The sound of drums from the Kettle Moraine.
Mark,Are you implying "evolution" is not superstition?Obama believes in "Creationism", he attended Trinity church for decades. The word "evangelical" was even used in relation to Trinity to prove Obama was Christian, not Muslim.He was actually elected president.Why don't you impugn Obama's "Christian" beliefs?Methinks feminists would be very interested in your gender bias, and how you demean strong, powerful, women by not impugning men with even more power with the same beliefs.But we already know that being Christian is "OK" as long as that Christian is liberal....liberal Christians get "a pass" from the Motley Cow.
So, now that it's cold out nobody is stopping at the DQ?
Here's the United Church of Christ's (of which Trinity is the largest single member) position on evolution:“Evolution helps us see our faithful God in a new way. Our creator works patiently, calling forth life through complex processes spanning billions of years and waiting for us to awaken and respond in conscious participation in God’s own overarching dream for all living things. "Evolution also helps us see ourselves anew, as creatures who share a common origin with other species. Today we know that human bodies and brains share the same genetic and biochemical processes with other creatures, not just mammals but insects, plants, and bacteria.”
Are you STILL not done reading "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" Kevin?
Kevin Scheunemann, how can you POSSIBLY write: "Are you implying "evolution" is not superstition?"PLEASE read Richard Dawkins' "The Greatest Show On Earth", for instance, then "come again, good buddy."
Does the "diversion to ice cream" mean Obama's "Christianity" is off limits to discussion as well? I just don't know how you can make fun of Sarah Palin on "creationism" and not Obama.Do strong, articulate, self assured, women, like Sarah Palin, frighten you? Did you see the House passed health care bill reccomends AGAINST mammograms for women under 50? Sounds like we need a Sarah Palin to save us from breast cancer AND government rationing of mammograms!Is this the "health care" you are advocating?I got some time on my hands this P.M.
Evolution has no connection to superstition, is one is using a dictionary.evolution: Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.superstition: a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.JPenterman
I guess, Kevin, what I'm asking is why you're wasting your time and all the other readers' time, with these inane posts.
Yeah Kevin. If I didn't know better I'd think you had the hots for Oba Mao. You are unable to talk about anything other than him. Are you actually gay?
"Are you implying "evolution" is not superstition?"I believe Prof. P is implying this, as evolution isn't superstition. You writing tone actually conveys surprise that he would do this. Please tell me you aren't so uneducated that you believe creationism is the science mainstay."I just don't know how you can make fun of Sarah Palin on "creationism" and not Obama."Easy. Obama doesn't believe in creationism. He believes in evolution, and the two topics are not on the same playing field. One is a religious belief that is part of a larger mechanism holding back scientific advancement, the other is science. Evolution is the latter in case you're confused. Also, please research your facts next time you want to cry "hypocrisy!""Do strong, articulate, self assured, women, like Sarah Palin, frighten you?"I wouldn't use any of these words to describe Sarah Palin. Articulate? Really? Have you even seen her interviews?"Did you see the House passed health care bill reccomends AGAINST mammograms for women under 50? Sounds like we need a Sarah Palin to save us from breast cancer AND government rationing of mammograms!"As I'm sure Sarah would vote against this OPT-OUT government OPTION that is NOT going to replace insurance companies (just give them a little competition- yay capitalism), I'm not really seeing your point here. Insurance companies are making sure lots of people are getting no medical coverage at all, unless they get desperate enough to go to the ER. But lets not get side tracked:evolution= scienceevolution/= superstitioncreationism/= sciencecreationism= a literal interpretation of a certain part of bible which is ironically NOT used for other portions of that same bookObama= believes in evolutionPalin= believes in creationismTherefore Palin is an inconsistent crazy. Though I actually hope she get the Republican nom in the next presidential election.
Grant,So do you interpret United's 'evolution' position as denying "Creationism"?Obama says he's "Christian".I don't see how one can call themselves "Christian" and yet deny "Creationism"...The whole reason for Christianity is Christ. If one denys Creationism, (and the fall of man) you deny the entire need for Christ.So if Trinity is denying Creationism, shouldn't the better commentary be: How can Obama calling himself "Christian", but yet deny Creationism and the need for Christ himself?Fortunately, the United Church of Christ is not denying Creationism. So the fact remains, why is it OK to make fun of Sarah Palin's belief in Creationism, but not Obama's beleif in Creationism?Feel free to call it "inane", "not helping", or "frustrating", but its still a great question.We have "intellectual giants" here, and not one of you can handle the question?
