Jesus Obama Christ...

[Produce man]

Great piece...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068_pf.html


By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, July 30, 2008; A03

Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline) has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee.
Fresh from his presidential-style world tour, during which foreign leaders and American generals lined up to show him affection, Obama settled down to some presidential-style business in Washington yesterday. He ordered up a teleconference with the (current president's) Treasury secretary, granted an audience to the Pakistani prime minister and had his staff arrange for the chairman of the Federal Reserve (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Federal+Reserve?tid=informline) to give him a briefing. Then, he went up to Capitol Hill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Capitol+Hill?tid=informline) to be adored by House Democrats in a presidential-style pep rally.
Along the way, he traveled in a bubble more insulating than the actual president's. Traffic was shut down for him as he zoomed about town in a long, presidential-style motorcade, while the public and most of the press were kept in the dark about his activities, which included a fundraiser at the Mayflower where donors paid $10,000 or more to have photos taken with him. His schedule for the day, announced Monday night, would have made Dick Cheney (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Dick+Cheney?tid=informline) envious:
11:00 a.m.: En route TBA.
12:05 p.m.: En route TBA.
1:45 p.m.: En route TBA.
2:55 p.m.: En route TBA.
5:20 p.m.: En route TBA.
The 5:20 TBA turned out to be his adoration session with lawmakers in the Cannon Caucus Room, where even committee chairmen arrived early, as if for the State of the Union. Capitol Police cleared the halls -- just as they do for the actual president. The Secret Service (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Secret+Service?tid=informline) hustled him in through a side door -- just as they do for the actual president.
Inside, according to a witness, he told the House members, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."
As he marches toward Inauguration Day (Election Day is but a milestone on that path), Obama's biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+McCain?tid=informline) but rather his own hubris.
Some say the supremely confident Obama -- nearly 100 days from the election, he pronounces that "the odds of us winning are very good" -- has become a president-in-waiting. But in truth, he doesn't need to wait: He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported last week that Obama has directed his staff to begin planning for his transition to the White House (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informline), causing Republicans to howl about premature drape measuring. Obama was even feeling confident enough to give British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Gordon+Brown?tid=informline) some management advice over the weekend. "If what you're trying to do is micromanage and solve everything, then you end up being a dilettante," he advised the prime minister, portraying his relative inexperience much as President Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/George+W.+Bush?tid=informline) did in 2000.
On his presidential-style visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem last week, Obama left a written prayer, intercepted by an Israeli newspaper, asking God to "help me guard against pride and despair." He seems to have the despair part under control, but the pride could be a problem.
One source of the confidence is the polling, which shows him with a big lead over McCain. But polls are fickle allies: A USA Today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/USA+TODAY?tid=informline)-Gallup poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Gallup+Organization?tid=informline) released Monday found McCain leading Obama by four percentage points among likely voters. Another reason for Obama's confidence -- the press -- is also an unfaithful partner. The Project for Excellence in Journalism reported yesterday that Obama dominated the news media's attention for a seventh straight week. But there are signs that the Obama campaign's arrogance has begun to anger reporters.
In the latest issue of the New Republic (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+Republic+Inc.?tid=informline), Gabriel Sherman found reporters complaining that Obama's campaign was "acting like the Prom Queen" and being more secretive than Bush. The magazine quoted the New York Times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+New+York+Times+Company?tid=informline)' Adam Nagourney's reaction to the Obama campaign's memo attacking one of his stories: "I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others." Then came Obama's overseas trip and the campaign's selection of which news organizations could come aboard. Among those excluded: the New Yorker magazine, which had just published a satirical cover about Obama that offended the campaign.
Even Bush hasn't tried that. But then again, Obama has been outdoing the president in ruffles and flourishes lately. As Bush held quiet signing ceremonies in the White House yesterday morning, Obama was involved in a more visible display of executive authority a block away, when he met with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Yousaf+Raza+Gilani?tid=informline) at the Willard. A full block of F Street was shut down for the prime minister and the would-be president, and some 40 security and motorcade vehicles filled the street.
Later, Obama's aides issued an official-sounding statement, borrowing the language of White House communiques: "I had a productive and wide-ranging discussion. . . . I look forward to working with the democratically elected government of Pakistan."
It had been a long day of acting presidential, but Obama wasn't done. After a few hours huddling with advisers over his vice presidential choice, Obama made his way to the pep rally on the Hill. Moments after he entered the meeting with lawmakers, there was an extended cheer, followed by another, and another.
"I think this can be an incredible election," Obama said later. "I look forward to collaborating with everybody here to win the election."
Win the election? Didn't he do that already?

