Record low approval numbers for Obama

[1bad65]

"President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.

Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama's immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/obamas-percent-approval-lowest-president-point/

Who was it that said Obama would end up making Carter look good? :D

[MasterKiller]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/04/obama.approval.poll/index.html


Obama is not the first president to drop below 50 percent in his first year in the White House. President Reagan's approval rating dipped to 49 percent in November 1981 and stayed below that mark for two years. President Clinton also dropped well below the 50 percent mark by May 1993, the fastest fall on record.

[BoulderDawg]

Good!:D If it makes you happy then mayhap they'll go to zero!

Popularity has never been my thing. However I understand that you teabaggers can't think for yourself and need the support of others!:p

[1bad65]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/04/obama.approval.poll/index.html

Obama is not the first president to drop below 50 percent in his first year in the White House. President Reagan's approval rating dipped to 49 percent in November 1981 and stayed below that mark for two years. President Clinton also dropped well below the 50 percent mark by May 1993, the fastest fall on record.


But Reagan then went on to win 49 states in the most lopsided Electoral College victory in history in 1984. Let's see Obama pull that off when he runs for re-election. :D

[1bad65]

However I understand that you teabaggers can't think for yourself and need the support of others!:p

What are you babbling about now? :rolleyes:

[xcakid]

I say a prayer for NO-bama (AKA One Big A$$ Mistake America) everyday.

Psalm 109:8 (look it up I sure you will say this prayer for him everyday :) )

[David Jamieson]

I love it when "Christians" use Jewish scripture to express their hatred.

It really defines that peculiar thing that is American Christianity. lol

any american christians here? what would jesus do?

As a christian, do you think jesus would be down with the idea in the psalm?

What do you think Jesus would say about Obama?

I'm very interested to know what an American Christian thinks of this use of Jewish scripture to tout an idea?

(well not really, i just want to point out how false the intention behind this is) :D

[BoulderDawg]

Well, if there was a Jesus in today's times he sure as hell would not be a teabagger.

Let's see:

Interested in non violence.......Liberal
Interested in helping people less fortunate.......Liberal
Not interested in politics...........Liberal
Not interested in wealth.......Liberal

Of course he would be locked away in the psych ward of some prison somewhere!:D

[bawang]

if jesus were alive he would give the natives their land back

[Lucas]

he would try, but no one would believe a word he says. his miracles would be explained away as hoaxes, and ultimately in the united states and probably most of the rest of the world, he would be confined for psychiatric evaluation and treatment. Not giving up, yet continuing to profess himself as the Son of God, our Lord in flesh, he would eventually be imprisoned indefinately.

No one believes in miracles or magic anymore, they only believe in the stories about them....:rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

I don't know.

Why bother sending Jesus down anyway. Why don't big Daddy himself come out of the sky and say "I tired of F'ing around. Here's the way this S is going to be!"

[Lucas]

lol i just had a flash in my head of a Far Side cartoon...

[bawang]

i once saw jesus in a dream
hes the most awesome guy in the wrold

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.dynamicdiscord.com/BrianStuff/Humor/tadah_jesus.jpg

[bawang]

that only works on muslims

[Lucas]

http://www.dynamicdiscord.com/BrianStuff/Humor/tadah_jesus.jpg

when put like that....LOL...spectacular show isnt it?

[David Jamieson]

i once saw jesus in a dream
hes the most awesome guy in the wrold

A lot of people see Jesus in a dream. Trouble is that the historical record shows that no one ever met him in person. ;)

he's like a unicorn or something! spoken of, illustrated and expounded upon, but never actually seen.

I think he's hanging with sasquatch playing poker for the souls in the Guf. lol

[BoulderDawg]

A lot of people see Jesus in a dream. Trouble is that the historical record shows that no one ever met him in person. ;)

he's like a unicorn or something! spoken of, illustrated and expounded upon, but never actually seen.

From what I understand there is some proof that a guy named "Jesus" actually existed. How they know this is beyond me. I think it was through some kind of census of the day.

Now, on the other hand, one has to wonder about all of those miracles. They were never really covered by the newsmen of the day. One would think that if someone walked across a lake or arose from the dead that somebody might think enough of that to write it down!:D

[1bad65]

Well, if there was a Jesus in today's times he sure as hell would not be a teabagger.