Evolution.Even the most ardent supporters of evolution admit there is "gaps" in the science. Including Richard Dawkins. (He was great on the Colbert Report BTW.)This yet "undiscovered scientific" evidence for the gaps in knowledge requires superstition to beleive the evidence for the scientific gap does exist. Remember, if one does not have the science, it cannot be labeled as having reason or knowledge.So that is why I ask the question...are we saying evolution is not superstition? Especially when "scientific gaps" are acknowledged and known to exist in the theory? That takes a lot of "faith" from my perspective.I didn't know asking such a salient question would get everyone so worked up.Should I add "questioning evolution" to the "disfavored god" list in the liberal faith?My apologies, no one has made me a "verboten" subject list for the church of liberalism.
Clearly Kevin you must stop posting because Grant, Dan, John, Anon and Mark are so smart, therefore better than you. Just ask them. When a liberal can't think of anything clever to say, they attack.
An October 2009 study in Denmark, which is seen as one of two high-quality trials states:"For every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm."This is not even age-dependent, while the updated recommendation is for women under 50 not to have regular mammograms.Sarah Palin, no doubt, will attempt to turn this into another death panels scare.
kevin said sarah palin is articulate. baahahahahhahahahha!!!!!!
"Kevin" "have" "you" "still" "not" "read" "The" "Perks" "of" "Being" "a" "Wallflower"? "I" "guess" "you" "are" "busy" "writing" "your" "Walker" "Hymns"?
"When a liberal can't think of anything clever to say, they attack."Unlike on Boots & Sabers where dissenting opinions are always welcomed? Oh, please.
Who on this blog/planet really believes when a politician claims that s/he is a certain religion, that politician follows that religion to the T? Who on this blog/planet really believes when a politician has his/her eyes closed in a church or whatever that s/he is truly in touch with his/her god, is always 100% praying, and is totally more in touch with the superior supernatural concept/being/thing than the other politician?C'mon people! If anyone buys that crap, s/he deserves that politician as his or her Siamese sibling in the next life. I own my own mind!
John Jost...I'm not disagreeing with your mammogram study, but under this health care plan the decision on the need for a mammogram is made by some nameless, faceless bureaucrat to fund vs. our wives, daughters, sisters, aunts, and neices making the decision.I've lost realtives to breat cancer in their 30's. This health care bill "guideline" IS A DEATH PANEL!This is what government "cutting health care cost" is: rationing of services. Eliminating choice for mammograms when females think they need it.I thought liberals advocated choice?The Obama administration is folding like tissue paper on this issue. Women are a powerful constituency. Will liberals pray for people in our national health care system with no political clout?Anonymous,How can Obama call himself a "Christian", if you claim he does not believe in Creationism?In this case, at least Sarah is honest about her Christianity. Obama would then be dishonest about his Christianity.Accepting the need for Christ is at the core of Christianity. Denying Creationism denys the need for Christ.One cannot honestly call themselves Christian and deny the need for Christ at the same time.So who is worthy of ridicule, between Palin and Obama, over their Christian beleifs? (Its the "Chrisitan" denying the need for Christ, because that person is not "Chrisitan" by failing to accept the religion's core tenant.)Palin is at least honest about her belief in Christianity, by accepting the need for Christ.That should be praised by comparison to Obama's "Christianity".However, I don't buy the assertion that one sits in Trinity church for 20 years and denys Creationism and the need for Christ.So we are back to: Its OK to be Christian...as long as you are liberal.