[Banned_Forever]

This reminds me of one of those republican hit pieces.

[FD2BLK]

Nice thread title. :rolleyes:

But, since we know you're just here to tweak, we should expect nothing less.

[Kace]

I see Millbank from time to time on Countdown. Seems level headed enough.

[Head Janitor]

Now that's a damn good report...or column...or opinion.

[Produce man]

Nice thread title.
It got your attention...:cool:

[Jax]

Really? Milbank is questioning why the first legit black candidate is getting extreme Secret Service protection?

[Quagmire]

I get this holier than thou attitude from the operation, and thats just at a local level. I am kind of suspicious of this guy...it is vaguely familiar to Hitler coming up in the 30's. Say what the people want to hear, be a strong speaker...I just feel like something is up his sleeve.

[sun dog]

Yet more evidence of the liberal media.

[Jax]

it is vaguely familiar to Hitler coming up in the 30's. Say what the people want to hear, be a strong speaker...I just feel like something is up his sleeve.

Gay sex, black liberation, Muslim, went to a madrasa, won't say the pledge, whitey, flag pins and now Hitler...

God bless America...

[Lazlo Toth]

I think I'm beginning to get it.

McCain would be Bush's third term.

Obama would be Cheney's third term.

[Pro]

So what's the problem? You have something against a positive attitude?

It seems that Obama is in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you don't scenario.

[From the Right]

So what's the problem? You have something against a positive attitude?

It seems that Obama is in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you don't scenario.

Yep, poor, poor Obama. Damned if you do, damned if you don't by the throngs of media that follow him around like he's freaking Mick Jagger. There's positive attitude then there's entitled, elitist attitude. Don't confuse the two.

[Brain Cramp]

"Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline) has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee."


Uh, doesn't the second sentence say the same thing as the first? I don't get it.

[From the Right]

"Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline) has long been his party's presumptive nominee. Now he's becoming its presumptuous nominee."


Uh, doesn't the second sentence say the same thing as the first? I don't get it.


Main Entry: pre·sump·tive
Function: adjective
1 : based on probability or presumption <the presumptive nominee>
2 : giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief
3 : being an embryonic precursor with the potential for forming a particular structure or tissue in the normal course of development <presumptive retina>
— pre·sump·tive·ly adverb

Main Entry: pre·sump·tu·ous
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French presumptious, from Late Latin praesumptuosus, irregular from praesumptio
Date: 14th century
: overstepping due bounds (as of propriety or courtesy) : taking liberties
— pre·sump·tu·ous·ly adverb
— pre·sump·tu·ous·ness noun

[The Mockingbird]

Dana T. Milbank (born 27 April (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_27) 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968)) is a political reporter for The Washington Post (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post). He is a graduate of Yale University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University), where he was a member of Trumbull College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumbull_College), the Progressive Party of the Yale Political Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Political_Union) and the secret society Skull and Bones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones)

IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!!!11111!!!!!

CRAP, MARFANS FLAREUP

/Save

[DeconGal]

Heaven forbid anyone should be critical of Obama. Sick and tired of the media fawning over and kissing his butt.

[FD2BLK]

It got your attention...:cool:

Feeling a little defensive there?

Remember, screaming children who throw temper tantrums also get our attention.
Just not in a good way.