Well he sure wouldn't be voting Democrat.

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." - 2 Thessalonians 3:10

And of course I think He might just have a problem with them saying it's just fine to kill unborn babies.

[1bad65]

I love it when "Christians" use Jewish scripture to express their hatred.

The Old Testament (which includes the Book of Psalms), is Christian scripture as well. Though in a nutshell Christians are supposed to live life as Jesus said, the Old Testament is still relevant.


A lot of people see Jesus in a dream. Trouble is that the historical record shows that no one ever met him in person. ;)

he's like a unicorn or something! spoken of, illustrated and expounded upon, but never actually seen.

Actually Pontius Pilate is documented. As it is that he authorized Jesus to be crucified.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

8 neither ate we bread from any one for naught, but in labor and toil working night and day, that we might not burden any one of you:

9 not that we have not authority, but that we might give ourselves as a pattern to you to imitate us.

10 For when we were with you, this we charged you, that if any one will not work, neither let him eat.

11 For we hear of some walking among you disorderly, working not at all, but being busybodies:

12 now such we charge and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ, that working with quietness they eat their own bread.

13 But you, brethren, be not weary in well doing.

14 And if any one obey not our word through the letter, mark that man, and keep no company with him, that he may be put to shame;

15 and count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.


The bible quote mentions only disorderly busybodies, not the infirm of mind or body. One should work when one can and not when one can't.

Also, Thessalonians was written by Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, not Jesus, so I'm not sure how that particular book says anything about Jesus' voting habits.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Thessalonians was one of the earliest christian writings, probably about 50 Ad at the latest.
Paul was very much a "work for your wages" type of dude, he didn't believe that preachers and prophesiers should live off the avails of the community, EVEN though the may have been entitiled to it.
In his view ( He was a tent maker) working was part of life and taking care of ourselves as to not be a burden on anyone was paramount.

[David Jamieson]

The Old Testament (which includes the Book of Psalms), is Christian scripture as well. Though in a nutshell Christians are supposed to live life as Jesus said, the Old Testament is still relevant.



Actually Pontius Pilate is documented. As it is that he authorized Jesus to be crucified.

point 1. the old testament is completely Jewish scripture. I would remind you that Jesus was a jew and a rabbi. the 22 texts that comprise the old testament are completely jewish in origin.

point 2. There is no documented evidence of the sort. Yes, Pilate is recognized, but there is NO record of any crucification, no record of the passion play as laid out in the gospels.

Do you not see where facts have been mixed with allegory.

There are only 4 references external to the gospels in regards to jesus. These authors are however shown to be fictionalizing their accounts.

There is a rather replete understanding of history when it comes to the romans and their control of Judea. Herod the great, Herod Antipas, the city of sepphoris (which for some reason doesn't get mention in the gospels even though it is a huge roman city in Gallilee!) There is exactly zero mention of any Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus of Galilee etc etc.

You will not be able to find anywhere, any historical record of Jesus. You must rely only on your faith because there is no factual data on Jesus whatsoever available anywhere. Not even the dead sea scrolls (which are mostly gnostic gospels).

there is of course a firehose worth of information to shoot at ones teacup of understanding here, but any historical scholar will confirm without any misgivings that there is NO historical record of Jesus whatsoever and they will also confirm that the entire old testament is comprised of 22 Jewish texts that were adopted into the Christian religion as a foundation for the new testament. Kind of borrowing validity from the Jews.

Christianity didn't even exist until 300 CE approximately with Constantine of Romes declaration that it (Christianity) be made into the state religion, to amalgamate all other belief systems into one empirical religion which would in turn tell the people what to believe, who to pray to and to stop worshiping the pantheon of deities.

Needless to say, Constantine was a pagan unto death. Some say he converted on his death bed, but there is a lot of argument about it.

Anyway, I can assure you that your belief in Jesus, if you do believe in Jesus is entirely a matter of YOUR faith and has no historical or factual grounds whatsoever.

If you don't want to believe that, then by all means! Feel free to attend any universities religious studies course, archeology in Israel in the first century course, literature of rome, etc etc etc.

You will find that I speak the truth. If Christians would undertake to read some of the Jewish texts, they would learn a lot.

