The pointless Rick Warren presidential forum
Just received via email:
CNN to air Saddleback Presidential Forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren: Saturday, August 16, 8:00PM – 10:00PM (ET)
For the first time since winning their parties respective nominations, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) will both appear during the high-definition CNN broadcast of the Saddleback Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion. The candidates will speak separately with the forum’s host, pastor and author Dr. Rick Warren, and will discuss issues including compassion, faith, values and leadership.
Both candidates will uh and um and blather their way incoherently with vague platitudes about religion throughout this two-hour event.
Gregg Jackson has 15 questions Warren should ask the candidates.
Don’t expect any of them to be asked, though.
According to a recent NY Times article, Mr. Warren was quoted as saying:
“Since I’m their friend, I’m not going to give them any gotcha questions,” Mr. Warren said, adding that a typical query would be, “What’s the most difficult decision you’ve had to make, and how did you make it?”
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Rick Warren: pathetic false teacher meddling in politics | The TIW Blog
- The pointless Rick Warren presidential forum — The 2008 Elections
- Pastor Rick Warren and ‘Gotcha’ Questions « Fairfax Family Forum
- Michelle Malkin » Saddle up: Saddleback Forum open thread
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Open thread: McCain and Obama at the Saddleback forum
- Obama’s Abortion Alliance: « Riggword Weblog
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: 2008 campaign
Sister Toldjah
» The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall – and how the far left still hasn’t given upNewsBusters.org
» Politico: Conservatives Ousted Scozzafava Because She's A WomanWeekly Standard
» Ben Nelson Demands Stupak Language in Senate BillWeekly Standard
» Lieberman to Obama in May: Homegrown Islamist Terrorist Determined to Strike in U.S.AmSpecBlog
» Carly Fiorina's Twitter OpponentPundit & Pundette
» Intelligence agencies knew Hasan was a traitor
Here’s my point philly: organized religion is big business. It’s an industry if you want to be kind or a racket if you want to be honest. In the meantime, I’ll be on the lookout for continuing lessons in logic and reading.
zero, you got it.
I have to disagree here. We need full time pastors who minister and preach throughout the week. There is a difference between making a meager salary (which I think should be defined by the community they are ministering in) and making millions off of books and speaking events.
My main problems with Rick Warren remain
a) his watered-down doctrine
b) using the 2008 election and a zzzzzz-worthy tv appearance to sell more books with little substance
I don’t know. The Amish seem to spend a heck of a lot of time at amusement parks,or at least the ones that I’ve been to. They shouldn’t toss stones at internet users. I learned from watching South Park, that only the Mormons are going to heavan. Oh well…good for them.
The Rick Warren forum is important because the man has a lot of fans. Obama will get another chance to explain to people that he is indeed a Christian. McCain is an old school politician in the sense that he doesn’t like to talk too much about his personal religious beliefs. He’s kind of like Gerard Ford in this way, and it’s something I respect. The Warren forum will give him a rare chance to pander to Christians. Those that are used to the pious approach from W., may want to hear more from McCain about how Christ has effected his life.
My religious views are pretty known here, and fall in line with the likes of Zero,Chap, Dakine, and Abstract. However, I understand why it’s important to go to Warran’s panderfest on Saturday. It’s all about playing politics. You do what you have to do, and say what you have to say to win. That’s the ugly truth.
Seeker-sensitive questions for seeker sensitive-candidates from a seeker-sensitive church leader.
Broad brush there dakine. I am NO fan of religion but to condemn them all is just as bad as those you are pointing the finger at. There is plenty of good “organized religions” do in the world and I have yet to see an agnostic/deist/atheist organization do anything in a third world country. Just saying (from experience – Haiti and China though China is not third world I guess).
phillypanda:
Yet, Jesus was a carpenter and seemed to rail against the organized religions of the time.
I wonder, would Jesus have agreed with you? No doubt there is a big difference between Rick Warren and your friendly neighborhood priest (the former I loathe; the latter, and certainly the one I grew up with, I have some fond memories of and think is a decent person), but aren’t they both accepting money for doing something that ordinary Christians would (should?) do for free?
Why does one community really need a single “full-time” minister throughout the week? Couldn’t the various elders take turns?
Well, I am not sure if this is true, but lets assume it is and that no Humanist organization has done such a thing. Well, it’s really unfair to judge in that respect because atheists / agnostics / deists don’t organize themselves along religious lines for this purpose. These folks could certainly be found providing help in secular organizations though, for example the Peace Corps.
Sorry the second quote was Soap’s, not philly’s.
soap, I hear what you’re saying, but I’m not really intending to condemn religion…just trying to be honest and keep it real. If folks want to buy what organized religion is selling, then by all means. I’m a free market kind of guy. As to your second point (and you would know better than I), aren’t there quite a few secular NGO’s doing stuff all over the third world? The Gates Foundation and Bono’s One organization come to mind immediately. I applaud the Christian organizations doing humanitarian work around the world, but I think I read somewhere recently that secular groups actually do more of it on a dollar basis.
Dakine:
Yes. It is my understanding this is true as well.
