped version:

http://auburnjournal.com/uploads/inline/1258312162_3564.jpg

Fox News actually reported but did not display photos of another "kiss" between the two which was given after King Abdullah placed a gold medallion/necklace around Bush's neck.

"The award was placed around Bush's neck and the two exchanged the region's traditional double kiss. "I am honored," Bush said." (source: Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322467,00.html)

The fact is, as I noted originally, that different countries have different customs and these may include things like men holding hands (common in Italy among men who are close friends and business associates -- in such cases the men are also likely to dress in similar or identical clothing), kissing, and even bowing.

dnf777
12-01-2009, 03:05 PM
No more than the various mugwumps that hang out here..."I WAS a Republican"... attempting to make all believe they are independant, and hike down the middle of the road, while exhibiting more socialism than the liberal left. What a joke, especially since they can't even convince themselves what they believe in.

UB

You make me laugh! Really. You also make me glad that I WAS (past-tense) a republican, as I couldn't stand to be so shallow-minded anymore! Not that all republicans are shallow minded, just a select few....

There's somethin' to believe in regards,
dave

code3retrievers
12-01-2009, 05:40 PM
You make me laugh! Really. You also make me glad that I WAS (past-tense) a republican, as I couldn't stand to be so shallow-minded anymore! Not that all republicans are shallow minded, just a select few....

There's somethin' to believe in regards,
dave

Your depth is incredible and you show it in every post!

dnf777
12-01-2009, 05:47 PM
Your depth is incredible and you show it in every post!

Just callin' it as it is. Thankyou.

subroc
12-01-2009, 06:18 PM
You make me laugh! Really. You also make me glad that I WAS (past-tense) a republican, as I couldn't stand to be so shallow-minded anymore! Not that all republicans are shallow minded, just a select few....

There's somethin' to believe in regards,
dave

Typical.

I was a republican, now I am above all that.

How's that holier thyan thou workin' out for ya...

dnf777
12-01-2009, 09:35 PM
Typical.

I was a republican, now I am above all that.

How's that holier thyan thou workin' out for ya...

Pretty darn good. It's amazing how much you can see with your eyes open!
Like the part you glossed over....not all republicans, just most. Or at least what I gather from talk radio and some on this list. :rolleyes:
The inconsistencies and hypocrisy are mind-boggling. I have no issues with disagreement, but when it's just blindly applied 'cause your boy lost...and you're against what you used to be for, and you're for what you used to be against....it makes me laugh. that's all I'm basically sayin'

WaterDogRem
12-02-2009, 10:46 AM
Pretty darn good. It's amazing how much you can see with your eyes open!
Like the part you glossed over....not all republicans, just most. Or at least what I gather from talk radio and some on this list. :rolleyes:
The inconsistencies and hypocrisy are mind-boggling. I have no issues with disagreement, but when it's just blindly applied 'cause your boy lost...and you're against what you used to be for, and you're for what you used to be against....it makes me laugh. that's all I'm basically sayin'

That can be said for both D's & R's

ducknwork
12-02-2009, 12:45 PM
Just to stir the pot a little...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

Leddyman
12-02-2009, 02:10 PM
Just to stir the pot a little...

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

I was trying to decide whether to post that here. You beat me to it.

The Holy Koran indeed.

YardleyLabs
12-02-2009, 02:27 PM
I was trying to decide whether to post that here. You beat me to it.

The Holy Koran indeed.
Is your point that it is inappropriate for Obama to be respectful of the second most popular religion in the world (almost one-fourth of the world's population)? Or are you trying to revive the repeatedly debunked fantasy that Obama is a Muslim?

I believe that the Muslim religion deserves the same respect of any of the world's major religions. Countries that are incapable of respecting the beliefs of others deserve to stand alone and fail. Hopefully cultural bigots will never be in a position to shape the policies of our country in such a narrow minded fashion.

road kill
12-02-2009, 02:33 PM
Is your point that it is inappropriate for Obama to be respectful of the second most popular religion in the world (almost one-fourth of the world's population)? Or are you trying to revive the repeatedly debunked fantasy that Obama is a Muslim?

I believe that the Muslim religion deserves the same respect of any of the world's major religions. Countries that are incapable of respecting the beliefs of others deserve to stand alone and fail. Hopefully cultural bigots will never be in a position to shape the policies of our country in such a narrow minded fashion.


Maybe the secular progressive liberals could show that same respect to America's Christians.....or not!!:D

YardleyLabs
12-02-2009, 05:39 PM
Maybe the secular progressive liberals could show that same respect to America's Christians.....or not!!:D
I do. In fact, I show more. While I do not share the beliefs of either Christians or Muslims, my morals definitely reflect Judeo-Christian values. Of course, that is also the foundation for Muslim values as was explicitly stated by Muhammad.

road kill
12-02-2009, 05:43 PM
I do. In fact, I show more. While I do not share the beliefs of either Christians or Muslims, my morals definitely reflect Judeo-Christian values. Of course, that is also the foundation for Muslim values as was explicitly stated by Muhammad.
Would you agree that by and large secular progressives are assaulting Christian Judeo values?

And show more respect for Islam than Christian Judeo values?