[MasterKiller]

http://www.badastronomy.com/pix/bablog/2007/jesus_dinosaur.jpg

[bawang]

the reason mma people dont believe in kung fu is the same reason u guys dont believe jesus

[1bad65]

David, I agree with alot of your points. You do know that part of history quite well. Of course, you are correct that faith is a key part of Christianity (as well as other religions).

If Christians (or any other religion) could prove 100% of their religion is provable, then there wouldn't be any faith, would there? One thing Chrisitanity and Judaism do have on their side is that alot of what is written in the Old Testament is proven true via archaeology and other means. The New Testament also has some parts of it verified by history, like Paul of Tarsus.

[1bad65]

MK, you can always make fun of others faiths. Or you can actually participate in a discussion on said faiths.

[MasterKiller]

MK, you can always make fun of others faiths. Or you can actually participate in a discussion on said faiths.

To this I say

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/2891741718_688793648d.jpg

[1bad65]

To this I say

Sady, this is what I've grown to expect from you.

[1bad65]

Speaking of science, are you giving Al Gore and the Democrats a pass on their junk science and outright lying?

I'm just curious if you make fun of BOTH sides, or just the side with Christianity on it.....

[sanjuro_ronin]

point 1. the old testament is completely Jewish scripture. I would remind you that Jesus was a jew and a rabbi. the 22 texts that comprise the old testament are completely jewish in origin.

point 2. There is no documented evidence of the sort. Yes, Pilate is recognized, but there is NO record of any crucification, no record of the passion play as laid out in the gospels.

Correct, The Canonized OT is made up of the core Jewish teachings.
The OT = the Old ovenant for Christians and while Christians are not under the "law of the OT", much of it is respected.


Do you not see where facts have been mixed with allegory.

There are only 4 references external to the gospels in regards to jesus. These authors are however shown to be fictionalizing their accounts.

Debatable, but then so is most of the OT and NT.


There is a rather replete understanding of history when it comes to the romans and their control of Judea. Herod the great, Herod Antipas, the city of sepphoris (which for some reason doesn't get mention in the gospels even though it is a huge roman city in Gallilee!) There is exactly zero mention of any Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus of Galilee etc etc.

You will not be able to find anywhere, any historical record of Jesus. You must rely only on your faith because there is no factual data on Jesus whatsoever available anywhere. Not even the dead sea scrolls (which are mostly gnostic gospels).


Quite correct, Jesus was a very minor player in his time.


there is of course a firehose worth of information to shoot at ones teacup of understanding here, but any historical scholar will confirm without any misgivings that there is NO historical record of Jesus whatsoever and they will also confirm that the entire old testament is comprised of 22 Jewish texts that were adopted into the Christian religion as a foundation for the new testament. Kind of borrowing validity from the Jews.

The OT is just that, the OT, while some passages have been transplanted into the NT, to give credibility and perhaps legitimacy to the claims attributed to Jesus, the bulk of the NT is very much "original" in its view of the new covenant.


Christianity didn't even exist until 300 CE approximately with Constantine of Romes declaration that it (Christianity) be made into the state religion, to amalgamate all other belief systems into one empirical religion which would in turn tell the people what to believe, who to pray to and to stop worshiping the pantheon of deities.

The term was around before that and christians were view as their own seperate cult already into the last 1st century and most certainly the 2nd.

All religion is based on faith, that is the core of every religion.

[BoulderDawg]

I'm just curious if you make fun of BOTH sides, or just the side with Christianity on it.....

Personally I only make fun of the Christians.

[1bad65]

Personally I only make fun of the Christians.

Yet you admire a lying wife-beater. :rolleyes:

[MasterKiller]

Speaking of science, are you giving Al Gore and the Democrats a pass on their junk science and outright lying?

I'm just curious if you make fun of BOTH sides, or just the side with Christianity on it.....

Bad science is bad science.

I do believe that changes in the chemical composition in the Earth's atmosphere can change the planet, though, because it's happened several times already, through natural processes.

For example, before there were trees, the atmosphere contained large amounts of CO2. Oceans contained high amounts of iron. After trees and plants evolved and converted massive amounts of CO2 into oxygen in the atmophere, the iron in the oceans oxidized and created a suitable environent for sea life to develop.