Soap:
Think about it, if a bunch of atheists wanted to form an organization to help third world countries why would they want to specifically call themselves an atheist organization and possibly scare off contributors? Furthermore, why would such an organization want to turn away any kind of helping hand just because they aren’t a fellow “non-believer?”
He is quite old and I have seldom if ever seen him confrontational. Now Franklin can mix it up while being exceptionaly polite and controlled.
But I doubt he would host a forum such as this but IF he did he would zero in on Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s statements about Christ, Salvation, Grace and Heaven. Franklin Graham is a minister of the Gospel and knows his priorities.
Barack Hussein Obama knows power, Black Theology, Chicago and Saul Alinsky organizing.Rick Warren knows how to promote himself. Senator John McCain knows something I am sure. Read his new book “How to Lose Conservative Voters and Alienate everybody While You Are At It”.
I still disagree. Elders don’t always have time to visit the elderly, feed the homeless, perform funerals, weddings, premarital counseling, and all the things fulltime pastors do. Jesus sent out his disciples and some of them did not work outside of ministering (as far as I know, correct me if I’m wrong). Pastors need enough salary to live on so they can do these things.
phillypanda:
Certainly I see your point. I am not sure about exact details of Jesus’s disciplines (partly why I asked) but I think you might be right. It seems that Jesus was OK with some kind of meager salary.
Now, granted, it was a different time back then, and a disciple could “live on” simple alms, or handouts of food and the occasional room for the night. Today, a minister might need a bit more to carry on the “full-time” business of being a minister.
But then, it begs the question of what exactly should be considered a meager salary? Is it purely based on what the community thinks? Is it then the case that a minister in an upper-middle class suburb (where his parishioners think he deservers enough to afford a 3-bedroom house) is being “sinful” whilst the minister that ministers in a ghetto and lives in a small studio is more pious? Or are they equally pious? What about a minister in Beverly Hills (for example)?
Why are there full-time priests of all faiths in the military? Don’t Catholic priests pledge to divest themselves of all material things so where is the material gain in their pastoral work? What if there’s a parish with only one priest? I do know that there are Catholic parishes (my husband’s familiy is Catholic) that have been consolidated because the number of parishioners has decreased over time (death, lack of interest, kids moving away, converting to other religions, etc.). Some parishes share the same priest because there is a lack of interest in being a priest.
You do know that ministers do more than just preach, right? Often, the smaller denominational communities (not the megachurches) don’t have enough money for more than one minister. I grew up as a Presbyterian and our minister was not just a preacher. He did all manner of things such as counseling, non-profit work such as soup kitchens, weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. Ministering is a full-time job and not something that can be done as a hobby or part-time. I’m sure parishioners feel more secure knowing that they have their own minister that they can turn to in times of trouble.
I also understand that people may feel more comfortable going to their priest for such things as pre-marital and marital counseling, and advice on major decisions in life. Yes, churches ask for tithes and money, but most of that money is put to good use. Is it abused? Of course. Just don’t paint all churches/faiths as having the same problem.
Rick Warren is going to do to political dsicourse what he has done to scripture…………compromise the the H… out of it.
Again. Most folks who go to church are not buying into anything. Most are looking into finding answers and a lot – like me – just believe and like to gather to worship. I have not “bought” into anything.
Zero – point taken. I see a lot of missionaries doing work NOBODY ELSE will do. I see nuns cleaning leper’s wounds and changing bandages. These people are the “rubber meets the road” people from religions. The funny thing is, if you spend the time talking with missionaries, you will find they are protected by God. The nuns never get the diseases from their patients. My wife cared for a baby that nobody would touch. She is fine.
You can say we “bought” into this – okay – we have completely. I can say Bill Gates and his types will not be found in a leper colony. I admire Bill Gates and his wife. They blow The Big O away but, in the field where others will not go, you will find religious fanatics who have sold out and not bought in.
Indeed. My brother acted as the de-facto “chaplain” on his ship in the absence of an actual chaplain. This was in addition to his regular “line-officer” duties. Oddly, my brother is a Deist, but also studied philosophy and theology in college (among other things).
I wasn’t. I am just exploring an honest question; I guess you posted before my #111 post.
I am honestly wondering what folks here consider a “meager” salary to do God’s work.
zeroangel,
I agree that there is no clear definition of what is “sinful” when it comes to a minister in a suburb having a nicer house than a pastor in a ghetto. I’m not arguing that one community pastor’s salary is better than another community pastor’s salary. Each has to be determined by the standard of living in the community they live in, in order to support their families, etc.
I was only distinguishing between the extravagance of Warren’s movement and the community pastor.
We are in complete agreement here. I was just exploring a thought I had a lending a hand to dakine, my supporter and someone I oft agree with here. *smile*.
Yup, RR – Warren and his running buddies are the type who believe Jesus came to announce the dangers of “Global Warming”. And maybe to save a whale or two on the side before death prevented him from finishing his social work & activism.
zero,
it’s all good. interesting discussion.
It our case it is what the Board for Lay Ministry sets. Sometimes the bigger Churches pay higher salaries, sometimes those Churches are in poorer areas and can’t.