I beleive I see this on a daily basis.

stan b

dnf777
12-02-2009, 05:46 PM
Maybe the secular progressive liberals could show that same respect to America's Christians.....or not!!:D

Why do you think all non-conservatives are God-hating anti-Americans? Yes , there are some freaks that get lots of press, but labeling all liberals and independents that way is like saying all Christian conservatives are gay and promiscuous, because of Rev. Haggard and Larry Craig! It also alienates the liberals who sit in Church on the Sabbath or worship their God however they choose.

YardleyLabs
12-02-2009, 05:56 PM
Would you agree that by and large secular progressives are assaulting Christian Judeo values?

And show more respect for Islam than Christian Judeo values?

I beleive I see this on a daily basis.

stan b
No, I wouldn't However, they do largely reject evangelical notions of Christian values, as do I. I pretty much lose my tolerance at the point when any religion begins to assert its exclusive superiority and to insist that governments legislate in accordance with its religious views. I've never believed that tolerance includes tolerating intolerance -- whether the intolerance is based on religion, cultural origins, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

road kill
12-02-2009, 05:58 PM
No, I wouldn't However, they do largely reject evangelical notions of Christian values, as do I. I pretty much lose my tolerance at the point when any religion begins to assert its exclusive superiority and to insist that governments legislate in accordance with its religious views. I've never believed that tolerance includes tolerating intolerance -- whether the intolerance is based on religion, cultural origins, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
But you tolerate the intolerances of secular progressives, the ACLU and Islam.

Interesting.

road kill
12-02-2009, 05:59 PM
Why do you think all non-conservatives are God-hating anti-Americans? Yes , there are some freaks that get lots of press, but labeling all liberals and independents that way is like saying all Christian conservatives are gay and promiscuous, because of Rev. Haggard and Larry Craig! It also alienates the liberals who sit in Church on the Sabbath or worship their God however they choose.
Never said that, I said "SECULAR PROGRESSIVES!!"

YardleyLabs
12-02-2009, 06:05 PM
But you tolerate the intolerances of secular progressives, the ACLU and Islam.

Interesting.
Do you have some examples? I have no more tolerance of the intolerances of so-called Muslims than I do the intolerances of so called Christians. I believe that intolerance violates some of the basic principles of both religions. I have not had a lot of contact with the ACLU since I served on the board of directors of the Mercer County NJ chapter during the 1960's. However, in my experience they are one of the most tolerant of organizations since they believe that rights such as those afforded by the first amendment are meaningless unless they are provided equally to the most hated among us. Of course, an issue for most of us on this Forum regarding the ACLU is that they do not view the 2nd amendment as an individual right but as a collective one. That is not, however, an issue related to tolerance.

Cody Covey
12-02-2009, 06:17 PM
heard today that a school...somewhere in the south forget which state but i believe florida...is banning christmas songs that have anything to do with religion...even instrumentals, from the school winter concert. Stating its unconstitutional even though that goes against all case law regarding the issue at this level of court. The constitution is pretty clear that government is supposed to be neutral in religious matters not purge it all opportunities.

Pete
12-02-2009, 07:22 PM
I'm just glad he didnt get on his knees
p

zeus3925
12-02-2009, 08:39 PM
heard today that a school...somewhere in the south forget which state but i believe florida...is banning christmas songs that have anything to do with religion...even instrumentals, from the school winter concert. Stating its unconstitutional even though that goes against all case law regarding the issue at this level of court. The constitution is pretty clear that government is supposed to be neutral in religious matters not purge it all opportunities.

Where did you hear from?

dnf777
12-02-2009, 08:58 PM
Never said that, I said "SECULAR PROGRESSIVES!!"

You're right. You did say that, and I generalized, which I should not have done, at least in reference to you. I do believe that there are many who do apply that projection on a much wider basis however, as the "War on Christmas" heats up on Fox News each year.

I also think that "secular" is used inappropriately, almost synonomous with athiest, which is not true. Its the old "you're exactly like me, or I"ll demonize you" attitude. I happen to strongly believe in God, and do not need old men in ornate robes to serve as a middleman. I'm sort of a "direct to consumer" believer when it comes to religion. If I hit a patch of black ice, I pucker up, and fight like hell to get things under control, unlike some religious freaks who throw their hand up and sing, "Jesus take the wheel". Doesn't work that way. Nor does "Jesus pay bills", or "Jesus, give me the answers to this exam, since I was out partying until half an hour ago!" Nor does "Jesus, help him line that blind" work after a winter of lax training. :rolleyes: I guess that makes me a secular progressive??

ducknwork
12-03-2009, 06:15 AM
Its the old "you're exactly like me, or I"ll demonize you" attitude.

....

religious freaks


Interesting.

road kill
12-03-2009, 06:34 AM
You're right. You did say that, and I generalized, which I should not have done, at least in reference to you. I do believe that there are many who do apply that projection on a much wider basis however, as the "War on Christmas" heats up on Fox News each year.

I also think that "secular" is used inappropriately, almost synonomous with athiest, which is not true. Its the old "you're exactly like me, or I"ll demonize you" attitude. I happen to strongly believe in God, and do not need old men in ornate robes to serve as a middleman. I'm sort of a "direct to consumer" believer when it comes to religion. If I hit a patch of black ice, I pucker up, and fight like hell to get things under control, unlike some religious freaks who throw their hand up and sing, "Jesus take the wheel". Doesn't work that way. Nor does "Jesus pay bills", or "Jesus, give me the answers to this exam, since I was out partying until half an hour ago!" Nor does "Jesus, help him line that blind" work after a winter of lax training. :rolleyes: I guess that makes me a secular progressive??