We dump immense amounts of C02 into the atmosphere. Sooner or later, it will affect the way the planet functions, which may or may not be detrimental to us.

In religious terms, think of it like Pascal's wager. Better safe than sorry.

[BoulderDawg]

Yet you admire a lying wife-beater. :rolleyes:

Every topic!:D Bad can't debate any subject on it's own merits.


Of course it doesn't surprise me.

[1bad65]

Every topic!:D Bad can't debate any subject on it's own merits.

Of course it doesn't surprise me.

Ok, so then explain to us why you make fun of Christians while admiring a lying wife-beater. Explain your side of the story. Shut me up. :D

I'm simply pointing out your hypocracy.

[1bad65]

In religious terms, think of it like Pascal's wager. Better safe than sorry.

Now I'm curious as to why a 'better safe than sorry' type person makes fun of Christianity then.

[BoulderDawg]

Ok, so then explain to us why you make fun of Christians while admiring a lying wife-beater. Explain your side of the story. Shut me up. :D

Why would I want to shut you up?

Everytime you go down this road you show the true nature of the Neo teabagger and the tactics they use. I would encourage you to follow me around the board and post about Ward Churchill after everyone of my post. How dare I admire another liberal and how dare I make comments on any issue because of it!:D

People here are smart enough to see through that.

[Lucas]

People here are smart enough to see through that.

you give people too much credit.

:p

[sanjuro_ronin]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0902/thank-you-lord-teabag-lord-thanks-demotivational-poster-1235133177.jpg

[BoulderDawg]

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0902/thank-you-lord-teabag-lord-thanks-demotivational-poster-1235133177.jpg

Suites me! I need to steep mine today!

[1bad65]

People here are smart enough to see through that.

And they are smart enough to see you for what you are.

It speaks volumes that you cannot even explain your stances when asked to.

[1bad65]

you give people too much credit.

Only people like the racist and the wife-beater he idolizes and agrees with politically.

[BoulderDawg]

Yep! The "racist" and the "Wife Beater" appreciate that!:D

[MasterKiller]

Now I'm curious as to why a 'better safe than sorry' type person makes fun of Christianity then.

Well, like I said, there is historical evidence to support the supisition that the climate can be changed by changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

There is no evidence that the zombie progeny of an incestuous space ghost cares what people do.

[Lucas]

lol, incestuous space ghost....

sorry, couldnt help myself, i got no hate, i just find most things really funny.

http://www.tn-atheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/christianityexplained.jpg

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not sure how we got on the whole Christianity thing, but have you guys seen the debate between Richard Dawkins and Alister Mcgrath?

[Lucas]

i blame MK.

i havnt read those debates

[David Jamieson]

Not sure how we got on the whole Christianity thing, but have you guys seen the debate between Richard Dawkins and Alister Mcgrath?

yes. It's akin to larpers arguing about which dragon is stronger, the gold one or the red one. :D

These are tautological giamst afterall and they are talking about metaphysics and subjects that aren't based in hard data or empirical facts.

an avowed atheist has as much a leg to stand on as a true believer.

in that sense...well, the buddha was right with his four noble truths and 8 fold path.

Not that I'm a buddhist, cause I'm not, but then, technically, buddhism isn't a religion to most, just a way to live your life.

[sanjuro_ronin]

i blame MK.

i havnt read those debates

Youtube it, the "uncut" stuff is cool, 15 parts at 5 min each but it is well worth it, at least I think so as a christian AND as a critical SOB.

[sanjuro_ronin]

yes. It's akin to larpers arguing about which dragon is stronger, the gold one or the red one. :D

These are tautological giamst afterall and they are talking about metaphysics and subjects that aren't based in hard data or empirical facts.

an avowed atheist has as much a leg to stand on as a true believer.

in that sense...well, the buddha was right with his four noble truths and 8 fold path.

Not that I'm a buddhist, cause I'm not, but then, technically, buddhism isn't a religion to most, just a way to live your life.

I think you may have missed the point of that debate.
It was how a religious debate should be done, well, ANY debate actually.

[David Jamieson]

I think you may have missed the point of that debate.
It was how a religious debate should be done, well, ANY debate actually.

It was well mannered, but the point is this from my view:

Dawkin's thinks religion is a cause of problems and violence in the world.