Paul accepted no pay but lived with the congragents and was a tent maker. But he did intruct the Churchs that their ministers were worthy of their pay.
It is a matter that the Churches may set for their own wants and needs, it is not formulated in the Gospel. A lot of Churches have ‘rules’ they can not justify by the Bible; they are free to make rules for Good Order but dare not make it a matter of Salvation.
I must admit there are some mega Churches that worry me, but if they are true to Gospel they are indeed Christian. If they are not true to Gospel they have a problem.
I don’t think that’s odd, ZA, since everyone acknowleges God; internally, if not overtly. Even so-called atheists – otherwise they’d just be “a”s.
(That “a” isn’t a nasty-word reference but a linguistic one, LOL. It just occured to me that it could be taken utherwise.)
and
Let’s see, hardball questions asked by an obviously nonpartisan mediator with no hidden or personal agenda, broadcast by a news outlet with a long, rich history of fair and balanced coverage of all things political. What are you all complaining about?
/sarc
I know a few pastors (both with large congregations) who would do great at asking the questions. B. Hussein should be asked about Abortion and Homosexuality. But the questions should not be supplied to the candidates prior to the event. This would show everyone the “Real” Barack Obama, who is lousy at answers off the top of his head. It would also reveal him as a Universalist at best, because of his “many paths to God” view.
This makes me wish Mike Huckabee was the GOP candidate rather than McCain. He would demolish Obama in this forum. But the MSM would never cover it then, because they are both Southern Baptist ministers
“But then, it begs the question of what exactly should be considered a meager salary? Is it purely based on what the community thinks?”
In the Christian tradition I learned the elders-pastors had working skills to pay their own bills with (as practiced by the apostle Paul) instead of being given money by the other church members.
One big problem with mega-churches is the inherent impersonalness. Another is they are usually “Christian Entertainment Centers” where people can sit and be entertained for an hour a week and feel as if they’ve done something for God.
Not quite the “little brown churches in the vale” type stuff there.
Ahh yes, I think that is right. I suppose there isn’t anything really odd about a Deist chaplain. After all, it is my understanding that there are actually Secular Humanist chaplains in the military today. I would argue though that a chaplain’s role (and certainly a Secular Humanist chaplin’s) is more of a psychologist or counselor of some form in today’s Army.
Sadly, it’s a mixed bag with them. I have had some very positive experiences and some very negative. I have seen some that were adept counselors and skilled in psychology, and I have seen some that were about as skilled as Mr. Macky from South Park. I have even seen some that weren’t very “Christian” in their own attitudes (for lack of a better term).
I am of the opinion that Chaplain’s should have some kind of advanced degree in psychology. I am not certain, but I am pretty sure this is not a requirement.
Chaplain’s have been a point of contention in the military for some time. There are questions about to what extent the 1st Amendment comes into play and just how far should the Army have to go? Should there be any Scientologist chaplains? Heck, there probably is by now.
Anyway, again, just thinking out loud.
purplepeep:
One thing I forgot: Sam Harris argues that the word “atheist” shouldn’t even exist.
I imagine if the requirements for chaplaincy, if not seminary graduation, include some form of training in psych. I’d disagree about a need for an advanced degree, though. Every field turns out it’s fair share of “educated idiots”.
My thinking that any good pastor will have have what it takes to connect with people. 99 percent of what makes any shrink valuable is serving as a sounding board. And I’ve met many folks who haven’t even a hi school diploma who have helped troubled people. There are some things you just can’t teach.
I suspect you’re right since there are “Wiccan” chaplains and that religion has been around only as long as Scientology.
Yeah, if he means what I’m thinking, it’s a self-contradictory term. Like “a-littlebluemolemen”.
atheist are militant because they can be. why not. christians become militant as well. but their militancy never had the resounding omega genocide of atheist or non-christian genocide. darwin, nietszche, hilter, stalin, mao, pretty much saw it was okay to off 100s of millions. survival of the fittest! why not!? christians at some point faltered in that ability, after the fervor.
its nice to think youre a nice atheist. but i’ll never trust you. why should i. i dont trust fellow christians. so why should i trust you? especially if you’re only nice because you think that’s the way you ought to be. then that means others can think that or not. anyway this is all subtle. we’re all sinners. i’m not concerned about heaven. i’m concerned about people committing to something that leads to these basic principles: faith, family, freedom. sprinkled with hard work and self responsibility. these are things i feel are strong amongst Christian Americans. I don’t see it amongst socialist europeans or islamic states or atheist communist regimes. i’m looking at the statisitcs, and I really like the christian one, the American one. as cowboy as it is, its the humane, proud, independent, rich, hard working, diverse, i have ever seen.
Reductio ad Hitlerum. Honestly, this is tiresome. Furthermore, whether or not Hitler was an atheist is questionable.
As far as Darwin, this is patently false and has to do with taking his statements out of context and ignoring other things he did say. I don’t have the quotes on hand, but Darwin had made a point along the lines I made above. That is, the fact that we (in a general sense) don’t like ideas about “Social Darwinism” is something evolved and noble about us as humans.
OK, I suppose you just don’t trust people in general. So, likewise.
I have faith in decent people; I believe in the importance of family and friends; and without question, value freedom (and even fought for it).
