I know, I know... I was feeling pithy when I wrote that. I know it actually showed him in an honorable light... it just showed what would be considered now as derogatory stereotypes... but then again, what now-a-days ISN'T a derogatory stereotype.
Did I miss something? Sorry, my Marxist brain was focused on controlling everything...
Read the post again... it's about Beck's misunderstanding over the 'choice' of fair-use and the fact that it applies even, as Mike states, "...if the copyright holder is okay with it or not..."
Yes, Beck mentions that this guy is receiving federal funds (without providing evidence and then saying he'll 'investigate further'), but that's a minor point that Glen (known for having a conspirator's bent) wove in. Again, all without any evidence. After a brief (and by NO means exhaustive) search, I was unable to find anything to backup this federal funding. Although to Glen's credit, perhaps the government did a great job in covering it up. /sarcasm
So, Glen puts on his tinfoil hat to attack someone who's mocking him (very successfully) by saying it's a federal government conspiracy and WE'RE the ones missing something? Honestly, I'm surprised he didn't cite a Nazi involvement... he does have Nazi-Tourettes', you know.
And against blacks, if you remember Song of the South. But as far as Glenn goes, anyone who does not fly the Beck Banner and preach his gospel is not only an enemy of Beck, but an enemy of freedom, democracy, America, justice, fairness, little puppies and God.
Nope... not even the pollsters. I think most polls that are hoisted on a pole (no pun intended) for the populace to look at are biased by their very nature. Now, technological evolution is doing what the pollsters were doing themselves: being selective in which 'random samples' to poll. Now that this has been 'discovered', they'll have to go back to strategizing their rollouts (pollouts?) to make sure they get the right random people.
And no, I don't have any hard facts to back this up... I'm just saying that statistics and polling have long been used to swing opinion one way or another by saying "see, it's the voice of the people..."
About the only surveys I put stock in anymore are the ones on Family Feud.
"If the bible isn't all true, then how could we know what is and is not true? What hope would there be for anyone? "
That's an easy one... have faith. You yourself said that you came by your faith on a personal level with god. How is that tied to the book? If you found something in the book that truely made you doubt it's validity, would that also invalidate your belief in your god? I would hope not!
The whole of the argument has been the validity of saying "my religion is fact at the exclusion of all others" or "at the exclusion of all evidence to the contrary". I think we've now agreed that religion and faith should exists where fact does not. ESPECIALLY where fact does not.
So why does the bible have to be divinely accurate? If it does have flaws (which I believe it does) those flaws could EASILY (and most likely) lie with the fact that they were written down after being oral tradition, or written down long after the fact; then translated thru multiple languages, then 'edited' by a group of religious big-wigs long after the events took place.
So not everyone who calls himself a Christian is really so.
Too true, sadly.
By the way, if you click View In Chronology, it'll remove the Thread setup and you'll be able to read them MUCH better... had to do that about 20 [Re:]'s ago. :)
I'm still not convinced of evil being admitted to heaven just because of having faith. Remember, there are some who murder in the name of their god. some of whom would swear that they have the same faith and salvation that you do. I was reading not long ago about a man who murdered a gay man because of Leviticus, citing that he was doing god's law. When he dies, would even this man make it into heaven for his faith? I still can't believe that a loving god would condemn those who follow a 'good christian life' as taught by him and his son to hell just because they don't believe what a book says about him. And, sorry, I'm still not convinced of that book's accuracy as being divinely guaranteed.
Meh, I still like my idea for a political cartoon... I'd draw it if I had a lick of tallent:
An appropriately-lowbrow caveman standing over a comically-dead and beaten horse trying to defend it with a club and keep representations of the future away from his meal.
Any cartoonists reading this... take it! just send me a copy for my fridge!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
Hang on... I'm losing you...
In your view, is having faith and being repentant of sin the same thing?
And the did you mean "The Holy Spirit will CONVINCE you of your sins and bring you back"? I'm sure that was typo, but I want to be sure.
On the first one, let me ask... is hate a sin? Is the preaching of evil hate something that would get in into hell, barring for a moment the idea of heaven thru faith? What, then, about the Westboro Baptist Church. They BELIEVE in god, have accepted Jesus as savior, but are still evil (in my estimation) and have twisted the message of god and Jesus to condemn... well, everyone, pretty much. Are they going to get into heaven after all they've done?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
I think it's easy to see the 'problem' people have with it... based on that interpretation, it doesn't matter what you do here on earth, as long as you have faith, you're fine. So any ax-murdering, hating, evil bastard would be admitted to heaven as long as he believed in god and accepted Jesus as savior.