McGrath is contrary to that.

I think that placing blame on an artificial construct such as religion is, is not only myopic, it is wholly incorrect.

People cause problems. Not because of what they believe, but because of the human nature regarding where one lets themselves be vulnerable and where one exudes their own power.

In my opinion, a nice debate arguing about the colour of air is meaningless no matter how many great points and counterpoints there are. It was an empty box to begin with and is therefore rendered moot by the self evident nothingness that is what it is.

:)

Both of them argue for something which doesn't actually and truely exist except within an individuals belief.

a man worshipping jesus doesn't get the idea to drop a bomb from his religion. He wanted to drop that bomb anyway and would use whatever excuse to do so.

If religion is the problem, why are communists also waging wars on others?
That's only one question of many that provides a significant rebuttal to Dawkins entire premise.

I think I've made myself clear on the other side of it. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Dawkin's thinks religion is a cause of problems and violence in the world.

McGrath is contrary to that.

Dawkins things that religion is ONE of the MAIN causes, yes and McGrath agrees that it can be when misused.
Its more of an excuse than a reason really.

I think it is more correct to see it as a debate about evil and not violence and since evil is abstract then of course, one debates abstract things.

Neither one thought they would convince the other, but both were smart and honest enough to see each others points.

[1bad65]

There is no evidence that the zombie progeny of an incestuous space ghost cares what people do.

Well, I give you credit for going all in.

But you better be right.

But really, you should go talk to a priest, preacher, minister, etc if you truly are curious as to how Christianity answers questions you pose (like dinosaurs for example). You may find the answers to the questions you ask. Of course if you are just taking pot shots at people who do Believe for your own personal amusement, you'd just be wasting everyone's time if you took my advice.

[1bad65]

Yep! The "racist" and the "Wife Beater" appreciate that!:D

Yes, fools like you have given one political power, and the other a very well paying, respected job.

I have another question for you: :rolleyes: How come because you dislike Sarah Palin's political positions you attack her family, yet you make excuses for a racist and a wife beater because you agree politically with them?

[David Jamieson]

Well, I give you credit for going all in.

But you better be right.

But really, you should go talk to a priest, preacher, minister, etc if you truly are curious as to how Christianity answers questions you pose (like dinosaurs for example). You may find the answers to the questions you ask. Of course if you are just taking pot shots at people who do Believe for your own personal amusement, you'd just be wasting everyone's time if you took my advice.

Dinosaurs and their existence and the question of the science of determination in their regards is accepted by a great deal of Christians.

some Christians believe earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs walked with men and then were destroyed by god. (this is a remarkably small amount of the faithful by the way and is generally a US phenomena)

other Christians laugh out loud at that notion and acceot that the planet is billions of years old, men have only been here for a very small fraction of that time and they do not find problems between empirical scientific data and their faith.

you can have 300 million year old dinosaurs and you can have jesus god and mary as well and they are all harmonious because really, you can make a belief system fit where ever you would like to within a schema of what is otherwise factual reality.

the fundamentalists that argue for the 6000 year old planet are willfully ignorant. Mind you, that is sort of what a belief is as well when it isn't backed up with factual evidence and empirical data.

[BoulderDawg]

I really thought it was funny that when the Christians were so boxed in by science in regard to the age of the earth they started changing their story to meet the facts:

"Oh! No problem! One of God's days is a 100 million years long!":D

[1bad65]

I really thought it was funny that when the Christians were so boxed in by science in regard to the age of the earth they started changing their story to meet the facts:

"Oh! No problem! One of God's days is a 100 million years long!":D

Kind of like your idol changing his story as more and more facts came out.

[1bad65]

Really, it is almost comical watching you in action.

One one hand you are making fun of Christians because they cant prove their beliefs. But on the other hand you still swear a white con man is an American Indian, even after he himself admitted he is not. :rolleyes:

[Yao Sing]

I really thought it was funny that when the Christians were so boxed in by science in regard to the age of the earth they started changing their story to meet the facts:

"Oh! No problem! One of God's days is a 100 million years long!":D

Keep in mind though that time is relative and the rate of passage for a cosmic entity is not the same as it is for a terrestial based entity.