How about fiscally conservative, free-market capitalists that happen to be atheists?
Again, repeated ad infinitum; many of the founding fathers were Deists. Regardless, I too think that (for the most part) Christian morals are among the best in the world. Just because I like and agree with aspects of a moral code doesn’t mean I have to ascribe to the mythology.
I object to your lumping me in with Communists and otherwise perverse individuals that had twisted ideas to justify their actions. I might as well lump you in with Muslim fanatics and argue that if they ever got a hold of a handful of nuclear weapons you would quickly see them outstrip your aforementioned examples in terms of body count.
Have a nice day.
purplepeep:
Good points about Chaplains.
As far as Harris: yes, it’s like that. He says in “Letter to a Christian Nation” something along the lines of having the word “atheist” is like having the word “non-alchemist.”
Another great post zero…really not much to add. Like I’m sure is the case with you, I live my life by a code based on honor, integrity, loyalty, compassion, etc. that has nothing to do with the promise of an afterlife or the threat of eternal damnation, but rather is the result of evolved hard wiring and the influence of my parents and other adult role models. I think people are either decent or they’re not. The other labels we attach to folks are really pretty irrelevant.
Well said, Zeroangel. You have an interesting take on religion. I wish I had your patience and eloquence in defending your “non-beliefs”. Since college, I’ve been in kind of a “live, let live, and keep your biblical fantasies from impacting my life kind of a mode.” But I like reading your takes.
A toast and a dap for that one. Exactly.
One more thing I just thought of:
I don’t see how any politician can be anything other than a Univerisalist; at least in public.
How can one “support and defend the Constitution” and say people have a right to religious freedom; and then go on to say “Well, I think people have a right to believe what they want, but honestly, I think all those people that don’t believe in my particular brand of faith are going to suffer for all eternity in hell.”
While I understand and accept people’s private viewpoints effect their decisions, I would say that such a fundamentalist view of religion is divisive at best and not something the head of state should endorse.
Dakine, MJ, thank you very much, very kind of you.
“I live my life by a code based on honor, integrity, loyalty, compassion, etc. that has nothing to do with the promise of an afterlife or the threat of eternal damnation, but rather is the result of evolved hard wiring and the influence of my parents and other adult role models”
MsJustice, the problem is that everyone has a code. Throughout history the most vile of humans have used their version of what is moral as a defense.
That’s nothing new, of course. There’s even a passage from the Old Testement addressing the issue: “every man did that which was right in his own eyes”.
(Book of Judges)
You’re exaggerating, of course, ZA. But to address the core point, I don’t see how having a President who possesses an exclusive belief system is a problem. Especially, as you noted, since s/he respects other’s right to differ.
I made a few edits in your post.
It all depends on what examples from history you want to pull out. Purplepeep, you know routines like this can last for days.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that this is what Christians are supposed to believe. I was taught this rather unsavory concept growing up. It’s the “elephant in the room” that most “mainstream” christians don’t like to discuss.
#138 was for you Purplepeep. Sorry for my browser problems.
Doubtless we won’t be able to tackle this one here, purplepeep.
This has been something philosophers have argued over forever. I like the “Golden Rule” and also what Kant has to say in this regard. However, both of those have issues.
Naturally, my favorite idea is Dawkin’s Moral Zeitgeist, and I am of the opinion that things seem to steadily, “get better.”
This, from wiki hits home:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Zeitgeist
Moral absolutism, which suggests that actions are either morally right, acceptable, or wrong, regardless of the context, may be incompatible with the moral Zeitgeist depending on whether it is taken to say that actions are morally right, acceptable, or wrong based on the opinions of the masses, which implies incompatibility, or that shifts in the Zeitgeist are shifts in the knowledge of morality, which does not. This latter version of the Zeitgeist model actually implies absolutism, though the only known source of moral knowledge is biological instinct.
Not exaggerating, just referring to ChicagoRobb in #123. That is, I feel that a politician that publicly expresses the idea that people from other religions are going to hell is incompatible with the 1st Amendment. Of course, no sane politician would espouse such a belief.
Oops forgot to blockquote that quote from wiki. My bad.
ZeroAngel. You have a a valid point but one I disagree with. Like W or not, one point he is not ambiguous about is his faith. Faith is taking a stand. Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim,Hindu , Atheist or any other faith, when you declare yourself, you have put a stake in the ground. When Obama declared himself a Christian, but stated there are many ways to God, he contradicted himself. I would much rather have someone lead me who had the strength to proclaim his convictions, rather than hedge on his/her beliefs. He could say ” I believe Jesus is the Messiah, but this is my belief. You have a right to your own and I support people’s right to choose their faith”. Especially in Obama’s case, where there are strong suspicions that he at very least was once a Muslim, it would allay some people’s fears about him.
Ronald Reagan once said to a group of Evangelicals, “I know you cannot endorse me, but I endorse you”. There are many instances of candidates being open about there faith without trying to nuance their words to appeal to everyone.
