McCain fails, Obama is not rattled

Yeah, and this story basicially says it all about McCain's performance at the debate last night...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/16/debate.analysis/

You do know on the Billo the Clown No Spin Zone show they said watch Barack not also watch McCain.

Billo tomorrow will spin this like a top that Barack lied you do know that don't you???

Well at least he never had witches excised from him as Palin did and never believed his God was bigger than yours.

As far as the rest of your comments my friend I am just one of his millions of humble servants and will leave the rest up to him. I just know Jesus wasn't a Republican or a Democrat but an advocate of "Love they neighbor as thyself." He also cared about the down trodden and dispossessed of the world.

Men of GOD do not strew hate

Really, Zadie? You claim that Obama disrepects the Lord, yet you support a Republican? The party of warmongering, mass murder, torture, and capital punishment?

Who are you trying to kid?

...I didn't see anything or hear anything in what I've read, researched or gathered to indicate that Obama does not have his own personal relationship  with God or disputes his life as a Christian. 
He is personally pro-life and  it looks as though he lives his life in a good, decent way.  He seems to have a genuine desire to do o  some good in his community and for the country and at the same time be a solid role model for his children.  His commitment to get Americans to volunteer and help others is admirable and that from any spiritual standpoint is always a good thing. 

Zadie,  nothing in your post looks particularly christian.  Reverend Wright is no longer Senator Obama's pastor.  It is not your business how long he sat in that church.  You are not his God nor his Judge.  He was faithful for 20 years where God put him.

As for spewing hate, it looks as if you're spewing the hatred someone spewed on you for Obama.  Your post is full of the hatred you harbor against him.  He is a devout Christian, if you are a follower of Christ you should love him.  Jesus Christ said, "By this shall all men know you are my disciples, that you have love one for another." (John 13:35 kjv)

There is no love in anything you wrote.  Just condemnation.

*points at the above post*

What they said, Zadie.  I personally think that the Rev. Wright has seen something you may not have, and that is the ugly side of America.  I'm a white boy, and I've seen it from a different angle.  I started my life in a city with more blacks than whites, and moved to an area of SW Va in which I could drive 5 miles down the road to find a bridge spray painted with the words "N****, don't let the sun set on you here!"

Rev. Wright has experienced this.  I think he saw first hand some of the things that occurred before and after Dr. King, and was scarred by it.  I think he's intelligent enough to understand how America has manipulated events in the Middle East and caused some problems for ourselves in the process.

For the record, his comment was not God Damn America.  It was "It's not God Bless America, it's God Damn America..."  This is rather obviously a statement on the morality with which the country has been run, and should not be taken any other way.

Sen. Obama "is personally pro-life".

What?

You are kidding, right?

Kidding?  Why so hard to believe?  I'm pro-life, but the government does not belong in a decision like that, and I refuse to regulate what another couple does with their lives in the meantime.

Here is the thing about government being in decisions of choice. The purpose of laws is to regulate the interaction of people, primarily. They are the legal framework for various functions in the society. Basically, they determine who's rights, desires and preferences take precedence, in given situations. I like to point out that when you take "freedom" (as in freedom of choice, for example) to the extreem, you have anarchy. The limiting of choices is the difference between anarchy and stability. The deliberation about laws in a free society is to determine what choices will be legal, and which ones will not be legal.

When one talks about "pro-life", one might have different meanings depending on the formative value system. I find that when I start with a sacred value of human life, per se, permitting any abortion, for example, becomes problematic because you are killing a human life. Now, I understand the issues of unwanted pregnancy, and I am certainly not discounting the difficulty a woman might face. I am trying to point out that it is also not just a simple issue of a woman's choice - IF you begin from that position.

So, if a person in public office, or otherwise influential, is "personally pro-life", but does not act in favor of life, is it not possible that they are betraying the life of someone who needs their protection?

That's the most articulate, well thought response I've heard to this point.

I would put forward that until the actual birth occurs, that it is still the mother's life.  Ideally, the choice to abort or not is made by both the man and woman responsible, however this is by no means a perfect world.