Time passes at a different rate for the crew of the Enterprise than it does for the Earth based Federation even though they don't address that on the sci-fi shows we all like to watch.

:D

[David Jamieson]

When your view is so primitive as to be engaging in anthropomorphism in context to god....well, that says a lot.

[solo1]

How did this go from Obamas well deserved plummeting poll numbers to an argument on religion?

[Drake]

I think I've said before that being president is a very difficult job, and not a very popular one. This is why I refrained from making any judgments against fmr pres. Bush, and think it wasn't smart of Pres. Obama to insult him. Now he sees that once you call the shots, and have to make difficult choices, how quickly people turn on you.

[SanHeChuan]

How did this go from Obamas well deserved plummeting poll numbers to an argument on religion?

Because a Christian brought up their faith and tried to throw it in everyone’s face.

Christians are funny because modern Christianity is only superficially tied to the bible. Everyone just picks and chooses and edits the parts that reinforce their preconceived beliefs. Which is fine because the bible is wholly reprehensible as it is.

My problem is when Christians take their edited fracture belief and then point to the bible for their justification, saying no no THIS is the undeniable WORD of GOD. Really, then why did you deny all those other words?

Just Hypocrites really.

Case in point being when 1bad65 posted an edit passage from the bible to make his point. Only the wholly passage says something else altogether.

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." - 2 Thessalonians 3:10

How about These quotes,



It is more blessed to give than to receive. Author: Acts, 20:35

Charity is the epitome of perfection in the Christian life. It is the "greatest" of the three abiding virtues (1 Corinthians 13:13).

"And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. Use hospitality one to another without grudging." (Peter 4:8-9)

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. I Corinthians (ch. XIII, v. 13)

And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. I Corinthians (ch. XIII, v. 2)

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." ~1 Timothy 6:10

"Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court." ~Proverbs 22:22

“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Luke 18:25)”

See I can cherry pick too.

[1bad65]

Because a Christian brought up their faith and tried to throw it in everyone’s face.

Actually; Xcakid, David Jamieson, BoulderDawg, Bawang, Lucas, and Sanjuro Ronin all brought up religion/Jesus BEFORE I did.

So get your facts straight before you post.

[Lucas]

it was all bawang's fault. like usual

[1bad65]

Case in point being when 1bad65 posted an edit passage from the bible to make his point. Only the wholly passage says something else altogether.

I actually posted the entire verse I listed. I edited nothing.


See I can cherry pick too.

S0 where in ANY of the Scripture you posted does it say its Government's resposibility to that?

FYI, I do give to charity. It's just my business what I voluntarily give. As it should be. No one should be forced by Government to give.

It's also interesting you are bashing on Christianity, while pointing out their religion does call for charity.

[SanHeChuan]

Actually; Xcakid, David Jamieson, BoulderDawg, Bawang, Lucas, and Sanjuro Ronin all brought up religion/Jesus BEFORE I did.

So get your facts straight before you post.

Does Xcakid not count as a Christian? I believe he does. Ah BURN! :p


I actually posted the entire verse I listed. I edited nothing.

You edited it out of context it was Xiao3 Meng4 who posted the whole thing to counter your point.


It's also interesting you are bashing on Christianity, while pointing out their religion does call for charity.

Yes because without Christians there would be no charity right? :rolleyes:


FYI, I do give to charity. It's just my business what I voluntarily give. As it should be.

What you call charity I call civic duty.

[1bad65]

Does Xcakid not count as a Christian? I believe he does. Ah BURN! :p

Can you now explain how "a Christian brought up their faith and tried to throw it in everyone’s face" then? I didn't get that vibe from his post at all.



You edited it out of context it was Xiao3 Meng4 who posted the whole thing to counter your point.

Once again, I posted the ENTIRE verse. Perhaps the word 'edited' is one you do not understand the meaning of.


Yes because without Christians there would be no charity right? :rolleyes:

Who said that?

I will say it's funny that you bag on Christians, yet their religion calls for charity without being mandated by Government to do so.



What you call charity I call civic duty.

So again I ask you to show me where in the Constitution it says it's the Federal Government's responsibility to provide healthcare for the citizenry.

[sanjuro_ronin]

it was all bawang's fault. like usual

Freaking A !!!