[Brain Cramp]

Main Entry: pre·sump·tive
Function: adjective
1 : based on probability or presumption <the presumptive nominee>
2 : giving grounds for reasonable opinion or belief
3 : being an embryonic precursor with the potential for forming a particular structure or tissue in the normal course of development <presumptive retina>
— pre·sump·tive·ly adverb

Main Entry: pre·sump·tu·ous
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French presumptious, from Late Latin praesumptuosus, irregular from praesumptio
Date: 14th century
: overstepping due bounds (as of propriety or courtesy) : taking liberties
— pre·sump·tu·ous·ly adverb
— pre·sump·tu·ous·ness noun


Ohhhhhh, now I get it. I honestly didn't see the different spelling of the two words. I read "presumptive" twice.

[tater]

Gay sex, black liberation, Muslim, went to a madrasa, won't say the pledge, whitey, flag pins and now Hitler...

God bless America...

You forgot Asian...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/07/30/apop.DTL

[From the Right]

Ohhhhhh, now I get it. I honestly didn't see the different spelling of the two words. I read "presumptive" twice.

We'll call it a "Brain Cramp!"

[Diplomat]

Interesting that a left-leaning writer would take a shot at Obama. Perhaps he has seen too much of the Obama-mania that seems to have affected several media types.

[Mr. Pratfall]

I can only imagine the screaming and condemnation that would be going on if someone used Jesus' name to mock a Republican.

[Kace]

Jesus McCain Christ.

[Mr. Pratfall]

Now you've done it.

[Diplomat]

I can only imagine the screaming and condemnation that would be going on if someone used Jesus' name to mock a Republican.

I would hope NOBODY uses the name of Jesus Christ to mock any politician. We've had a few in the past who I believe had a Messianic complex--notably Jimmy Carter. And I also don't like it when someone compares a politician's ordeal to Christ's crucifixion.

[Mr. Pratfall]

But Produce Man gets a pass?

[Diplomat]

But Produce Man gets a pass?

Did I give him a pass? No.

[Mr. Pratfall]

Did I give him a pass? No.

Okay. It's just in the past, you've equated not specifically condemning someone with giving him or her a pass. But now I know how things stand.

[Diplomat]

Okay. It's just in the past, you've equated not specifically condemning someone with giving him or her a pass. But now I know how things stand.

As I also know how things stand with you.

[FD2BLK]

I would hope NOBODY uses the name of Jesus Christ to mock any politician. We've had a few in the past who I believe had a Messianic complex--notably Jimmy Carter. And I also don't like it when someone compares a politician's ordeal to Christ's crucifixion.

Too late. Produce had already done that with the thread title.

[Kace]

In fairness, was anybody assuming Diplomat liked the thread title?

[commercial hack]

Back to the column... I see nothing wrong with Obama's staff getting ready for transition to the WH and other issues involved with becoming President. What's he supposed to do, wait until Inaugration Day and say "Holy sh!t, I'm moving into the WH today and I haven't picked my cabinet yet!"? It's the same for sports teams who plan their championship parade and people complain that they're thinking too far ahead.

Having said that, if he's spending more time traveling the world as a rock star and dismissing his role as a US Senator, (look at his voting and attendence record) then I have concerns.

[Mr. Pratfall]

What's he supposed to do, wait until Inaugration Day and say "Holy sh!t, I'm moving into the WH today and I haven't picked my cabinet yet!"?

Okay, that's the closest I've ever come to spitting water on my keyboard. Well played, sir.

[PTP WX]

I also don't like it when someone compares a politician's ordeal to Christ's crucifixion.

You understand that it is a story in a 1,900 year old book right?

[s'news]

"I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen. … I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."

[Jane Craig]

Thanks, s'news... can't wait to see responses to your post...

[MyracleMan]

You understand that it is a story in a 1,900 year old book right?

Most people don't... no.

Back on topic... iused to be a big Barack supporter. Peoplein this country are so eager, so hungry for change, they'll cling on to anyone who says they'll bring it, regardless of what's really behind the message.