There are secular progressives and they have influence in your party.

If the shoe fits regards...........

Cody Covey
12-03-2009, 02:23 PM
this isn't where i heard it but http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/11/28/top_stories/doc4b1197404c6b0483970247.txt

dnf777
12-03-2009, 03:30 PM
There are secular progressives and they have influence in your party.

If the shoe fits regards...........

I don't deny that. The democrats (not MY party, BTW) have Christians, Muslims, Jews, athiests, deists, secularists...you name it. They're not as fast as republicans to cast out anyone who differs from the ruling party line. So yes, there are influential secular progressives in the democratic party....just as there are intolerant, Christian fanatics who think God killed those in the WTC or New Orleans out of some perverted sense of punishment! Both parties have their share of nut-cases.

Leddyman
12-03-2009, 03:37 PM
You're right. You did say that, and I generalized, which I should not have done, at least in reference to you. I do believe that there are many who do apply that projection on a much wider basis however, as the "War on Christmas" heats up on Fox News each year.

I also think that "secular" is used inappropriately, almost synonomous with athiest, which is not true. Its the old "you're exactly like me, or I"ll demonize you" attitude. I happen to strongly believe in God, and do not need old men in ornate robes to serve as a middleman. I'm sort of a "direct to consumer" believer when it comes to religion. If I hit a patch of black ice, I pucker up, and fight like hell to get things under control, unlike some religious freaks who throw their hand up and sing, "Jesus take the wheel". Doesn't work that way. Nor does "Jesus pay bills", or "Jesus, give me the answers to this exam, since I was out partying until half an hour ago!" Nor does "Jesus, help him line that blind" work after a winter of lax training. :rolleyes: I guess that makes me a secular progressive??

Now correct me if I'm wrong but that sounds to me like make it up as you go along. No need to be bothered with those silly people who have dedicated their lives and fortunes to the service of God. No need to continue to assemble yourself together with other believers. You site ridiculous examples of religious zealotry (along with some stupid a** country song) as your reason for rejecting any religion other than the one that pleases you personally.

What do you consider to be authoritative truth? Where do you get your morality?
If you believe in God do you recognize Him as creator of everything including you and as such does He have a right to tell you how you should live your life?

You say you believe in God, I'd just like some clarification of which one.

I BTW believe in the one you find in the Christian Bible.

dnf777
12-03-2009, 04:17 PM
Now correct me if I'm wrong but that sounds to me like make it up as you go along. No need to be bothered with those silly people who have dedicated their lives and fortunes to the service of God. No need to continue to assemble yourself together with other believers. You site ridiculous examples of religious zealotry (along with some stupid a** country song) as your reason for rejecting any religion other than the one that pleases you personally.

What do you consider to be authoritative truth? Where do you get your morality?
If you believe in God do you recognize Him as creator of everything including you and as such does He have a right to tell you how you should live your life?

You say you believe in God, I'd just like some clarification of which one.

I BTW believe in the one you find in the Christian Bible.

With all due respect, I do NOT owe you, or anyone else an explanation or clarification of how I worship God. I will promise you this: My way of paying homage to the Creator will not result in Crusades, airplanes being flown into skyscrapers, doctors getting shot in the head in a place of worship, little boys being molested, compounds being raided by federal agents or any other calamity. No sir. Just a little heart to heart talk between me and my Creator. Sorry, I'm not evangelical, so I don't feel the need to have you, or anyone else evesdropping on my beliefsor accept or practice them. Oh, and if you think I have some obligation to explain myself to you or anyone else, or that I must use men in purple robes or expensive business suits in order to effectively worship, may I recommend a little document for you to read: The Constitution of the United States of America. Don't forget the little appendix commonly known as the Bill of Rights. It says I can worship however I want. Your approval notwithstanding!

Peace be with you,
dave

Cody Covey
12-03-2009, 06:07 PM
you know what they say about luke warm Christians don't you dnf?? (sarcasm in case its missed)

zeus3925
12-04-2009, 07:27 AM
You site ridiculous examples of religious zealotry (along with some stupid a** country song) as your reason for rejecting any religion other than the one that pleases you personally.

What do you consider to be authoritative truth? Where do you get your morality?

You say you believe in God, I'd just like some clarification of which one.

I BTW believe in the one you find in the Christian Bible.

Which Bible, Leddyman? King James, Douay-Rhiems, Thomas Jefferson's or Andy Schlafly's?

Leddyman
12-04-2009, 09:44 AM
Which Bible, Leddyman? King James, Douay-Rhiems, Thomas Jefferson's or Andy Schlafly's?

The one that was written in Greek between 55-110 A.D. The NASB is a translation of a compilation of the best early texts that we have.

The KJV and NKJV are translations of the Textus Receptus. These all have significant early manuscript support.

Some of the others you cite were written to support particular positions.

I try my best to allow the Scriptures to dictate to my position not the other way round.

Leddyman
12-04-2009, 09:58 AM
Is your point that it is inappropriate for Obama to be respectful of the second most popular religion in the world (almost one-fourth of the world's population)? Or are you trying to revive the repeatedly debunked fantasy that Obama is a Muslim?

I believe that the Muslim religion deserves the same respect of any of the world's major religions. Countries that are incapable of respecting the beliefs of others deserve to stand alone and fail. Hopefully cultural bigots will never be in a position to shape the policies of our country in such a narrow minded fashion.