"I'm not disagreeing with your mammogram study, but under this health care plan the decision on the need for a mammogram is made by some nameless, faceless bureaucrat to fund vs. our wives, daughters, sisters, aunts, and neices making the decision."Right now, a nameless faceless HMO is making decisions about my health care and the health care of my family. My daughter's arm got dislocated while we were out of town visiting my 'rents. I went to an urgent care that was 'out of system' and had to pay $512.78 out of pocket for a five minute procedure. This is relatively minor compared to what my brother had to go through to get his diabetes medication (This can cost thousands of dollars a month depending on specialist visits, supplies etc) covered when his company switched insurance programs. The new program claimed that he had 'broken' is coverage when he company switched, even though he had a certificate the indicated he had continual coverage. He faxed the form to them three times before complaining to human resources and have them fix it with the insurance. This process took MONTHS and if our parents hadn't been there to help him out, he would have been forced to become homeless in order to pay for his medical condition. This is just within my family. There's also the story of my college professor who has a child with cancer. The doctors recommended a certain drug that wasn't covered by their HMO. They had to pay $1000 (per dose) out of pocket for four shots to give their daughter the best chance at survival. I have more horror stories if you'd like them. But maybe you should consider the fact that the US has around 700,000 medical bankruptcies a year and Japan (with their universal health care system) has 0. It seems like BUSINESS not GOVERNMENT it getting in the way of health care here in America. But that's what happens when all that matters is the bottom line."How can Obama call himself a "Christian", if you claim he does not believe in Creationism?"I take it you are "Christian." I hope you know that the tent of Christianity is wide and that variations in Christianity are common. Especially among demographics and cultures. For instance, in Guam the Chamorro people are mostly Catholic, but also maintain strong superstitious beliefs about their ancestors (this is a remnant of their original religion) even though this is verboten by the Pope. Now you could go there are tell them they're doing it wrong, but they'd probably laugh your haole butt off their island.You really personify everything I hate about some sects of Christianity. You are so exclusive, even with those who share your core beliefs. Obama may not belief your version of creation, but this variation is still objectively considered 'Christian.'"Accepting the need for Christ is at the core of Christianity. Denying Creationism denys the need for Christ."Not really. I've read a good portion of the Bible and this didn't come across at all. The creation of earth and the forgiveness of man were separate events. Also, I dare you to say this to a devout Jewish person. They may be a little upset that you think 'creation' implies the need of Christ. "Palin is at least honest about her belief in Christianity, by accepting the need for Christ.That should be praised by comparison to Obama's "Christianity"."Both Palin and Obama are honest about their beliefs. They just have different Christian beliefs. Though, Obama is a little more subdued. "So we are back to: Its OK to be Christian...as long as you are liberal."Close but no cigar. Its OK to be Christian, as long as you aren't trying to make your religion enforced by Government.PS: This is not an invitation to bring up "Obama hymns" again. I have already given arguments against that point which you have ignored.
Dan Beck, Anonymous...http://www.librarypatrons.org/book.asp?ID=56So these book excerts from "perks" don't give you concern to have in the minor's section of a publicly funded library?Kewaskum library has "perks" labeled and located for mature audiences.Nobody has complained about the location and lableing policy..."gee we should demand access to this kind of thing to children." If parents want to expose children to "perks", they can still get it for their children to read.Why is no one complaining in Kewaskum to shove this into the children's section?The issue is sensible vs. non-sensible librarians on locating and labeling mature books properly. Despite the leftist sermons, these library issues were never about censorship.
Kevin,No, they don't. I could give you a list of Bible quotes out of context and make the book seem like XXX reading. Read the book then tell me if an 8 year old would even pick it up (they wouldn't) much less be harmed by what's in it. Haven't you ever seen the movie trailer that recuts The Shining to make it look like a film about a family on a nice vacation?I'm shocked that you haven't read the book. I'm sure your panties are in a bunch over the 2,000 page Obamacare bill being voted on tomorrow that our reps won't bother to read.How "sensible" is it to be for labeling and moving a book that you have never bothered to read? That's what really scares me about people like you and Ginny. Neither of you have read any of the books.
"So these book excerts from "perks" don't give you concern to have in the minor's section of a publicly funded library?"Kevin, Perks isn't in the "minor's" section, whatever that is. YA. Young Adult. Grades 6 thru 12, which means it's for kids between 11-12 and up. That's the age kid's start turning into adults. You like to imagine this is being shoved in the face of 8 year olds - which it isn't. You'd also like to frame this debate as Liberal vs. Conservative, but it isn't. It's between people full of fear and those who aren't.