I'm seeing now, though, that a lot of what Barack is putting forth is fluff, not substance. He doesn't seem to have any defined positions, any set policies in mind. It's a little frightening to see all that fluff, and very little substance.

All I can say is...

Ron Paul, anybody!?!?

[MyracleMan]

"I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen. … I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."

Is that a GWB quote?

[Kace]

Ron Paul, anybody!?!?

A little late there.

[Diplomat]

You understand that it is a story in a 1,900 year old book right?

And you understand that many of us believe it happened--and have that right, just as you have the right not to believe. Right?

[Jane Craig]

Is that a GWB quote?

Yes it is.

[Kace]

I was thinking Pat Robertson.

[Pro]

There's positive attitude then there's entitled, elitist attitude. Don't confuse the two.

How could I? "Elitist" is used as a slur to brand people you disagree with.

[Pro]

Interesting that a left-leaning writer would take a shot at Obama. Perhaps he has seen too much of the Obama-mania that seems to have affected several media types.


Do you keep a "scorecard"? :rolleyes:

[Jax]

***WARNING***

I'm going to post a link to Huff Post where you can read the full text of Milbank's out of context Obama quote...

Enjoy (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/30/iwashington-posti-fans-ou_n_115861.html)

[PTP WX]

I would hope NOBODY uses the name of Jesus Christ to mock any politician. We've had a few in the past who I believe had a Messianic complex--notably Jimmy Carter. And I also don't like it when someone compares a politician's ordeal to Christ's crucifixion.

And you understand that many of us believe it happened--and have that right, just as you have the right not to believe. Right?

Absolutely Diplomat.... and fully support your ability to belive in what you choose. I am not tring to be insulting, but some people may not share your belief system. They may choose to use the name of Jesus however they see fit.

I choose not to use the name of Jesus to offend others, but I am not a believer either. Just tring to get you to see that even though you dislike it, others just don't care what you think. Religion is stupid to argue about or even discuss in my opinion.

[Diplomat]

Absolutely Diplomat.... and fully support your ability to belive in what you choose. I am not tring to be insulting, but some people may not share your belief system. They may choose to use the name of Jesus however they see fit.

I choose not to use the name of Jesus to offend others, but I am not a believer either. Just tring to get you to see that even though you dislike it, others just don't care what you think. Religion is stupid to argue about or even discuss in my opinion.

You succeded in not being insulting until your last sentence. So I shall give you an "A" for effort.

All I said was that I hope nobody would do that. Using the name of Jesus to offend people is as vile as using a racial or ethnic slur to offend or demean someone.

[Produce man]

Feeling a little defensive there?

Remember, screaming children who throw temper tantrums also get our attention.
Just not in a good way.Grow up.

[Produce man]

But Produce Man gets a pass?What pass? It is a relevant and accurate comparison of how Obama is being treated.

I stand by what I stated, and that is that.

[Produce man]

I would hope NOBODY uses the name of Jesus Christ to mock any politician. We've had a few in the past who I believe had a Messianic complex--notably Jimmy Carter. And I also don't like it when someone compares a politician's ordeal to Christ's crucifixion.Just to be clear, I'm not comparing Obama's popularity to Christ's crucifixtion.

*sigh*

Maybe I should have said "Paul Obama McCartney".

[Mr. Pratfall]

What pass? It is a relevant and accurate comparison of how Obama is being treated.

I stand by what I stated, and that is that.

That's fine. I just thought it mocked Jesus Christ.

[JoinUsForCake]

If somebody put up a thread titled "Jesus McCain Christ" you people would be angrily bouncing Bibles off of our foreheads.

[Dap]

Back to the column... I see nothing wrong with Obama's staff getting ready for transition to the WH and other issues involved with becoming President. What's he supposed to do, wait until Inaugration Day and say "Holy sh!t, I'm moving into the WH today and I haven't picked my cabinet yet!"? It's the same for sports teams who plan their championship parade and people complain that they're thinking too far ahead.