My point is that one or the other is wrong. You get to decide which one you want to believe is right. The fact of the matter is that the two religions differ in significant ways that define each of them. Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and that only through Him can one be saved. Muslims hold that Jesus might have been a prophet or teacher, but that He was most certainly NOT God and did not rise from the dead. These two positions, as even you must admit, are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot both be true. Thus if one claims to be an adherent of the Christian Faith (viz. Obama) Then one would be intellectually dishonest to give equal standing to a faith that holds contradictory beliefs to be religious fact.

So if you claim to be a Christian...Holy Koran indeed. It isn't Holy based on how many people mistakenly believe it to be Holy. Holiness is a condition conferred on a text that has been transmitted to man from God (thus no Holy Websters Dictionary), Which is by the way is the claim made for BOTH books. Since both books make mutually contradictory claims about God they cannot both be true. Therefore one of them is false. You get to pick which one (or neither) you believe to be Holy, but both simply cannot be.

A thing cannot be A and non-A in the same sense. This is the law of non-contradiction and you can not break it.

My contention is that Obama may be anything in the world, but that he is most certainly NOT a follower of Jesus Christ.

Franco
12-04-2009, 10:04 AM
Therefore one of them is false.



Or, they can both be false.

God is a concept by which we measure our pain.
John Lennon

zeus3925
12-04-2009, 10:04 AM
The one that was written in Greek between 55-110 A.D. The NASB is a translation of a compilation of the best early texts that we have.

The KJV and NKJV are translations of the Textus Receptus. These all have significant early manuscript support.

Some of the others you cite were written to support particular positions.

I try my best to allow the Scriptures to dictate to my position not the other way round.

Are you conversant in ancient Greek, Terry? How do you know that the translations are free from bias?

road kill
12-04-2009, 01:15 PM
I worship the God in my heart, not in a particular version of a book.

just sayin'........

YardleyLabs
12-04-2009, 01:37 PM
My point is that one or the other is wrong. You get to decide which one you want to believe is right. The fact of the matter is that the two religions differ in significant ways that define each of them. Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and that only through Him can one be saved. Muslims hold that Jesus might have been a prophet or teacher, but that He was most certainly NOT God and did not rise from the dead. These two positions, as even you must admit, are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot both be true. Thus if one claims to be an adherent of the Christian Faith (viz. Obama) Then one would be intellectually dishonest to give equal standing to a faith that holds contradictory beliefs to be religious fact.

So if you claim to be a Christian...Holy Koran indeed. It isn't Holy based on how many people mistakenly believe it to be Holy. Holiness is a condition conferred on a text that has been transmitted to man from God (thus no Holy Websters Dictionary), Which is by the way is the claim made for BOTH books. Since both books make mutually contradictory claims about God they cannot both be true. Therefore one of them is false. You get to pick which one (or neither) you believe to be Holy, but both simply cannot be.

A thing cannot be A and non-A in the same sense. This is the law of non-contradiction and you can not break it.

My contention is that Obama may be anything in the world, but that he is most certainly NOT a follower of Jesus Christ.
I believe that any religion that believes in the exclusive correctness of its brand of faith is inherently flawed -- but then that is my belief and i do not profess to be a Christian. However, even among Christians I find very few who believe that there is an exclusive truth defining a singular path to God. Most are willing to believe that there may be multiple paths to salvation and reject the notion of a God bent on condemning the majority of all human kind alive today or through history to damnation because their beliefs did not meet your standards of correctness.

dnf777
12-04-2009, 01:42 PM
I worship the God in my heart, not in a particular version of a book.

just sayin'........

Amen, Brother!

I don't need any old man in white robes or a Rolex-wearing smooth-talker to show me the way!

dnf777
12-04-2009, 01:46 PM
My contention is that Obama may be anything in the world, but that he is most certainly NOT a follower of Jesus Christ.

That would be like my contention that YOU are not a follower of JC! I would never say that, so you can put your hackles back down. ;-)
But I would guess I know as much about your inner workings as YOU know about Obama's.

Not a whole lot to base such deep assertions upon!

Leddyman
12-04-2009, 02:20 PM
Or, they can both be false.

God is a concept by which we measure our pain.
John Lennon

I said that. I put (or neither)

John Lennon was an atheist and just because he said something poetic which agrees with your philosophy does not make it intellectually relevant. He was a talented idiot.

Eviidenced by the stupidity of his statement. God is a being which many people believe created the universe and maintains it by his will. The idea that we measure pain by God is so incredibly asinine as to reinforce my opinion of Lennon. Coo Coo Ca Choo!

Leddyman
12-04-2009, 02:40 PM
Are you conversant in ancient Greek, Terry? How do you know that the translations are free from bias?

I have a masters in theology from Luther Rice Seminary. I am conversant.

We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57).

If this isn't enough the quotes from the early church fathers back up this amazing depth of evidence.

But possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers. Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers (McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52). In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52). J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.

What is so amazing is that most people have absolutely no trouble accepting the veracity of ancient secular sources such as Heroditus, Pliny, Suetonius, and others. The manuscript evidence for them is paltry compared to NT manuscript evidence and the extant copies of them are written very late in time as compared to extant copies of the Greek NT.