And speaking of Mother Theresa, even SHE had a crisis of faith before she died. I don't know if she resolved that before death, but if she didn't, are you saying she's doomed to hell? God would take this woman, who was the closest thing to Jesus (in my estimation) in heart and soul, and condemn her to hell after all the love and charity she spread in his name?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
It's not proof to one's self either. Rather, it's the taking of an idea, recognizing that you can't proove or disprove it, and choosing to believe it anyway. In spiritual matters, that's way more powerful than saying you "know" something for fact. If you know it as fact, then what power is there in faith?
I guess what I should have said is "it's all the proof you need to satisfy yourself". I do agree with you that it's more powerful to 'believe' than 'know' for the spiritual. And, say true, more powerful for even the physical... that's where the mystery of the unknown gets its allure. And as long as the answers we find keep giving us more questions, there's no risk in allowing your 'beliefs' to be altered by newfound knowledge.
And thanks for you insight on the biblical passage. I'm with you on that one too.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
Not to butt in on this (which I am reading with avid enjoyment!)... but now you're talking about faith as (I think) Dark Helmet meant. DH, correct me if I'm wrong.
Faith IS believing. What we've been arguing is that faith is not PROOF... or at least not proof for anyone but one's self.
But I do want to sidetrack a bit on another of your statements... I just wanted to interject my interpretation of Jesus saying "no one comes to the Father but by me" and ask your opinion on it (anyone, really). Considering the poetic and symbolic language used in the bible, could he have not meant "you won't reach heaven and stand with god unless you live the life I'm preaching and strive to be like me"? This is my personal belief here, but I think god would be more worried that we get the message he and his son are teaching and live the right kind of life than to symbolically accept Jesus' divinity.
Finally, I want to say that I've enjoyed reading and participating in these discussions. They have been very informed and informative without any anger or hate. I hope everyone else is getting something out of this like I am. Anytime I can hold my views up to someone else's and see them contrasted by other perspectives, I feel a bit stronger in what I believe... even if what I believe has to be modified a bit under these new lights.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
I'm not making judgments, I'm seeking clarification from someone far more familiar with the material therein than I.
If the site is saying that those 'coincidences' are proof of the existance of god, then I must disagree with the logic. Those things are coincidental only by our perspective. Outside our analysis of thier interrelation, those facts and factors just ARE. They simply exist.
Instead of saying "the fact that we are here makes those coincidences meaningful and magical (or divine, if you prefer)", I look at it as "those factors are all there, so that's why we are."
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
Again, that's irrelevant to the argument of a 'true religion'. That's like saying my car is the only real one because it's the only one that's red. You can't point to the one or two differences between christianty and all other myths and say that those differences are proof if it's singular validity.
The fact that no other religion includes a truine god does not invalidate all other religions. The fact that no other religion states a 'can't earn your way' does not invalidate all other religions. And, by the way, can you state for a FACT that no other religion has those same facets? If you are basing your religions singluar validity on the fact that it's the ONLY ONE with those features, you're setting it on a very unstable pedistal indeed.
And, finally, I thought the way into heaven WAS by earning it through faith, devotion and living the way the god and jesus set down.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
Everything I've seen in that site look like it's saying "god MUST have created all this... how else could it be? Look at how intricate and perfect it all is! How else?"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
Because if you look in depth at the different believe systems, you'll find similar flaws in nearly all of them, save one. Because its approach is diametrically opposite to the rest. Most world religions are about how man can become God, but only the Christian faith speaks of God becoming man, dying, and coming back to life again. Only the Christian faith speaks of a truine God - something not found in any other faith. A God that is, to say, 3 Whos in one What. We, as humans, are one person and one being. But he is 3 persons in one being, separate yet one.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. There are many similarities and differences between any and all religions when you line up any selected facets and compare them. That does not validate or invalidate any of them.
And if you read a lot of the ancient myths, they're not about how man can become god... they're about how the gods are the image of perfection that man can NEVER achieve except in cases of heroes, which served to show what man COULD be if he tries hard enoug... sound familiar? The difference is that most ancient myths believed their gods to possess the flaws that humans do when it comes to things like greed, lust, arrogance, etc. Most books I've read on it think that these traits were included to add that sliver of a layer of attainability. If it were true perfection, it would not be the uplifting example of excellence to hope for... it would be a constant reminder of failure.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
Yup... I was waiting for that. And I'm going to take them in reverse order because the second part is shorter to address...
1) I did not say that god does not exist... I was calling into question your assertion that YOUR INTERPRETATION is the correct one.
2) You say that your interpretation is backed up by the bible. This is just more of the circular logic that does NOT answer the question. I say "why should I take you at your word... I don't know you". And your answer is "read these words written by someone else you don't know". So, of course I say "Why should I believe these other people I don't know?" And you answer "because this book says it's true". That's worse than when my dad always told me "because I SAY so!"... I say 'worse' because I now understand his use of that was because he didn't feel like explaining or felt he didn't need to. Most religious advocates I speak to (such as yourself) use the "because I say so" only because it's the only proof you have... and when it fails (which it usually does), you only have "because this BOOK says so!"