If Christians are correct, these people will have to deal with their choice and realize the horror they have committed eventually.  I don't think ours is the place to do this for them.  Jesus preached love, and forgiveness, and helping your fellow man.  He did not preach authoritanism, or hate, or greed.  I try to follow the example I think he set, rather than what someone else tells me he meant.

I find that when I start with a sacred value of human life, per se, permitting any abortion, for example, becomes problematic because you are killing a human life.  Reformed Liberal

RL  Would you clarify the "sacred value of human life" concept for me?  Is all human life sacred?  Prenatal as well as the young and the old.  Is all human life sacred at all times.  For example, it is sacred  during times of peace and war?  Is every kind of human life sacred?  That of the decent and that of the degenerate, that of the law abiding as much as that of the criminal?   You see it becomes problematic because you are killing a human life.

If the taking of prenatal human life illegal and wrong, then is not the taking of human life during wartime or and the taking of human life as punishment for capital crimes committed equally wrong and to be sanctioned?

It is a moral question.

Not by might, remember to not make it too difficult...

There are 7 reasons for war.  Right war, just war, etc...In these instances, men gather under a leader for one specific reason.  To kill the others.  This doesn't particularly relate to the issue at hand.

However, it IS a moral question. 

Thanks Tom J,  for your advice.  : )

Generally, there is an allowance for self defense; a just war being an extension of that right. However, many saintly people do not even exercise their right to self defense.

How we deal with war, and other instances of defense of the innocent, or not so innocent, for example, complicate the issue. Is it moral to defend your family? How about your home? Is it moral to stop someone from hurting someone, or themself?

All human life is sacred. And it is a complicated world we live in.

It is a complicated world we live in, and I am far from saintly, Reformed. 

Threaten my family, my home, my way of life, and you'd better hope that Bugs Bunny has let you borrow one of those Acme Holes that you can throw on the ground, climb into, and zip up behind you...

Not YOU per se, but an individual.  I just read that, and realized how it sounds.  I believe that my way of life is right, and good.  I also believe that Good and Evil are absolute concepts, rather than the relative ones that so many people seem to think.  As such, when Evil is encountered, it must be eradicated to maintain our way of life.  This means fighting fire with fire sometimes...watch "Dark Knight" sometime, and look at the philosophical aspects of the movie.  Hollywood is making some VERY interesting statements these days. 

Ironman - the individual taking on the evil corporation, and winning. 

Hulk - The individual taking on the military machine, and winning.
See a pattern?

Tom Joad,

I agree entirely that it is right to confront evil with force. The saintly reference was simply that some saints in history have gone beyond that, to confronting evil with faith. That is a much more difficult task, but probably the higher road. I suspect that I have a long way to go to reaching such a level, but there have certainly been people who did so. Of course, our example is Jesus Christ, who went innocently to the Cross when he could have brought down the Powers of Heaven, but that is another story.

I will differ with you on what we can impose on others. We impose a collective will on others all the time, they are called the laws of the land.  These laws apply to many things, and they govern the overlapping rights of individuals. It so happens that, at this time, the law of this land makes abortion legal. That, in itself, does not require that it be so from now on.

By the way, I do not at all pretend to fully understand this life, existence, God, or reality. I try to do the best I can. There are some guide posts, if you are willing to see them, but these things shall remain mysteries. In fact, I was listening to a speaker on the radio just yesterday afternoon who proposed that there are mysteries that will not even be understood in Heaven.

We're a bit off topic, but an interesting conversation, nevertheless.

I don't pretend to fully understand either, but I do have some interesting ideas...how strong are your views on Christianity?  The more orthodox an individual is, the funnier they tend to look at me when we have this next conversation.

Tom

I've been away.

I would say that my beliefs about Christ are very strong. My views about Christianity are quite narrow, in general. I try to be as Orthodox as I can be in my journey through this life.

*laughing*
So...are you willing to have the conversation, or would you prefer we not?  I will say this...my personal views mirror much of Christianity, but my "spin" is 180 degrees removed from Christian Doctrine.