The columns here are explained by the categories below. I am sure that you know the difficulty of getting things to line up in a forum post so I cannot know how this is going to turn out, but if you will trouble to look you will see the evidence. Of import here is the early date of the manuscript that we have in reference to when it was written. Early dates tend to minimize transmission errors. The great number of copies allows for anomolies to be spotted by referencing many other copies of the same writing.

Author----- Date Written----- Earliest Copy-----Time Span------Copies (extant)

Secular Manuscripts:
Herodotus (History)-----480 - 425 BC-----900 AD-----1,300 years---- 8
Thucydides (History)-----460 - 400 BC-----900 AD-----1,300 years----?
Aristotle (Philosopher)-----384 - 322 BC-----1,100 AD----- 1,400 years-----5
Caesar (History)-----100 - 44 BC-----900 AD-----1,000 years-----10
Pliny (History)-----61 - 113 AD-----850 AD-----750 years-----7
Suetonius (Roman History)-----70 - 140 AD-----950 AD-----800 years-----?
Tacitus (Greek History)-----100 AD-----1,100 AD-----1,000 years----- 20

Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)
Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)-----1st century-----50-60 AD-----co-existant-----(?)
John Rylands (John)-----90 AD-----130 AD-----40 years
Bodmer Papyrus II (John)-----90 AD-----150-200 AD-----60-110 years
Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)-----1st century-----200 AD-----150 years
Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)-----1st century-----200 AD-----150 years
Codex Vaticanus (Bible)-----1st century-----325-350 AD-----275-300 years
Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)-----1st century-----350 AD-----300 years
Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)-----1st century-----400 AD-----350 years
(Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)
(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)


The upshot of all of this is that we can know to an almost 100% certainty that the New Testament that we hold in our hands is the same as the one that was written in the original autographs.

It then is up to us whether or not we will believe it.

Leddyman
12-04-2009, 02:54 PM
With all due respect, I do NOT owe you, or anyone else an explanation or clarification of how I worship God. I will promise you this: My way of paying homage to the Creator will not result in Crusades, airplanes being flown into skyscrapers, doctors getting shot in the head in a place of worship, little boys being molested, compounds being raided by federal agents or any other calamity. No sir. Just a little heart to heart talk between me and my Creator. Sorry, I'm not evangelical, so I don't feel the need to have you, or anyone else evesdropping on my beliefsor accept or practice them. Oh, and if you think I have some obligation to explain myself to you or anyone else, or that I must use men in purple robes or expensive business suits in order to effectively worship, may I recommend a little document for you to read: The Constitution of the United States of America. Don't forget the little appendix commonly known as the Bill of Rights. It says I can worship however I want. Your approval notwithstanding!

Peace be with you,
dave


So you make it up as you go along.

I don't ask you for an explanation of the way you choose to relate to God except as a result of the fact that you brought it up in a debate. It is not unreasonable to ask a person to define his terms in a debate. I believe you have defined them...I.E. You make it up as it pleases you.

Never been on a crusade regards,

cotts135
12-04-2009, 02:54 PM
[QUOTE=Leddyman;531949][QUOTE]My point is that one or the other is wrong. You get to decide which one you want to believe is right. The fact of the matter is that the two religions differ in significant ways that define each of them. Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and that only through Him can one be saved. Muslims hold that Jesus might have been a prophet or teacher, but that He was most certainly NOT God and did not rise from the dead. These two positions, as even you must admit, are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot both be true. Thus if one claims to be an adherent of the Christian Faith (viz. Obama) Then one would be intellectually dishonest to give equal standing to a faith that holds contradictory beliefs to be religious fact.

That is the inherent problem with religion. Each faith for the most part believes that their religion is the true and superior one. Many wars have been fought over that premise alone. Dealing logically with it just introduces more problems. For instance as someone already posted maybe both religions are wrong and maybe Hindu is right or some other religion. Who really knows for sure. I am sure that the Hindus convictions in his faith is as strong as yours. And using morality arguments proves nothing since it is easily established that atheists have morals and morality is not the sole Provence of religion. Can I say Catholic priest's.
I am with Road Kill on this one

dnf777
12-04-2009, 03:02 PM
So you make it up as you go along.

I don't ask you for an explanation of the way you choose to relate to God except as a result of the fact that you brought it up in a debate. It is not unreasonable to ask a person to define his terms in a debate. I believe you have defined them...I.E. You make it up as it pleases you.

Never been on a crusade regards,

Fair enough.

But if I "make it up", I'm only doing what the Catholic church, and those who broke away to make up their own rules have all done before me!

I am certainly not qualified to get into a scripture war with you, but I will ask, didn't the catholic church selectively include and exclude certain testaments and scriptures to mold what has become the modern church doctrine? Especially when it comes to the woman's role in religion? (yes, I read Dan Brown, but NO, I'm not basing my question solely on Davinci Code!)

Leddyman
12-04-2009, 03:19 PM
I believe that any religion that believes in the exclusive correctness of its brand of faith is inherently flawed -- but then that is my belief and i do not profess to be a Christian. However, even among Christians I find very few who believe that there is an exclusive truth defining a singular path to God. Most are willing to believe that there may be multiple paths to salvation and reject the notion of a God bent on condemning the majority of all human kind alive today or through history to damnation because their beliefs did not meet your standards of correctness.

Definition of terms.