It's a book written by (have scholars agreed on who wrote it yet?) people LONG ago telling stories they HEARD from other people who heard them from still others, has been translated through multiple languages, and is riddled with contradictions and illogical statements.
You're right in the assertion that taking this book at face value is a leap of faith... and you're welcome to yours. I truly do wish I had that kind of welcoming faith. But I need more evidence... more proof. And the bible only brings more questions than it answers.
I am not calling into question the validity of your faith, or your interpretation of the universe. I'm calling into question your assertion that everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong when you bring no evidence (sorry, the bible is not evidence) to back up your statement.
No, I think we're saying "your interpretation of religion is wrong for me"... at least that's what I usually say. How can you or any other person be so arrogant to say that what and how you believe is right for EVERYONE ELSE IN THE ENTIRETY OF CREATION? Wow.
Considering that we can't get two people to agree on what happens in an automobile accident, how can anyone claim that one mortal's interpretation of one version of creation is more valid than any other?
Meaning anyone who dissents or disagrees with it has their arguments dismissed out of hand, because they dont toe the line. Because thats exactly what happens. Its exactly what you are doing to me. I dont accept it, or agree with it, and find much lacking in it, therefore I'm a "wacko" and a "non thinker" and a "zealot" or whatever bigoted phrase you can pull out to try to denigrate and discredit someone who disagrees.
Are you trolling? Or blind? You quoted what he said then interpreted in the way that looks the most like a personal attack at you.
He wasn't calling you or any other a "wacko" or "non thinker"... he was saying "bring some proof". If you don't bring proof, you're acting like all the other "wackos" and "zealots" who do say "I'm right because I say so! Because people just like me back me up!"
Karl, please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of what you said.
On the post: Glenn Beck Not A Fan Of Fair Use; Claims US Gov't Paying Remixers To Create Anti-Beck Propaganda
Re: Re: Re:
Consider me chastened and corrected.
On the post: Glenn Beck Not A Fan Of Fair Use; Claims US Gov't Paying Remixers To Create Anti-Beck Propaganda
Re: Left lives up to expectations
Read the post again... it's about Beck's misunderstanding over the 'choice' of fair-use and the fact that it applies even, as Mike states, "...if the copyright holder is okay with it or not..."
Yes, Beck mentions that this guy is receiving federal funds (without providing evidence and then saying he'll 'investigate further'), but that's a minor point that Glen (known for having a conspirator's bent) wove in. Again, all without any evidence. After a brief (and by NO means exhaustive) search, I was unable to find anything to backup this federal funding. Although to Glen's credit, perhaps the government did a great job in covering it up. /sarcasm
So, Glen puts on his tinfoil hat to attack someone who's mocking him (very successfully) by saying it's a federal government conspiracy and WE'RE the ones missing something? Honestly, I'm surprised he didn't cite a Nazi involvement... he does have Nazi-Tourettes', you know.
On the post: Glenn Beck Not A Fan Of Fair Use; Claims US Gov't Paying Remixers To Create Anti-Beck Propaganda
Re:
On the post: Glenn Beck Not A Fan Of Fair Use; Claims US Gov't Paying Remixers To Create Anti-Beck Propaganda
Re:
On the post: Obvious News Is Obvious: Polls That Only Call Landlines May Be Biased
Anyone Suprised?
And no, I don't have any hard facts to back this up... I'm just saying that statistics and polling have long been used to swing opinion one way or another by saying "see, it's the voice of the people..."
About the only surveys I put stock in anymore are the ones on Family Feud.
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
That's an easy one... have faith. You yourself said that you came by your faith on a personal level with god. How is that tied to the book? If you found something in the book that truely made you doubt it's validity, would that also invalidate your belief in your god? I would hope not!
The whole of the argument has been the validity of saying "my religion is fact at the exclusion of all others" or "at the exclusion of all evidence to the contrary". I think we've now agreed that religion and faith should exists where fact does not. ESPECIALLY where fact does not.
So why does the bible have to be divinely accurate? If it does have flaws (which I believe it does) those flaws could EASILY (and most likely) lie with the fact that they were written down after being oral tradition, or written down long after the fact; then translated thru multiple languages, then 'edited' by a group of religious big-wigs long after the events took place.
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
By the way, if you click View In Chronology, it'll remove the Thread setup and you'll be able to read them MUCH better... had to do that about 20 [Re:]'s ago. :)
I'm still not convinced of evil being admitted to heaven just because of having faith. Remember, there are some who murder in the name of their god. some of whom would swear that they have the same faith and salvation that you do. I was reading not long ago about a man who murdered a gay man because of Leviticus, citing that he was doing god's law. When he dies, would even this man make it into heaven for his faith? I still can't believe that a loving god would condemn those who follow a 'good christian life' as taught by him and his son to hell just because they don't believe what a book says about him. And, sorry, I'm still not convinced of that book's accuracy as being divinely guaranteed.