Having said that, if he's spending more time traveling the world as a rock star and dismissing his role as a US Senator, (look at his voting and attendence record) then I have concerns.

It's difficult for some to see someone prepare and plan. Most seem to wing it, shooting from the hip at the last moment.

Obama has stamina. That much anyone can recognize.

Most people don't... no.

Back on topic... iused to be a big Barack supporter. Peoplein this country are so eager, so hungry for change, they'll cling on to anyone who says they'll bring it, regardless of what's really behind the message.

I'm seeing now, though, that a lot of what Barack is putting forth is fluff, not substance. He doesn't seem to have any defined positions, any set policies in mind. It's a little frightening to see all that fluff, and very little substance.


There is so much information available online. Really now. You all are journalists yet cannot do research for yourselves?

And you understand that many of us believe it happened--and have that right, just as you have the right not to believe. Right?

Those who believe Peter Cottontail lays chocolate eggs also have the right to their beliefs. The rest of us have a right to think you're completely bonkers.

[Pro]

What pass? It is a relevant and accurate comparison of how Obama is being treated.

I stand by what I stated, and that is that.


You and Dip can thrash that out. I'll get the popcorn. :whistle:

[Mr. Rugen]

I'm pretty sure Obama is some kind of god. Probably the god of change or something similar. I bet he can get all the strange he wants, just like President Clinton.

[Shot A Load]

Doesn't Obama need to get elected before he starts preparing to move in. He'll have 3 months. It's not like there will be nobody to help him move.

[Produce man]

I bet he can get all the strange he wants, just like President Clinton.For his sake, I hope so...

I get chills just looking at his wife on TV.

[Mr. Rugen]

Doesn't Obama need to get elected before he starts preparing to move in. He'll have 3 months. It's not like there will be nobody to help him move.

Screw that. That's why I sold my truck.

[Shot A Load]

I can REALLY relate Mr. Rugen. I own one myself.

[Tripe Face]

Doesn't Obama need to get elected before he starts preparing to move in. He'll have 3 months. It's not like there will be nobody to help him move.


No, it's SOP for the two main party candidates to begin transition planning after the conventions. They both get briefed by military, intel, diplomatic and economic officials in the current administration so they'll be up to speed on things when they become President-elect.

They also have to have their top staff go through thorough background checks so once the election is over, they can get to work quickly on the transition.

Three months goes by very quickly, especially when dealing with government types (who take much of the month of December off regardless of whether there is an incoming administration.)

[Diplomat]

Just to be clear, I'm not comparing Obama's popularity to Christ's crucifixtion.

*sigh*

Maybe I should have said "Paul Obama McCartney".

I know you are not.

[Diplomat]

Those who believe Peter Cottontail lays chocolate eggs also have the right to their beliefs. The rest of us have a right to think you're completely bonkers.


And we also have the right to believe you are a bigot.

[JoinUsForCake]

I get chills just looking at his wife on TV.
I get chills imagining what you look like....

"God of Thunder - that'll be a good title..."
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00470/Neanderthal_280_470743a.jpg

[Pro]

There you go, bemoaning people who use the name of Jesus in a political discussion, then defending someone who did just that. It's a flip-flop worthy of John McCain.

You do have the courage of your contradictions.

[Diplomat]

There you go, bemoaning people who use the name of Jesus in a political discussion, then defending someone who did just that. It's a flip-flop worthy of John McCain.

You do have the courage of your contradictions.

There you go again, missing the point.

Produce was mocking people who are acting as if Obama is Christ. When someone actually has the audacity to compare someone to Christ in any way--example, when someone says they're suffering like Christ did on the cross--that is mocking.

[Pro]

Produce was mocking people who are acting as if Obama is Christ. When someone actually has the audacity to compare someone to Christ in any way--example, when someone says they're suffering like Christ did on the cross--that is mocking.

Yes, but in your earlier post you bemoaned the use of Jesus' name for any political purposes. Now, you're saying that in this case, it's OK. Right?