Anonymous,To label oneself "Christian" is about admitting the need for Christ to redeem you from sin.Sin came into the world just after biblical creation by and through the subjects of creation: Adam and Eve. (The fall of mankind into sin)If you deny Creationism and the fall of mankind into sin, you deny the very need for Christ to redeem you from sin.If you deny those basic tenants, yes, I will call you out for not being "Christian". Using the "Christian" label but denying the need for Christ, is dishonest.If you follow "some" of the basic things in the bible, thats great, but it does not make you Christian.It is simply impossible to be a Christian without believing its core tenant, redemption and salvation from sin through Christ.Palin beleives this.Does Obama? If yes, why does he not earn the same ridicule about denial of evolution and belief in "Creation superstition"? If no, and he denies the fall of man, and the very need for Christ, how can one reconcile the "Christian" label he uses? (wouldn't that break a truth in labeling law?) So the need for Christ to redeem you from sin is not "optional" under Christianity. Either you believe it or your don't.If you choose not to believe in the need for Christ to redeem you, then say that, don't use the "Christian" label to describe yourself, when its not true.
Why can't Christians just believe that God created the big bang? Wouldn't that solve all your problems without insisting Earth is 10,000 years old?
"Obama would then be dishonest about his Christianity."I actually hope this is the case. I would like an intelligent president for a change. Claiming to be Christian just to pacify the idiotic masses who believe in lies and fairy tales seems like a necessary evil."The issue is sensible vs. non-sensible librarians on locating and labeling mature books properly."And the sensible librarians are the ones who put the book in the proper location...the YA section. It's a YA book. Plain and simple. Only a fool would think that just because the book is in the YA section, it is fitting for all patrons of the YA section. Just like all of the books in the general collection are not intended for all of the general collection patrons. The ability to choose for yourself...ain't America great?
Anonymous,So Sarah Palin is honest about believing in Creationism and gets ridiculed by the Motely Cow.You are saying, Obama is DISHONEST about his belief in Creationism (and evolution) by calling himself Christian. But that gets no ridicule or mention from the Motely Cow?Double standard. The "Big Bang" is still just a theory that some people have "faith" in. There no iron clad scientific proof this is the way the universe came into being. I understand this is big in the church of liberalism, (to try and disprove the existence of God, or make yourself your own God) but Christianity will never embrace it.
"There no iron clad scientific proof this is the way the universe came into being. "And the proof for creationism is...?
"Sin came into the world just after biblical creation by and through the subjects of creation: Adam and Eve. (The fall of mankind into sin)."Here comes the sticky part. Some churches do not interpret these verses you are referring to literally, but instead see them as a metaphor. My Grandmother's church teaches that evolution is true and that Adam and Eve represent an early human race that fell from God's grace. This church believes in Christ, and believes that he needed to die to redeem mankind, thus my G-ma's Church is Christian without creationism. This could be the the case Obama.BTW, I am not a Christian, but I was under the impression that you Christians are supposed to imitate Christ. Your posts and letters written about this topic and others (the library issue for example) have not conveyed a very Christ-like attitude. Perhaps you should brush up on verses like Luke 6:37:"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven."Ta.
Anonymous,I never made any claim for proof of Creationism. Creationism is based on faith.My main point is that the church of liberalism needs to realize that evolution is also based on "faith", and also superstition, because the science has "gaps", beyond reason and knowledge.Palin is honest about her faith.Obama is not honest about his faith.I question the logic of the Motely Cow ridicule of Sarah Palin on this.
Romans 16:17 "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him 2John 7-11: 7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
Romans 16:17 (NIV)17 I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.Titus 3:10 (NIV)10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.2 John 7-11 (NIV): 7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work. When it comes to the teaching of the need for Christ's redemption. Christ commands Christians call out false Christians and prophets.
Ironic work Kevin, since you are surely no Christian and since, just as surely, not all Christians interpret these verses are you believe they ought.A lot of the people you've been in bed with politically believe that the Roman Catholics are the worst of the false prophets -- so, I hope you've been practicing safe politicking.