So, where do you want to start?

With science, and the apparent polarization of science and religion.  I say they are one and the same, and science provides the "mystical" aspect that many attribute to religion.

How do you feel about something like this?  Have you read any Dan Brown?  Da Vinci Code is good, but Angels and Demons has better examples of my point.

My mistake ... I thought we were going to talk reality.

As for science and religion; science is (supposed to be) theory based on empirical data. Religion is also based on empirical data, but there are some additional aspects that confound some scientists. These would include various types of Divine Revelation, and some internal and sometimes non-physical existence.

Of course, there are a variety of religions, and they can be based on a variety of premises. For example, if you begin with the statement that Jesus is the Son of God, and that He is God as one of the Divine Trinity of Persons, then you have what we call a mystery. This, alone, can be discussed until the end of time. Is this believable? Why or why not? Can you dismiss it off-hand? Where is the empirical data to support such a claim?

And as for Dan Brown, I have read portions, but I have no interest in spending my time reading his work.

My mistake ... I thought we were going to talk reality.

*laughing*

You wound me, sir.  As for your statement concerning religion being based on empirical data, can you give me an example?  Also, the various types of Divine Revelation are a concept I've not encountered before, at least not labeled in that manner.  An example there, to give me an idea of what you're talking about would be great.

I look at it more from the point of view that religion may have evolved from contact with technologically superior types.  Many concepts that are considered so mystical or wondrous are actually things that we can achieve with science today.  Virgin birth, in vitro fertilization.  And God created us in his own image...genetic manipulation of basic stock material.  I dunno, there's more stuff like that. 

I'm still happy to discuss the other stuff with you, as well.

Sorry, I was a little stressed over the foolishness going on right now....

No doubt, there is a lot of "stuff" out there. We call that the Media War.

Empirical data abounds. It is uncountable. So I'll give you an example, a big one, but really, the empirical data is generally overwhelming. So here you go: have you heard of the Shroud of Turin and do you know what it is purported to be? Of course, there are many who will argue what it is, and propose that it is a fake. Even so, here are the basic problems with that viewpoint: (1) It cannot be reproduced by any known method, even today, certainly not when it was made. (2) It should not have survived from antiquity, not even from the latter day times where sceptics date it. (3) There are plenty of other things about it that a non-expert like me will not list at this point.

As for Divine Revelation, this covers a broad spectrum of things. For example, The Bible is a great example. Taken as a whole, it is part of the communication that God has given to Man to reveal who He is. (A note, the use of the male personal pronoun is problematic, since God transcends gender, while encompasing both genders in some way, but I use it anyway.) Divine Revelation includes experiences like Abraham's, which includes much of his life, but a specific event was his trip up the mountain to get the tablets with the 10 commandments - twice. The story gives some idea of what was revealed to Abraham, for the purpose of passing that revelation on to the whole nation, and eventually to everyone on the earth.

Another example of Divine Revelation includes direct communication that an individual (or sometimes a group) hears (either physically, or "in their head"). These experiences are countless in history. Of course, a big problem, sometimes even for the hearer, is to determine the efficacy of the revelation: is it really from God, and did I hear it right? Occasionally there is some kind of miraculous experience to emphasis the revelation. Or sometimes it can be determined in retrospect, like when a prophet's statements start coming true.

A major(!) issue in the Roman Catholic Church (yes, I am quite happy to be a Catholic) is to determine the relative value of what people think has been revealed to them. It happens to be Extreemly Difficult to get the stamp of approval.

Oh, here's one: There is a general concept I've heard mention often lately, "God is revealed in nature". Just try duplicating the creation of the universe. Science has a ways to go on that one.

There is more, by the way.

I think we're a little off-topic, but sometimes that happens.

Nor is Little Miss Sunshine for that matter.

Neither one.

With Palin, McCain & Palin's husband:

Winkin', blinkin' and Todd.   lol.   (laughing at my own jokes --again.)

this is what ive been saying as well, nicely said crystalp