[JoinUsForCake]

Produce was mocking people who are acting as if Obama is Christ.
WHO are these "people" ???

And I certainly remember many comparing George W. Bush to Christ in a favorable light. Opinion on that please?

[Produce man]

I get chills imagining what you look like....

"God of Thunder - that'll be a good title..."
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00470/Neanderthal_280_470743a.jpgSorry, I'm straight. And that's not a very flattering picture of you.

[Mr. Pratfall]

WHO are these "people" ???

Straw men, most likely.

[Mighty Dyckerson]

BTW, nice red "x"

No red X here, moron. Too bad you're still surfing on the public library's filtered internet access - otherwise you could appreciate how badly you've been pooned.

[Diplomat]

WHO are these "people" ???

And I certainly remember many comparing George W. Bush to Christ in a favorable light. Opinion on that please?

I don't like anyone comparing any politician to Christ. You and others have mentioned President Bush. I recall Jimmy Carter was also compared to Christ. (Having read some of his books and heard some of his more recent pronouncements, it would not surprise me if he encouraged it.)

"These people" are the schlubs who think Obama is going to fix all their problems and make their lives perfect. Only Christ could do that. No politician can.

Politicians are mere mortals and SEVERELY limited in what they can do for anyone.

[Diplomat]

Yes, but in your earlier post you bemoaned the use of Jesus' name for any political purposes. Now, you're saying that in this case, it's OK. Right?

No. And even you should know that. But it's not what you want to hear, so you twist and distort, as you all too often do.

[Dap]

I don't like anyone comparing any politician to Christ. You and others have mentioned President Bush. I recall Jimmy Carter was also compared to Christ. (Having read some of his books and heard some of his more recent pronouncements, it would not surprise me if he encouraged it.)

"These people" are the schlubs who think Obama is going to fix all their problems and make their lives perfect. Only Christ could do that. No politician can.

Politicians are mere mortals and SEVERELY limited in what they can do for anyone.

But what if god did send a politician to fix us? Why is that so unbelievable to someone who believes the bible? Really now. People believe the bible yet scoff at contemporaries who claim to hear god's voice.

To go a bit further, would you believe your pregnant daughter if she claimed to be a virgin?

[Another OMB]

But what if god did send a politician to fix us? Why is that so unbelievable to someone who believes the bible? Really now. People believe the bible yet scoff at contemporaries who claim to hear god's voice.

To go a bit further, would you believe your pregnant daughter if she claimed to be a virgin?

Because for those of us who believe the Bible, we know He has no need to send a politician to "fix us". That's why He sent Jesus. And since we believe He sent Jesus and Jesus was His son, He's not sending anyone else. That is, not until He sends Jesus back.

And, no, I would not believe my pregnant daughter was a virgin for the same reason. God's already done that once and He's not doing it again.

The Jews of Jesus' time were also waiting for either a politician or a warrior/king to come and save them by overthrowing the Roman Empire. But that's not what they, or we, needed.

As for your equating our belief in Jesus to people's belief in Peter Cottontail leaving chocolate eggs, and our being "bonkers" for our beliefs, I must say you're awfully closed-minded for someone who's liberal and supposedly "open-minded".

Plus, the analogy doesn't work. I don't know of anyone who worships Peter Cottontail. And no one has ever died defending his belief in a rabbit that leaves chocolate eggs. Yet the apostles, who knew Jesus and were with Him, and saw Him after His resurrection, were willing to die, in horribly painful ways, to stand up for what they saw with their own eyes. If what they say happened wasn't true, would they be willing to die for it?

[JoinUsForCake]

I don't like anyone comparing any politician to Christ.
Me neither.
http://www.bushfish.org/images/sample_2.gif

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/26013398_591c5ce748.jpg


Politicians are mere mortals and SEVERELY limited in what they can do for anyone.
Agreed.

[JoinUsForCake]

Because for those of us who believe the Bible, .... If what they say happened wasn't true, would they be willing to die for it?
I knew somebody would start preaching at some point.