Religion is man's attempt to please God.
Truth is correspondence to reality.
If I believe in my heart that I can jump off abuilding and fly that will not prevent the inevitable fact that truth corresponds to reality from bringing me to the ground.

If you believe that religion is a state of mind and not grounded in fact then you can accept any religion.

Christianity is a religion rooted and grounded and built on the FACT that Jesus Christ is God. He died on a cross for the propitiation of the sins of all mankind and that He rose from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God. We believe that to be a fact. We stake our lives on this fact which we believe. It costs us something personally to live a life that acknowledges this as fact. If it is a fact that Jesus was God, then the things he said and the incarnation define man's relationship to God. It is not a brand of faith it is a life rooted in the fact of the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
It is either true or it is not true that Jesus was God and rose again from the grave. If it is not true then have at it. If it is true then it defines man's relationship with God.
You are free to reject that. That is not permission it is a statement of fact.

You find Christianity bigoted because you believe it to exclude people from God.

The truth is that Christ said that "Whosoever will may come." How do you get to heaven in other religions? In Islam by works that please God. What of those unable to work the works that please God? Hell awaits. Likewise Hinduism requires a life in which the good outweighs the bad.
What of those who cannot meet the standard? Eternal incarnations as lower castes. pick a religion besides Christianity and you will find many excluded from God through no fault of their own.

Jesus said, believe in me and you shall be saved. Unbelief is a choice, a refusal to bow to God fueled by pride. But who could believe if they would? Anyone. Christ says that if they come to Him he will in no wise turn them away. Still they refuse.

It boils down to which is true. Jesus was God....or not.

My reason for even saying all of this is that so many claim to believe in God yet ignore the undeniable choices which that entails. Religions that make contradictory truth claims cannot both be right. As Franco so eloquently pointed out they can both be wrong, but they can not both be right.

Leddyman
12-04-2009, 03:44 PM
Fair enough.

But if I "make it up", I'm only doing what the Catholic church, and those who broke away to make up their own rules have all done before me!

I am certainly not qualified to get into a scripture war with you, but I will ask, didn't the catholic church selectively include and exclude certain testaments and scriptures to mold what has become the modern church doctrine? Especially when it comes to the woman's role in religion? (yes, I read Dan Brown, but NO, I'm not basing my question solely on Davinci Code!)

If you are referring to the cannon, the council of Nicea closed the cannon with the books that we now have in pour Bible. The tests for a book to be included in the cannon were, 1.Apostolic authorship, it had to be written by an Apostle(one who was with Christ during His incarnation) or a direct disciple of an Apostle, I.E. Mark who wrote that Gospel was with Peter and constructed his gospel based on Peter's ministry and preaching. 2. Adherence to the "rule of faith" That is that it did not contradict the established teachings of the early church. and 3. Wide acceptance by the early church. By early church we mean those churches that were first established and worshiping by around 100-150 A.D.
The Muratorian cannon is the first list that we poses to contain all of the books of our New Testament and was written toward the end of the second century. The 100's A.D. In addition to the three criteria mentioned earlier another important consideration was quotes by the early church fathers. Our New Testament can be reconstructed in almost its entiorety from the qoutes of these early church fathers. In addition Carson and Moo in "an introduction to the New Testament" say on page 734,There is early and widespread attestation of our 27 New Testament documents being bound together in various configurations.

The answer is that while the Catholic Church in later centuries became obsessed with power and kept the common man away from the Bible in order to rule over him by using religious blackmail and even violence, they were not sufficiently organized or powerful enough early enough in the life of the church to corrupt the cannon. Brown and his ilk know that you cannot successfully destroy Christianity without first robbing it of its authority which is the Word of God.

Were books excluded from the cannon? Absolutely. The gospel of Thomas is one of the more famous examples. It was not quoted by the early church fathers. There are no examples of it until much later, mid 300's, it contains teachings that were never accepted by the early church. It is clearly a forgery of Gnostic origin and as such was excluded from the cannon. Rightfully so. Dan Brown has made lots of money from exaggerating history and playing on people's suspicion of the church. What he has not done is prove that the cannon is corrupted.

Leddyman
12-04-2009, 03:52 PM
[QUOTE=Leddyman;531949][QUOTE]My point is that one or the other is wrong. You get to decide which one you want to believe is right. The fact of the matter is that the two religions differ in significant ways that define each of them. Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate and that only through Him can one be saved. Muslims hold that Jesus might have been a prophet or teacher, but that He was most certainly NOT God and did not rise from the dead. These two positions, as even you must admit, are mutually exclusive and therefore cannot both be true. Thus if one claims to be an adherent of the Christian Faith (viz. Obama) Then one would be intellectually dishonest to give equal standing to a faith that holds contradictory beliefs to be religious fact.

That is the inherent problem with religion. Each faith for the most part believes that their religion is the true and superior one. Many wars have been fought over that premise alone. Dealing logically with it just introduces more problems. For instance as someone already posted maybe both religions are wrong and maybe Hindu is right or some other religion. Who really knows for sure. I am sure that the Hindus convictions in his faith is as strong as yours. And using morality arguments proves nothing since it is easily established that atheists have morals and morality is not the sole Provence of religion. Can I say Catholic priest's.
I am with Road Kill on this one

That is exactly my point. I am not trying to PROVE to you that Christianity is the correct religion. I cannot do that. I can show a preponderance of evidence, but ultimately it is a matter of choice for the individual. What I CAN do and what I was trying to show is that we can not simply say that they are all right and dismiss it.