“MsJustice, the problem is that everyone has a
codereligion. Throughout history the most vile of humans have used their version of what are moral, religious beliefs as a defense.”LOL, well, I’m not up for days of routine, MsJ! My central point is that just having a moral code (or “religion”, you can use them interchanably in this context) is in itself meaningless – and oftimes it is just as easily quite a danger to others.
I was noting ZA was being a tad on the absurd strawmen building side there.
Actually, to the former major mainline denominations, not only is hell verbotten but so is Jesus as the exclusive hope of mankind. That’s what happens when a group is Politically Correct and not “Biblically Correct”.(Perhaps you meant “tradtional” Christian belief instead?)
In Christian theology there are differing views amongst good and faithful people. One is what’s some call “Annihilationism”. That is, instead of what could be called “everlasting life in Hell” those who reject God consumed by flames (Hell) to exist no more.
And if Hell were the unrecognized “elephant in the room” how would you even know about it? Obviously, though you may not know “the full story” and the context, you are aware of it because you heard it preached.
Ohh, I know how that goes! I most often use a browser called Maxthon – it’s great (and a freebie, to boot) – but once in a great while it kicks out a double comment. I believe it has to do with having several interactive windows (tabs) from diff sites going at the same time.
OK, I see, you’re miming someone else there.
How could it be incompatible with the 1st Amendment – which guarantees his/her religious right to believe however s/he chooses?
No poltically correct politician would. Being Christian or Judeo-Christian means s/he would be fair game for mockery. It’s one of the few acceptable prejudices left in the world.
No, mistress; allow me to clarify:
It is not “a particular brand of faith” in which Christians believe. It is the person of Jesus Christ in whom we believe.
I actually prefer the term, “follower of Christ”, because the term “Christian” has become diluted.
It is Christ’s own words that invite belief in Himself. He also declares that He is the Way, the Truth & the Life, through whom we can access heaven.
That’s not what my “religion” teaches; that’s what my Lord says. I hope you’ll take time to check it out in John 14:6.
The Purposeless Driven Debate.
Good point, Vicki.
ChicagoRobb:
This is from the article from Gregg Jackson linked above:
http://townhall.com/columnists/GreggJackson/2008/08/07/15_questions_rick_warren_should_ask_obama_and_mccain
So, it seems GW agrees with BO.
Purplepeep:
I wasn’t making a strawman I was responding to what some people (in this case ChicagoRob) seem to believe and my feeling on that matter. It wasn’t an attempt to mock all religious people. I think from your comment in #144 you noticed that though.
Interesting, so you and I agree then that *I* (ZeroAngel) will go “nowhere” (Oblivion) when I die. Somewhat ironic, I guess.
Well, in the sense that, expressing the opinion of “my way is the only true way” on one hand, and then saying “all people are free to believe what they want (by law)” is indirectly inconsistent.
I would counter and say the prejudices against atheists are far more severe and argue that an admitted atheist has no hope as a Presidential candidate.
LOL! I am going to remember that phrase the next time I get into a philosophical debate with my aforementioned brother. As I said in another thread:
Purposeless – and not free.
Saddleback charged some members for presidential forum
“When John McCain and Barack Obama are questioned by Saddleback Church’s Rick Warren on Saturday, many of the church members will have paid $2,000 to sit front and center to listen to the next president of the United States.”
Ain’t got nuthin against capitalism, to be sure. But when ya start charging for the best pews, then “pew” takes on another meaning.
With no “planned” teleprompter, you know that the media will delete all of the uhs and ums from BO’s responses and will leave in all of Mc’s.
Someone actually counted BO’s.
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-no-teleprompter-no-clue.html
In checking to the post you cited, I see there was no hellfire reference. As you said, you are responding to what you think somebody might be thinking rather than what was actually said. That does qualify as a strawman.
If I were gonna do some infering of my own, I’d note that you seem to be worried about the concept of “going of Hell” on a personal level, just from what you’ve read into things.
No, ZA, I was just passing along one school of thought wherein those who reject God suffer the torment of hellfire on the way to “the second death”. Think in terms of being in a burning house with no escape. Either way, Hell is not on the recommended “final destination list”.
“How could it be incompatible with the 1st Amendment – which guarantees his/her religious right to believe however s/he chooses?”
On the contrary, ZA – not only would it be the epitome of the 1st Amendment at work, but also the obvious sane and rational recognition that people have differing absolutes. That’s the reality of life.
“It’s one of the few acceptable prejudices left in the world.”
I believe you’d be hard pressed to find a popular acceptable trend of the atheist faith being ridiculed and mocked, ZA. Judeo-Christian bashing, on the other hand, is a staple of popular culture – TV, film, print, art, and certainly the interent.
I agree that, at least for the time being, someone who openly denies God would have hard time becoming President. That’s another, political issue. As I said upthread, people instinctively know God exists. Even if the populace doesn’t know it, they’re internally acknowleging a biblical observation: “The fool has said in his heart ‘there is no God”. (Psalms)Foolishness is not a desired attribute in political candidates.
Purplepeep:
Oh come now! I am making the point that ChicagoRobb doesn’t seem to like the “many paths to God” view. He seems to agree in #142. I was following that with the idea that just about every politician has to be a Universalist in this sense, as GW is. There is nothing strawman about it, and I would defer to ChicagoRobb to please let me know if he thinks there was and please clarify his POV for me. I have no intention of trying to “win” a debate in such a fashion.