[Jax]

As for your equating our belief in Jesus to people's belief in Peter Cottontail leaving chocolate eggs, and our being "bonkers" for our beliefs, I must say you're awfully closed-minded for someone who's liberal and supposedly "open-minded".

Plus, the analogy doesn't work. I don't know of anyone who worships Peter Cottontail. And no one has ever died defending his belief in a rabbit that leaves chocolate eggs. Yet the apostles, who knew Jesus and were with Him, and saw Him after His resurrection, were willing to die, in horribly painful ways, to stand up for what they saw with their own eyes. If what they say happened wasn't true, would they be willing to die for it?

Yet the bible wasn't written by contemporaries of Jesus, so belief in Peter Cottontail is just as legit.

[PTP WX]

"These people" are the schlubs who think Obama is going to fix all their problems and make their lives perfect. Only Christ could do that. No politician can.

I would say that people need to fix their own lives to the best of their abilities. Whether that be through churchin' or education or hard work or whatever suits that person.

I would also say that a politician could correct some of the overtly corrupt practices of the government and control the deficit and strengthen the dollar and improve the quality of life for everyone in the US.

But I'm not going to hold my breath!

[Pro]

No. And even you should know that. But it's not what you want to hear, so you twist and distort, as you all too often do.

Allright....let's see your denunciation of it by name. Not some general "I denounce all of it". Mention the offender by name. Go ahead. Be consistent.

[The Mockingbird]

The media isn't covering Obama more because they are Liberal, they're covering Obama more because he's more interesting.


You have to understand, this is the same media that provided us wall-to-wall coverage of Anna Nicole Smith for an entire month. Obama's getting more coverage because he's doing something interesting.

In a related story, have you noticed how much this year is playing out like the last season of The West Wing?

[Diplomat]

Me neither.
http://www.bushfish.org/images/sample_2.gif

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/26013398_591c5ce748.jpg


Agreed.

I don't like it for ANYONE. Back during the impeachment thing, when Carville made an off-hand comment comparing the President's ordeal to Christ's crucifixion, it was sick. Those photos you have shown us are also sick.

Any clergyman who would try to link Christ to a political agenda is making a mockery of Him whom they profess to follow. I don't like it when the Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson/James Dobson/John Hagee types do it on one extreme, nor do I like the Jim Wallis/Barry Lynn/Jesse Jackson/Jeremiah Wright types do it on another. They are all extremists.

(I know Dobson is not a minister but he does get very preachy.)

[Another OMB]

Yet the bible wasn't written by contemporaries of Jesus, so belief in Peter Cottontail is just as legit.

No, the entire Bible was not written by contemporaries of Jesus, obviously, since the Old Testament was around before He was. But the parts about Jesus were written by his contemporaries. So, no, belief in Peter Cottontail is not just as legit.

[Another OMB]

I knew somebody would start preaching at some point.

Sorry, didn't mean to get preachy. But when someone calls me bonkers and belittles my religion I'm going to respond.

[cinehead]

Yet the bible wasn't written by contemporaries of Jesus, so belief in Peter Cottontail is just as legit.

Is it really necessary to belittle someone's belief in God (or lack of belief in God)? What happened to tolerance?

[Diplomat]

Sorry, didn't mean to get preachy. But when someone calls me bonkers and belittles my religion I'm going to respond.

As well you should.

[JoinUsForCake]

IAny clergyman who would try to link Christ to a political agenda is making a mockery of Him whom they profess to follow.
Dip, you & I agree on this point 101%

Heck I would even stop in for a visit at your house of worship and check it out sometime.

[JoinUsForCake]

Is it really necessary to belittle someone's belief in God (or lack of belief in God)? What happened to tolerance?
I try not to belittle the religion itself overtly. What I try to belittle is attempts to elevate one's religion over others. Keep your assertions of 'fact' about certain passages and "He did this" from whatever religious text to yourself, please. Or at least don't expect others whose beliefs are different to accept them as you do according to your faith. I don't care what you believe in, and you shouldn't really care what I do or don't believe in.