[Drake]

You all can talk smack about charity and whose responsibility it is, but I have yet to see ANY of you donate to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society on my fundraiser thread here. Here's the link. http://pages.teamintraining.org/rm/dhmomu10/dethington

That's right...I'm throwing down. If you're going to talk the talk, you better walk DA WALK! :cool:

[sanjuro_ronin]

You all can talk smack about charity and whose responsibility it is, but I have yet to see ANY of you donate to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society on my fundraiser thread here. Here's the link. http://pages.teamintraining.org/rm/dhmomu10/dethington

That's right...I'm throwing down. If you're going to talk the talk, you better walk DA WALK! :cool:

Done.
:D
Anything for a good cause.

[Drake]

Done.
:D
Anything for a good cause.

Thanks, buddy :D

Apparently they just unlocked some genetic code on several cancers. This is very good news, seeing as cancer is a "programming error", so to speak.

Cancer freaks me out, because while you can get it via smoking and other things, sometimes it just sort of happens.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Thanks, buddy :D

Apparently they just unlocked some genetic code on several cancers. This is very good news, seeing as cancer is a "programming error", so to speak.

Cancer freaks me out, because while you can get it via smoking and other things, sometimes it just sort of happens.

I know a few that have died from Leukimia.
I could only give 100, I've given a tad already to other charities.

[1bad65]

You all can talk smack about charity and whose responsibility it is, but I have yet to see ANY of you donate to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society on my fundraiser thread here. Here's the link. http://pages.teamintraining.org/rm/dhmomu10/dethington

That's right...I'm throwing down. If you're going to talk the talk, you better walk DA WALK! :cool:

It will sure speak volumes if those calling for FORCED giving do not voluntarily give themselves.

[1bad65]

Cancer freaks me out, because while you can get it via smoking and other things, sometimes it just sort of happens.

True. Andy Kaufman died of lung cancer, yet never smoked a day in his life.

[Drake]

I know a few that have died from Leukimia.
I could only give 100, I've given a tad already to other charities.

Sorry to hear that, guy. :(

We're a pretty giving household. We always buy meals for homeless people, and donate various amounts to school funds, etc. I have a car and a roof above my head. I'm good. Not everybody else is.

[bawang]

obama is black
i like him

[Drake]

It will sure speak volumes if those calling for FORCED giving do not voluntarily give themselves.


Well, so far, NEITHER side is being too charitable, except for SR, who is already tied with Bawang for coolest person on the board. I think his donation edged him up, though.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well, so far, NEITHER side is being too charitable, except for SR, who is already tied with Bawang for coolest person on the board. I think his donation edged him up, though.

I am more beautiful than Bawang, he's asian.
:p

[1bad65]

Well, so far, NEITHER side is being too charitable, except for SR, who is already tied with Bawang for coolest person on the board. I think his donation edged him up, though.

You can tell who gave?

[sanjuro_ronin]

You can tell who gave?

It shows on the website.

[Drake]

You can tell who gave?

Absolutely. How else can I send nifty thank you cards?

It's also a tax write-off. :D

[Drake]

You can tell who gave?

Nobody will know it's you.

[Drake]

You can tell who gave?

If you want, I can hide your name if you choose to donate.

[SanHeChuan]

It's also interesting you are bashing on Christianity, while pointing out their religion does call for charity.

Does it? In the Greek it was agape, and in the context of the scriptures probably meant more like to love God. Not give monehs to the poor.

But because I figured you would believe that Christianity promotes Charity and within the modern context it does, I was attempting to use your own arguments against you. Since you believe your religion says should be charitable, that you should be more charitable.

Just because it has one or more redeeming qualities doesn’t mean the rest is good and I should embrace it. My issue is not with the Charity, though I don’t think the bible promotes charity but Christians do. My issue is with the way people use their religion for negative purposes, like ignorance. And my issue is with the actual core of the teachings, not with the way the majority of Christians choose to interpret that core, to meet the expectations of modern morality.

Drake


Dear SanHeChuan:

Thank you so much for your generous donation to support The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's efforts to find cures for blood cancers, on behalf of David Ethington. This message is automatically generated as a receipt for your recent donation through teamintraining.org.

[Drake]

Does it? In the Greek it was agape, and in the context of the scriptures probably meant more like to love God. Not give monehs to the poor.