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
;)
On the post: Wait, So The RIAA Is Offended That Google Won't Do Work For Free?
Re: @3
An appropriately-lowbrow caveman standing over a comically-dead and beaten horse trying to defend it with a club and keep representations of the future away from his meal.
Any cartoonists reading this... take it! just send me a copy for my fridge!
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
In your view, is having faith and being repentant of sin the same thing?
And the did you mean "The Holy Spirit will CONVINCE you of your sins and bring you back"? I'm sure that was typo, but I want to be sure.
On the first one, let me ask... is hate a sin? Is the preaching of evil hate something that would get in into hell, barring for a moment the idea of heaven thru faith? What, then, about the Westboro Baptist Church. They BELIEVE in god, have accepted Jesus as savior, but are still evil (in my estimation) and have twisted the message of god and Jesus to condemn... well, everyone, pretty much. Are they going to get into heaven after all they've done?
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
And speaking of Mother Theresa, even SHE had a crisis of faith before she died. I don't know if she resolved that before death, but if she didn't, are you saying she's doomed to hell? God would take this woman, who was the closest thing to Jesus (in my estimation) in heart and soul, and condemn her to hell after all the love and charity she spread in his name?
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
Faith IS believing. What we've been arguing is that faith is not PROOF... or at least not proof for anyone but one's self.
But I do want to sidetrack a bit on another of your statements... I just wanted to interject my interpretation of Jesus saying "no one comes to the Father but by me" and ask your opinion on it (anyone, really). Considering the poetic and symbolic language used in the bible, could he have not meant "you won't reach heaven and stand with god unless you live the life I'm preaching and strive to be like me"? This is my personal belief here, but I think god would be more worried that we get the message he and his son are teaching and live the right kind of life than to symbolically accept Jesus' divinity.
Finally, I want to say that I've enjoyed reading and participating in these discussions. They have been very informed and informative without any anger or hate. I hope everyone else is getting something out of this like I am. Anytime I can hold my views up to someone else's and see them contrasted by other perspectives, I feel a bit stronger in what I believe... even if what I believe has to be modified a bit under these new lights.
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
If the site is saying that those 'coincidences' are proof of the existance of god, then I must disagree with the logic. Those things are coincidental only by our perspective. Outside our analysis of thier interrelation, those facts and factors just ARE. They simply exist.
Instead of saying "the fact that we are here makes those coincidences meaningful and magical (or divine, if you prefer)", I look at it as "those factors are all there, so that's why we are."
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
The fact that no other religion includes a truine god does not invalidate all other religions. The fact that no other religion states a 'can't earn your way' does not invalidate all other religions. And, by the way, can you state for a FACT that no other religion has those same facets? If you are basing your religions singluar validity on the fact that it's the ONLY ONE with those features, you're setting it on a very unstable pedistal indeed.
And, finally, I thought the way into heaven WAS by earning it through faith, devotion and living the way the god and jesus set down.
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
Am I wrong in that?
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
1) I did not say that god does not exist... I was calling into question your assertion that YOUR INTERPRETATION is the correct one.
2) You say that your interpretation is backed up by the bible. This is just more of the circular logic that does NOT answer the question. I say "why should I take you at your word... I don't know you". And your answer is "read these words written by someone else you don't know". So, of course I say "Why should I believe these other people I don't know?" And you answer "because this book says it's true". That's worse than when my dad always told me "because I SAY so!"... I say 'worse' because I now understand his use of that was because he didn't feel like explaining or felt he didn't need to. Most religious advocates I speak to (such as yourself) use the "because I say so" only because it's the only proof you have... and when it fails (which it usually does), you only have "because this BOOK says so!"
It's a book written by (have scholars agreed on who wrote it yet?) people LONG ago telling stories they HEARD from other people who heard them from still others, has been translated through multiple languages, and is riddled with contradictions and illogical statements.
You're right in the assertion that taking this book at face value is a leap of faith... and you're welcome to yours. I truly do wish I had that kind of welcoming faith. But I need more evidence... more proof. And the bible only brings more questions than it answers.
I am not calling into question the validity of your faith, or your interpretation of the universe. I'm calling into question your assertion that everyone else who disagrees with you is wrong when you bring no evidence (sorry, the bible is not evidence) to back up your statement.
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To quote Peter Walker
Considering that we can't get two people to agree on what happens in an automobile accident, how can anyone claim that one mortal's interpretation of one version of creation is more valid than any other?
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Re: Re: Re: Wow
Next >>