Two mutually exclusive statements of fact can not BOTH be true. They CAN both be false. or one can be right and the other wrong.

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

YardleyLabs
12-04-2009, 03:57 PM
You are obviously free to believe as you wish. The facts, if any, are unknowable in any scientific sense. That is the essence of faith.

Personally, I am not a deist -- I fall closer to what RK calls secular progressive. However, I will also admit that the existence or non-existence of a god has never been a very important question in my mind. I am continuously in awe of the miracle of life. I believe that if a god exists -- and that is as much a possibility as that one does not -- I cannot believe in a god that would create such a diversity of wonder, yet base salvation on how people elected to praise him. I would argue that an entity that would create humanity for the sole purpose of being praised is no god at all, but an adolescent nightmare. But, of course, that is just my belief.

And while I am not a deist, I am definitely influenced by the beliefs of my Unitarian ancestors who viewed Jesus as an extraordinary man, but definitely a man, not a god. While Unitarians may have lost the vote at Nicea, they were a significant part of the early Christian world. Among Unitarian-Universalists, there has been a common quip saying the Unitarians believe that mankind is too good to be damned by God, while Universalists believe that God is too good to damn them.

There are many "gospels" going back thousands of years. You are correct that they cannot al be true. However, they share a number of common themes among them. I tend to believe that the "truth" lies in the reverence of life and their shared emphasis on the importance of celebrating life and living in a charitable and compassionate manner. I find little importance in their institutional characteristics (this church or that, this book or that) or in the details of how they worship.

Franco
12-04-2009, 04:04 PM
Christianity is a religion rooted and grounded and built on the FACT that Jesus Christ is God.



This is why seperation of chruch from state is so important to our freedom. What you believe to be FACT is your right. However, most think it is Belief and not Fact.

Oh, and John Lennon was no idiot. Much of what he stood for proved to be insightful as history has shown. He was way ahead of his time.

Lets don't forget that organized religions have cause more deaths and human misery than any other single factor in the history of mankind.

Cody Covey
12-04-2009, 06:23 PM
theres no such thing as separation of church and state in the constitution. If you can find it please let me know and if you cite Thomas Jefferson please cite the whole thing so I don't have to go find the whole quote to prove you wrong...

Franco
12-04-2009, 06:51 PM
Here ya go...


The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

...and that's why we have a seperation. If no denomination can become the state religion than all are seperated from the state!

YardleyLabs
12-04-2009, 06:55 PM
theres no such thing as separation of church and state in the constitution. If you can find it please let me know and if you cite Thomas Jefferson please cite the whole thing so I don't have to go find the whole quote to prove you wrong...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" [First Amendment, US Constitution]

Establishment of religion has been generally interpreted to mean anything evidencing preference of one religion over another or of religion over irreligion. See, for example, Souter writing for the majority in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 1993, "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

With respect to Jefferson, I assume you are referencing the Danbury Baptist letter from 1801 where Jefferson wrote:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." (See http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html)

Initially, this prohibition applied only to the Federal Government. However, under the 14th amendment equal protection clause this restriction was extended to state and local governments as well. For many years, the law was violated on a regular basis in schools throughout the country. In many, it was simply ignored, while in others it was addressed using the illusion of "non-sectarian" prayer. This was the situation in New York State when the Supreme Court heard Engel v. Vitale in 1962 and ruled with only one dissenting vote that official prayer in school constituted implicit endorsement of religion and thereby was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Leddyman
12-06-2009, 07:09 AM
This is why seperation of chruch from state is so important to our freedom. What you believe to be FACT is your right. However, most think it is Belief and not Fact.

Oh, and John Lennon was no idiot. Much of what he stood for proved to be insightful as history has shown. He was way ahead of his time.

Lets don't forget that organized religions have cause more deaths and human misery than any other single factor in the history of mankind.

Dude! Have you SEEN Yoko Onno? C'mon.

Leddyman
12-06-2009, 07:21 AM
You are obviously free to believe as you wish. The facts, if any, are unknowable in any scientific sense. That is the essence of faith.

Personally, I am not a deist -- I fall closer to what RK calls secular progressive. However, I will also admit that the existence or non-existence of a god has never been a very important question in my mind. I am continuously in awe of the miracle of life. I believe that if a god exists -- and that is as much a possibility as that one does not -- I cannot believe in a god that would create such a diversity of wonder, yet base salvation on how people elected to praise him. I would argue that an entity that would create humanity for the sole purpose of being praised is no god at all, but an adolescent nightmare. But, of course, that is just my belief.

And while I am not a deist, I am definitely influenced by the beliefs of my Unitarian ancestors who viewed Jesus as an extraordinary man, but definitely a man, not a god. While Unitarians may have lost the vote at Nicea, they were a significant part of the early Christian world. Among Unitarian-Universalists, there has been a common quip saying the Unitarians believe that mankind is too good to be damned by God, while Universalists believe that God is too good to damn them.

There are many "gospels" going back thousands of years. You are correct that they cannot al be true. However, they share a number of common themes among them. I tend to believe that the "truth" lies in the reverence of life and their shared emphasis on the importance of celebrating life and living in a charitable and compassionate manner. I find little importance in their institutional characteristics (this church or that, this book or that) or in the details of how they worship.