Of course this would just be absurd.
Oh well, guess I misunderstood.
That is a way of looking at it. Another way is that this would be abysmally divisive and just plain wrong for a President to say publicly about his fellow Americans IMHO.
Oh pity, and we were doing so nicely. Oh well, I suppose it’s time for me to start breaking out Santa Claus references. Or not, let’s agree to disagree and call it a thread.
If there were no God, there would be no atheists – G.K. Chesterton
if there were many paths to God, I want the one were you drink beer and cheetos and watch porn..
But I’m sure that path isn’t to God so I’m on a different road..
Oh dear atheling! That has got to be your weakest argument for the existence of God to date! You were much better off with Thomas Aquinas.
By Chesterton’s logic, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Zeus, Shiva, Russell’s Teapot, and even Log Cabin Republicans exist!
Err, oh OK, scratch the last one.
DaveC:
If whilst drinking beer, eating Doritos and watching porn you don’t bother anyone and you are a genuinely decent person to other people (when you have the chance to interact with any); I would say that any “God” that condemns you to “Hell” is kind of cruel.
Isn’t the whole problem with Rick Warren hosting this forum that he kinda believes more like Obama? At least that’s how I have understood Warren’s message of late—so I figure Warren will just suck up to Obama the way so many others have –after all BHO is a light bringer about to usher in a new era of being—
O my heart is all a flutter with anticipationComing from a person who can’t even argue in opposition to Aquinas’ Five Proofs for the Existence of God, that’s rich.
Methinks Chesterton’s nuance is beyond you.
Bingo.
Warren is just another wolf in sheep’s clothing. False Prophet. The whole nine yards.
So watching porn is cool? Using another human being for sexual gratification (like the Muslims and their 72 virgins) is morally acceptable?
I guess you’re rather ignorant of the porn industry and how it exploits women and children.
This is why I find atheists to be utterly morally bankrupt. Like your buddies in Communist China, the Soviet Union, et al, you have no moral compass, and no concept of the dignity of the human person.
How reprehensible and inhuman.
My arguments are sound. You just couldn’t understand them and admit as much:
Minkowski space is a difficult concept and requires decent knowledge of linear algrebra. Heck, visualizing vectors in n-space is more or less impossible for any n > 3. So, it’s understandable.
Then paraphrase it, in your own words. Then please describe relate how it applies to Russel’s Teapot.
Please, women allow themselves to be “exploited” (and willingly accept payment for such); as for child porn, I don’t think that’s what DaveC was talking about.
In any event, DaveC isn’t exploiting anyone. So, if your “God” is willing to give a pass to actual porn stars and prostitutes if they repent and accept Jesus; I don’t see why DaveC wouldn’t be in the clear either, especially since he isn’t actually personally hurting anyone.
What’s inhuman is the idea that someone could be sent to a place to burn and suffer for eternity for transgressions in their stint on Earth. Talk about punishment not fitting the crime and “cruel and unusual.”
atheling:
An afterthought:
How would you feel about DaveC if he sat around and watched Japanese cartoon-porn all day? Would he be making some immoral transgression then?
I think zeroangel and the other atheists/agnostics on this thread “doth protest too much.” This has been my experience when a Christian points out the failure of trying to establish morality apart from God.
Compare this to how some here have insinuated negative things about ministers who get paid for ministering. I am a paid minister, and I know many paid ministers, and their points make me giggle, they have no idea what they are talking about.
atheling, I think you are wasting your time with zeroangel. On an earlier thread, I already pointed out to him why true morality breaks down apart from God. You can’t get through to someone who is in denial.
You drink cheetos???
Being sent to Hell is not because of someone’s motley collection of sins. Damnation is for rejecting God. The soul is immortal; if Heaven is rejected, there is only one other option. Hell is the default option for a species (namely, h. sapiens) who has rejected God.
As a preacher I once heard said it:
Trollman:
The same could be said of the folks that head the clarion call to the tired refrain that “you can’t be moral without God” (which begs the question, which one?) Incidentally, that comment from Hollywood in #39, was the thing that prompted me to enter this thread.
Are you, or are you not making money from doing “God’s work?” How is this different from certain mega-churches and at what scale does it become questionable? What is sufficiently meager in your eyes?
I guess you mean this:
To which I responded thusly:
I have also made this argument in this thread. See: #55 and #140.
I guess you can’t get through to someone who is bigoted.
Plymouthacclaim:
Again, which “God” are we talking about. Furthermore, let me just make sure I understand you correctly. If the most decent person ever (kind to others, doesn’t lie or cheat, always polite, donates to charity, etc.) happened to be an atheist he will suffer in Hell for eternity? You actually believe this and don’t think your particular interpretation of God is cruel?
Uh, that excerpt proves my point. You could not refute the First Cause with Big Bang. I said I understood what you meant by Big Bang, but that it did not mean that there was not a First Cause!
How stuck on stupid are you?
Your arguments are puerile and disingenuous. And frankly, you are a waste of time.
atheling:
Hah! Onto name calling then, are we?