Mark,I am not at all advocating Christians are perfect and are not without sin.However, the basic tenant of Christianity is Christ redeeming you from your sin.I have a big beef with someone, like Obama, saying they are "Christian" while denying existence of sin (by denying Creationism and the mankind's fall into sin) and the need for the redemption of Christ.Salvation and redemption from sin through Christ is an unwaivering basic to be a labeled a "Christian". You simply cannot be a Christian by denying "sin" and denying Christ's purpose.Sarah Palin is congruent on it. She deserves credit for that.Obama is not. He deserves scorn and ridicule for that.However, the point remains, if Obama is a "Christian", as he claims, there is certainly more "ammo" available to ridicule his pseudo-Christianity vs. Palin's congruent Christianity.However, Christianity, from the Motely Cow perspective, seems only bad if its a Conservative practicing it. Liberal Christians get "a Pass" from the Motely Cow.That is my issue. (and also the claim that evolution in NOT superstition)
Ah see here Kevin. You've hit upon why I'm not a Christian. The Bible is a hypocritical inconsistent mess.You must forgive to be forgiven! But you must also condemn and isolate! Its like saying:"I forgive you Obama for not believing as I do, but you'll still burn in hell for all eternity."It seems like the new testament of two minds. There's Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, with Jesus eating with the tax collectors and prostitutes. It's so lovey dovey its like woodstock. And then you have the rest of the NT with the judging and the condemning and the separating and the genocide in the grand finale. Don't you ever feel the least bit bad for judging everyone all the time? Though mayhap you don't. It's kind of a cycle that lacks blame. God's the one doing all the condemning and punishing, you're just His supporter. You're just along for the perks, and if billions of people have to burn for your heaven to be pure its all good because you're not actually doing the burning. Now, I'm not going to use a hyperbolic metaphor here, but you really should google the Milgram Experiment.
"You are saying, Obama is DISHONEST about his belief in Creationism (and evolution) by calling himself Christian. But that gets no ridicule or mention from the Motely Cow?"This is not what I said at all. Please read the comments, read them a second time, maybe read them a third time, and THEN respond. Make sure you understand what's being said.I said I hope he's being dishonest. I didn't say he was being dishonest.
The problem with Christianity, Kevin, is not that it's false, but that it's never been tried. There do seem to be quite a number of self-professed conservative Christians who have only managed to read the Old Testament, however... I thought you were an atheist, surely. You're just being prickly about this religious business to amuse yourself.But do your buddies on the political right wing know that you think they're a bunch of stupid, superstitious yahoos?
Mark,As if the recent "revelation" on global warming (cooling?) data being hidden by the British (alleged) Science Climate Institute doesn't reduce the leftist belief in global warming to nothing more than: "a bunch of superstitous religious yahoos"?Everyone has "faith" in certian theories.I just question your laser like ridicule of Palin's faith, when, by comparison, the church of liberalism has far worse superstitions and "faith" yahoos, that are far more harmful to society than Palin's book.If "faith" is going to be ridiculed, as a concept, let's start with global warming. Global warming is the biggest false prophet religion in society today.
"I have a big beef with someone, like Obama, saying they are "Christian" while denying existence of sin (by denying Creationism and the mankind's fall into sin) and the need for the redemption of Christ."Wow, I gave you a logical explanation that contradicts this statment and you ignore it. Why am I not surprised?
There is nothing laser like required to land a hit on Ms. Palin. But I'm more interested in your dodging the question about your own atheism... especially since a lot of your political friends are either fundamentalists or the sorts of people who believe their religious convictions entitle them to moral superiority.Don't you want them to find out?
I don't like the idea of ridiculing "faith" by calling someone a "superstitious yahoo".If criticism of someone's "faith" becomes the new standard for political discourse, the left will never survive scrutiny of its religious "faith" in the theory global warming or its "faith" in government run health care.Why do you want to know what I have "faith" in? Have I risen to the level of Sarah Palin in my comments?I'm flattered.Nancy Pelosi has on her website:"Pelosi says that she once dreamed of becoming a priest."This would require a belief in Creationism as a Catholic. Where is the ridicule for the Speaker of the House's "superstition's"?
Still ducking eh? But I'll drop the yahoo. Do your friends know you think that their religious faith is simply superstition? Bet then don't. :)
I don't ever recall saying faith, of any kind, is a silly superstition.If we are to make fun of anyone who has faith in silly superstition, lets start with Al Gore and global warming.Faith in Creationism will not double my electricity bill because of the God-like beleif, and faith, that we can control the climate, and reduce global warming, by heavy government taxation and regulation.What if I said I had faith in Mark Perterson to denounce bad government? (We both know that in relation to government health care this "faith" would just be folly and unhealthy superstition combined.)Would that earn me ridicule on a Sarah Palin level?