The facts are every bit as knowable in a scientific sense as the religion that espouses evolution.
I would like to point out that every assertion I have made on this thread is a statement of verifiable fact. At no time have I tried to use Scripture to prove a point as I am aware that using the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible is circular reasoning. The historical and factual evidence I have offered is verifiable and I cited my sources. You are aware that none of the history which you accept as fact from your high school history classes is as well documented as the claims of the New testament. Bro. that is science. Ask a history teacher or an archeologist.

We do not identify things based on what they have in common. It is their essential differences that make them what they are. A saint and a murderer are exactly the same by your standard of religion, they both have a head, two legs, and two eyes so they are the same. We know that a saint and a murderer are not the same...barring the obvious NFL joke in there somewhere. It is the central difference that is important.
Religion is the same way. Because they all hold some standard of goodness; that does not make them the same. Because they attempt to please God they are not the same. A lot of Aztecs got their hearts cut out on an altar...that is not the same. It is the central difference that defines their identity. If you are ever accused of a crime you will be glad that you are identified by your essential difference I.E. unique fingerprints rather than your commonalities with the criminal which may be numerous.

I respect the fact that you do not believe what I believe. You have the honesty to stand up and say "I don't believe that". My problem is with the President who goes on TV and claims to be something that he isn't in order to garner votes. It is pure religious pandering. Words mean something. The name Christian means that you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you don't believe it fine, just don't lie and say you do Mr. President.

Cody Covey
12-08-2009, 10:39 AM
thank you for providing the exact quotes so that it can be shown that government is supposed to be neutral from religion not banning one or another, which ever is most politically correct and politically expedient to do.

YardleyLabs
12-08-2009, 10:55 AM
thank you for providing the exact quotes so that it can be shown that government is supposed to be neutral from religion not banning one or another, which ever is most politically correct and politically expedient to do.
However, neutrality demands that the trappings of government not be used in a manner that promotes any religion over another or religion in general over irreligion. This leaves no room for school prayer, little wiggle room for an office of "faith based" programs, and no reason at all for allowing religious beliefs to censor scientific teaching or to be treated as if they are themselves some form of science.

Michael Pearrow
12-08-2009, 09:29 PM
Obama is a Liar and is putting America in danger and making us look like a bunch of sissy's . He is ANTI AMERICAN plain and simple . Everybody wanted to talk about Bush ha ha he might not have had good grammar but he did have a pair and didn't kiss ever world leaders butt . We need to impeach this idiot He thinks he tells us what to do not us tell him what to do .

dnf777
12-08-2009, 09:37 PM
Obama is a Liar and is putting America in danger and making us look like a bunch of sissy's . He is ANTI AMERICAN plain and simple . Everybody wanted to talk about Bush ha ha he might not have had good grammar but he did have a pair and didn't kiss ever world leaders butt . We need to impeach this idiot He thinks he tells us what to do not us tell him what to do .

Tell us what you really think!

A black kid who grows up and figures out how to get elected President of the United States may be a lot of things....but "idiot" ain't one of 'em! If YOU were sitting in the whitehouse, and he was calling you un-American on a retriever forum, I might believe you then. ;-)

YardleyLabs
12-09-2009, 06:19 AM
Obama is a Liar and is putting America in danger and making us look like a bunch of sissy's . He is ANTI AMERICAN plain and simple . Everybody wanted to talk about Bush ha ha he might not have had good grammar but he did have a pair and didn't kiss ever world leaders butt . We need to impeach this idiot He thinks he tells us what to do not us tell him what to do .
I would be prepared to concede that all salesmen, including all politicians, are liars. However, there are clear gradations among them. It's hard to reply to your particular assertion without some detail. Personally, my impression is that one of Obama's problems may be that he is too honest and that this complicates his message since he tries so hard to treat us like thinking adults. This is, of course, in marked contrast to anything seen on Fox News, which is much more popular than the President. I agree that Bush had a set of cojones (as did Hitler, BTW). Unfortunately, he seemed so intent on showing them to everyone that he alienated the world and left us weaker as an economic and moral world leader than we were when he took office.

Pete
12-09-2009, 08:17 AM
I would be prepared to concede that all salesmen, including all politicians

I can prove you wrong on that Jeff
There are straight shooters in every walk of life ,,,even lawyers and politicians,,,, rare indeed but I know a couple of extremely honest sales people,,,haven met a honest politician or lawyer yet though

Pete

YardleyLabs
12-09-2009, 10:36 AM
I can prove you wrong on that Jeff
There are straight shooters in every walk of life ,,,even lawyers and politicians,,,, rare indeed but I know a couple of extremely honest sales people,,,haven met a honest politician or lawyer yet though

Pete
Pete,

My point was not to condemn all salesmen and politicians; I have been both and believe I have been pretty honest in both roles. However, anyone "selling" a particular perspective is deliberately highlighting the positives of what they believe is the correct decision and highlighting the negatives of what they view as the incorrect decision. The result is a distortion of the truth.

Ideally, we want our scientists to maintain an objective perspective in their research. However, we expect the scientific process to recognize the impact of research bias and to address it through independent confirmation of results and deliberate efforts to structure experiments to offset bias. That does not prevent fraud, but the absence of independent confirmation is generally sufficient to sink a theory. or studies of historic data and social science studies, the situation tends to be more complex but because of emotional involvement in the outcome and because data are inherently messy in these situations