But because I figured you would believe that Christianity promotes Charity and within the modern context it does, I was attempting to use your own arguments against you. Since you believe your religion says should be charitable, that you should be more charitable.

Just because it has one or more redeeming qualities doesn’t mean the rest is good and I should embrace it. My issue is not with the Charity, though I don’t think the bible promotes charity but Christians do. My issue is with the way people use their religion for negative purposes, like ignorance. And my issue is with the actual core of the teachings, not with the way the majority of Christians choose to interpret that core, to meet the expectations of modern morality.

Drake

Thanks! :D

I'm going on leave next week, and will probably spend a good chunk of it in the cold trying to collect funds for LLS. I'll wear my dress uniform, exploit that military edge. Hehehehe.

It's funny that I enjoy making money for charity more than I do for myself. It's a different type of satisfaction.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The NT makes it clear that Christians are to take care of those that can't take care of themselves, widows are singled out as an example, older widows I should say.
The NT also makes it clear that ALL that CAN work for their wages SHOULD.

The OT and Hebrew law mentions that a certain % of income should be given to the less fortunate, the NT mentions that too, the difference is that while in the OT that was part of the law, in the NT it is to be done out of love.
The intent behind charity being the crucial element.

[SanHeChuan]

The intent behind charity being the crucial element.

Which intent would that be, the promotion of the religion? Biscuits for bibles. :D

Out of curiosity where do you get family values in the bible?

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." Doesn't really sell me on family values.

The bible seems to consistently demand that you put your faith before your children. That doesn't really vibe with today’s values where a parent is expected to sacrifice anything and everything for their children, even their soul. :confused:

[Drake]

Why can't we give just to give?

[1bad65]

But because I figured you would believe that Christianity promotes Charity and within the modern context it does, I was attempting to use your own arguments against you. Since you believe your religion says should be charitable, that you should be more charitable.

Says who? You? Do you know how much I give? Do you know how much money I earn?


Just because it has one or more redeeming qualities doesn’t mean the rest is good and I should embrace it.

And you will see that nowhere did I say you should embrace it. I simply pointed out Christianity does call for charity, while pointing out it does call for people who can work to work and not rely on others. Sanjuro pointed this out as well.

[1bad65]

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." Doesn't really sell me on family values.

The bible seems to consistently demand that you put your faith before your children. That doesn't really vibe with today’s values where a parent is expected to sacrifice anything and everything for their children, even their soul. :confused:

For someone who accuses me of "editing", that first paragraph sure is strange. What Bible verse is that? Is it the full verse? What is the context?

[SanHeChuan]

Why can't we give just to give?

Who christian's? Apparently in the NT you have to give out of love or it doesn't count.

To those in need I hardly think it matter why you give.



For someone who accuses me of "editing", that first paragraph sure is strange. What Bible verse is that? Is it the full verse? What is the context?

Luke 14:25-27

[sanjuro_ronin]

Who christian's? Apparently in the NT you have to give out of love or it doesn't count.


Actually, the NT teaches us that giving with the thought of recompense won't get you anywhere with God in terms of salvation, for he has given his grace freely through Jesus Christ his son.

[1bad65]

Actually, the NT teaches us that giving with the thought of recompense won't get you anywhere with God in terms of salvation, for he has given his grace freely through Jesus Christ his son.

Thank you.

His ignorance concerning Christianity is obvious. Of course that won't stop him from slamming it constantly.

[1bad65]

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." Doesn't really sell me on family values.


Luke 14:25-27

Actually you did indeed edit it. After accusing me of editing when I did not. Here is the entire, unedited 3 verses:

"And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."

The context sure does change when you post the ENTIRE 3 verses, doesn't it?

[SanHeChuan]

Actually you did indeed edit it. After accusing me of editing when I did not. Here is the entire, unedited 3 verses:

"And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."

The context sure does change when you post the ENTIRE 3 verses, doesn't it?

No.
:confused:

[Drake]

I just dropped $115 on Toys for Tots. Went to Toys R Us, became a kid, bought some stuff, and dropped if off this evening. :D

Atheist charity FTW

[Kansuke]

Who christian's? Apparently in the NT you have to give out of love or it doesn't count.




In Christianity, charity is love.