Well, then, you are hopelessly and profoundly ignorant, not to mention banal to the point of nausea.
Very simply, just as easily as you can say “God” was First Cause / eternal, I can step it back a notch and say the same thing about the Big Bang and how “existence” is eternal.
How about that cartoon-porn then?
atheling said:
Yup, arguing with him is a waste of time. You’re preaching to the choir. ;^)
Matthew 7:6
Besides being an atheist, what if that person just happens to be a Muslim, or Buddist, or Hindi ect…??
This interpration of God is beyond cruel and arrogant. Even George W. Bush refused to condemn non-christians to hell. Bush knows how twisted and unsound such a move would be politically. I notice that nobody commented on your link.
Many public people don’t like to talk about the concept and explanation of hell described by Vickisoup above. Purplepeep suggests that EVERYONE inherently knows there is a God. I disagree but will counter that most Christians know that it’s a sick and cruel concept to send all non-christians to hell regardless of the condemn’s quality of life. That’s the “elephant in the room” I talk about. How many people feel comfortable telling their children that all of the Muslims, Hindi’s, athiests….are going to burn in a lake of eternal hellfire simply for rejecting the Christian concept of God. Whether we are talking about DaveC. or the Buddist who happens to be charitable, sweet, loving, loyal and devout, it’s arrogant, ugly, stuff. Oh well, to each his/her own.
Hmm…
A “banal atheling” (a pun in and of itself) and a Troll talking about how talking with me is a waste of time; this is high comedy.
ZA:
Besides being an atheist, what if that person just happens to be a Muslim, or Buddist, or Hindi ect…??
You’re right, this interpration of God is beyond cruel and arrogant. Even George W. Bush refused to condemn non-christians to hell. Bush knows how twisted and unsound such a move would be politically. I notice that nobody commented on your link.
Many public people don’t like to talk about the concept and explanation of hell described by Vickisoup above. Purplepeep suggests that EVERYONE inherently knows there is a God. I disagree but will counter that most Christians know that it’s a sick and cruel concept to send all non-christians to hell regardless of the condemn’s quality of life. That’s the “elephant in the room” I talk about. How many people feel comfortable telling their children that all of the Muslims, Hindi’s, athiests….are going to burn in a lake of eternal hellfire simply for rejecting the Christian concept of God. Whether we are talking about DaveC. or the Buddist who happens to be charitable, sweet, loving, loyal and devout, it’s arrogant, ugly, stuff. Oh well, to each his/her own.
ZA:
Besides being an atheist, what if that person just happens to be a Muslim, or Buddist, or Hindi ect…??
You’re right, this interpration of God is beyond cruel and arrogant. Even George W. Bush refused to condemn non-christians to hell. Bush knows how twisted and unsound such a move would be politically. I notice that nobody commented on your link.
Many public people don’t like to talk about the concept and explanation of hell described by Vickisoup above. Purplepeep suggests that EVERYONE inherently knows there is a God. I disagree but will counter that most Christians know that it’s a sick and cruel concept to send all non-christians to hell regardless of the condemn’s quality of life. That’s the “elephant in the room” I talk about. How many people feel comfortable telling their children that all of the Muslims, Hindi’s, athiests….are going to burn in a lake of eternal hellfire simply for rejecting the Christian concept of God. Whether we are talking about DaveC. or the Buddist who happens to be charitable, sweet, loving, loyal and devout, it’s arrogant, ugly, stuff. Oh well, to each his/her own.
Many public people don’t like to talk about the concept and explanation of hell described by Vickisoup above. That’s the “elephant in the room” I talk about. How many people feel comfortable telling their children that all of the Muslims, Hindi’s, athiests….are going to burn in a lake of eternal hellfire simply for rejecting the Christian concept of God. Whether we are talking about DaveC. or the Buddist who happens to be charitable, sweet, loving, loyal and devout, it’s arrogant, ugly, stuff. Oh well, to each his/her own.
Arguing religion on an internet message board never works out well in my experience – no-one ever chanegs their mind (on either side), and it often leads to fairly bitter arguments.
But for the record I’m with zeroangel on this:
Perhaps GW knows that condemnation to hell is not within his purview, even as POTUS. Now, the Obamessiah…he’s another story. He seems to think he DOES hold the keys to heaven.
I don’t think you understand the principle of First Cause. You also ignore empirical evidence.
Nothing can will itself into existence. Never has happened, and never will. Have you any evidence that something just sprung into existence without a cause? Nope.
No force can be exerted without a first cause. Something had to initiate that energy. Have you any proof of the contrary? Nope.
Therefore, Big Bang could not have occurred without a Prime Mover. Something initiated it, because nothing can occur without that initial mover.
Frankly, I’m astonished that you can’t seem to wrap your mind around those principles. But then, I’ve always noticed that atheists are blinded by their self love and arrogance.
Atheling:
You are ignorant of quantum physics and the testable and verifiable evidence we have of particles and anti-particles spontaneously creating themselves in a vacuum and then destroying themselves.