I must've been confused by your suggestion that evolution was superstitious... are you then asserting that the Maziarka's faith is reasonable?Faith in creationism will, in fact, double your bill since you'll have to rely on beliefs that aren't true and eventually reality will catch up with you. If you rely on beliefs that aren't true in the economic sphere... oh yeah, you'd believe in free trade, another superstition.Okay, never mind. I see it now.
What do you see?I see the church of liberalism that has even more crazy superstitious "faith". The theory of global warming and the crazy idea that governnment run health care will NOT result in rationing of health services as prime examples!It makes faith in creationism look rational by comparison.I'm just saying, the church of liberalism cannot throw stones in this area with credibility, because the church of liberalism believes in all sorts of crazy things too!Remember, politics is not about logic or rationality.
Kev -- all very clever. My personal favorite funny definition is that whenever you put an "-ism" on the end of anything you turn it into a religion. That seems to be the definition you're using here to avoid answering my question about your sensitivity to your political comrades.But not to answer is to answer.... So now you've given me something to do. I'm going to have to go ask Ginny and Owen if they mind the fact that your Randian atheism characterizes their world views as naive superstitions.
I didn't mean to get you in a twist. I only was playing with you to demonstrate my point.Its clearly evident you do not like someone impugning liberal faith.The real question is: Am I "out of line" for doing that? (impugning some of the liberal faith) If I am "out of line", are you "out of line" for impugning Sarah Palin's faith?I will be fascinated by the answer.I appreciate the "clever" comment, but I prefer to be underestimated. So try to avoid complimenting me gratuitously.The gratuitous praise, worship, and clever compliments belong to the owner of this blog. You're a smart guy, I want to make sure everyone knows it!
"Cleverness" is how Aristotle characterized what happens when you get prudence without temperance, that is, knowing how to do something skillfully without caring whether it's right or wrong... so it's only a partial compliment and addressed only to your skills with verbal macrame, which you seem to be having fun with. :^) So, all I meant to note as a kind of demonstration of logical prudence without the tempering of a sublimated sophrosyne.Now if you just want me to say that knee-jerk liberals are as bad as knee-jerk conservatives, um, duh. Sorry that hasn't been clear.But I also put off answering you since you used the word "faith" in about 6 different ways -- and I was pretty sure that you don't really know which one you might have actually intended.Clear that up and I'll be happy to try to answer.
Did you come close to delineating "right" and "wrong" in political discourse in the previous post?Could you tell me which is "right" and "wrong"?1.) Impugning Sarah Palin's consistent and honest belief in Creationism.2.) At the same time, ignoring (and praising) Obama's muddled and inconsistent belief in Creationism.3.) Implying evolution does not have an element of supestition to it.4.) Science doesn't require faith in the data.5.) Science does require faith in the data.I appreciate any application of the superior morality of "tolerance" you can provide to your "right" and "wrong" cosmology to the 5 items above.I get confused why its "right" to impugn Palin's consistent Christian beliefs, but not Obama's inconsistent "Christian" beliefs. Especially, when Obama's church also preaches Creationism, and sometimes, even preaches its members should hate America.Why is impugning Obama's "Christian" beliefs not "right" in your cosmology by comparison?Is your liberal faith getting in the way of rational thought, when it comes to criticizing the exact same issue(s) with Obama?
Well, if you could straighten out for everyone when someone's Christianity is consistent or not (Sarah, for instance, did wear clothing made of two different kinds of thread and should, therefore be stoned to death -- although you apparently missed that inconsistency) I'm sure the rest of creation would be grateful to you.As for the rest, 1-5 are nonsensical and, therefore neither right nor wrong.Plus, I don't think you know what that word -- "faith" -- means. ;)
Consistent Christianity=Belief in its core basic tenant:The need for Christ to redeem you from sin.To deny sin by denying Creationism (how sin entered into the world) or denying the need for Christ's redemption from sin, is not Chritianity.At the very least, to deny the creation of sin (via the story of Creationism)or to deny the need for Christ's redemption from sin is inconsistent Christianity.I was only talking about Christianity's core tenant in relation to Palin and Obama, not the smaller biblical issues.Conservative Chrisitan is mocked.Liberal Christian, like Obama, is not mocked.Why is that?
Funny stuff Kev.
Post a Comment