I ran across this from a quick yahoo search of “anti-particles spontaneous vacuum”:
http://www.braungardt.com/Physics/Vacuum%20Fluctuation.htm
Your Newtonian musings about forces and causes is dated by about a century.
Furthermore, your First Cause arguments lead to infinite regress; a pretty good sign that your argument is flawed.
Truly my banal atheling, a first-year philosophy student could deconstruct Aquinas’ proofs with or without knowledge of quantum physics. Now, honestly, put down the Bible for a minute (I think you have learned all you can from it, and probably over-did it a bit) and go get yourself a physics or mathematics textbook. Let me know if you need any help and I’ll see if I can be of service.
I thought I was a waste of time?
Still wondering how you feel about cartoon-porn…
MJ:
Yes, it’s something the “devout” (though they may believe it themselves) have a hard time rectifying.
Theory. Theory is not proof. Theories need to be proved.
Your example does not disprove first cause.
And saying that they are “created” from uncertainties indicate a “creator”. Duh.
From where do they “borrow” said energy?
Again, you have proven nothing.
Ignorant of what a scientific “Theory” is as well. “Virtual” particles have been measured as has their effect on other particles. They exist. “Theories” describe and attempt to explain facts. Some “theories” are so well supported that they are more or less established facts.
As for your pathetic attempt to quote-mine and try to argue about something you clearly have no knowledge of:
If you want to find “God” in the laws of Physics and Quantum Fluctuations, I won’t disagree with you. However, it really is just plain silly to pray to such things.
From nothing (vacuum) my unlettered and insipid princess, which is why “borrow” is in quotes.
That’s ridiculous.
Your’re grasping at straws. You make no sense.
You know, I used to think that Rob was the biggest atheist asshole on this board, but you have now surpassed him.
He babbles inanities – you just simply pretend like some pathetic know it all.
Now go back and watch your porn, you creep.
atheling, please allow me to offer you some friendly advice – don’t let him lower you to his level.
In regards to answering the quantum fluctuation objection, all you have to do is point out that a vacuum does not equal “nothing”. In a vacuum, you have the dimensions of space and time, as well as the laws of physics. Therefore a vacuum is a “something” and not a “nothing”. So there is still no example of getting something from nothing.
In fact, by the very nature of the case, such a thing would be empirically impossible to demonstrate, even if it was possible from a metaphysical standpoint.
Hah!
No Atheling, you are ridiculous and these things don’t make sense to you because you don’t understand them. To be fair though, myself, and even quantum physicists have a hard time making sense of these things, but that’s another topic. The fact remains, things do come from nothing.
Your arrogant, pedestrian nonsense has truly gone beyond the pale at this point. Reminds me of this little gem:
You calling me an a-hole is so manifestly the “pot calling the kettle” I can’t help but chuckle.
Am I still wasting your time? Why are you still responding?
If it’s cartoon-porn am I exploiting poor cartoon girls? Does “God” care?
Ahh! Trollman!
I thought this was a waste of time, apparently you are still here.
Lower to my level? That is rich considering atheling is the one lowering the bar with insightful commentary like:
I am merely responding in kind and lowering myself to her level.
Yes, that’s right, all we have to do is start playing the semantics game and muddle the definitions of words.
Hmmm… what else does that sound like?
Trollman:
You’re right. This guy is hopeless.
What a foolish, arrogant no-nothing.
…said the supercilious royal who speaks for the creator of the universe.
Are you going to take your tiara and go home now? Will you be able to keep it civil next time?
Man, you really are unhinged.
What got under your skin?
Wonder what is Rick Warren’s “purpose” in this “debate”? His approach is more new age than anything else. It is far from Bible based.
Christianity is about a change on the inside working itself out in all of one’s life-a living relationship with Jesus Christ. Essentially it is not a religion, with dead rituals and rites, because those things are outward form without life. One can always go through the motions, but that was not the original plan.
I’m a newbie, follower of Christ, Bible believer and reader, Michelle fan, conservative, and old enough to have voted for Ronald Reagan as my first Republican vote, so give me a little mercy and go easy on me.
Game, set and match zero.
atheling (oh, the irony of that handle), you’re obviously entitled to believe in whatever gets you through the day. Organized religion, yoga, meditation, exercise, Prozac, etc….whatever it takes, but save the childish ad homenem attacks on those who do not share your views. You’re not reflecting very well on your faith.
Game, set and match zero. Atheling, the medieval prince, goes down in flames. Your arrogance, hubris and mean-spiritedness are really not very Christian-like. Check out Buddhism or Shintoism…I think either one of these eastern religions might offer you some of the peace you seem to be missing in your life. Christianity certainly doesn’t seem to be working for you.
I’m glad I watched. I’ve never seen that guy before, I won’t buy his book. This event revealed a lot about Obama. And McCain for that matter. It wasn’t pointless.
It’s a shame that so many people proclaimed that it was before it started, and ignored it. The loss was theirs.
Well, as I am a Christian, then I an referring to the LORD, the God of the Bible.
As I pretty much already said, By choosing to reject God, you reject heaven. There is only one other option.
God does not send you to hell. You send yourself.
Again,
See also:
God does not want to send anyone to hell, but we leave Him no choice sometimes.