I understand that there are those who believe that the Bible is literally (or close to it) the word of God. Good. Great. But don't sit there and say that it definitely absolutely positively IS. Or you could, but don't expect any respect from me. I just come from a perspective that we can all learn a little from every religion, large or small. As long as you find your inner peace - your religion - that's great. I just do not understand the need to advertise it. That's highly offensive. I saw a bumper sticker that said, "REAL MEN LOVE JESUS" and was amazed at the balls and outright ignorance it takes to drive around displaying something like that.

Honestly, I think if there were ever a Medialine Meet & Greet or cocktail party, or something like that... we'd all get along great, speak respectfully with each other, and make a few friends. It is kind of fun to argue on here, but there's more to life no matter how vitriolic we get.

[Diplomat]

Dip, you & I agree on this point 101%

Heck I would even stop in for a visit at your house of worship and check it out sometime.

You would be most welcome. :)

[Mr. Rugen]

You would be most welcome. :)

It would have to be yours. We don't allow cake at our church. It's really a health thing.

[Diplomat]

It would have to be yours. We don't allow cake at our church. It's really a health thing.

We keep ours in the fellowship hall.

[Mr. Rugen]

We keep ours in the fellowship hall.

Sinner!

[Kace]

Fellowship... Does that explain the, "fellow travelers," accusations made by...whomever it was some time back? ;)

[Diplomat]

Fellowship... Does that explain the, "fellow travelers," accusations made by...whomever it was some time back? ;)

No--and please be careful. Our resident know-it-all anti-religious bigot will accuse you of "diverting."

A "fellowship hall" is a room or building where churches have meals, recreational activities, classes, etc. At some churches, it's also called a "social hall" or "parish hall," etc.

[Kace]

Yeah, the Holiness guys have a place like that over near Whiteville that's nice. Got to hang out them years back for this big chicken bog get together. Lasted an entire weekend. And despite the philosophical differences, they still welcomed me in and we got along. I'll never forget that.

And the bog was magnifique. I helped stir.

[Diplomat]

Sinner!

Huh??

[Jax]

But the parts about Jesus were written by his contemporaries. So, no, belief in Peter Cottontail is not just as legit.

Major biblical scholars believe the New Testament was authored between 100 AD and 300 AD. No evidence exists to suggest the gospels were written earlier. Most believe Matthew and Luke were written by the same person.

[Pro]

let's see your denunciation of it by name. Not some general "I denounce all of it". Mention the offender by name. Go ahead. Be consistent.


Still waiting.....

[Mr. Rugen]

Huh??

I was referencing the splits between certain C'soC over the controversial topic of having a kitchen connected to the actual church building.

[Pro]

Sorry, didn't mean to get preachy. But when someone calls me bonkers and belittles my religion I'm going to respond.

I thought Christ said to "turn the other cheek".

I would think that anyone secure in his/her religion wouldn't care what another person said or wrote about it.

[Jax]

Is it really necessary to belittle someone's belief in God (or lack of belief in God)? What happened to tolerance?

I'm all for tolerance and peace and love and all that junk, but my whole life has been shrouded by extreme intolerance by members of certain major religions.

I've found little use for tolerance toward the intolerant...

[cinehead]

I'm all for tolerance and peace and love and all that junk, but my whole life has been shrouded by extreme intolerance by members of certain major religions.

I've found little use for tolerance toward the intolerant...


I didn't see any intolerance coming from people on this board. (At least not in this thread)

[Pro]

I didn't see any intolerance coming from people on this board. (At least not in this thread)

Just curious...how would you define "intolerance"?

[Mr. Rugen]

I thought Christ said to "turn the other cheek".

I would think that anyone secure in his/her religion wouldn't care what another person said or wrote about it.

He also turned over a money changing table and threw some guys out of the temple. Just sayin'.

[cinehead]

Just curious...how would you define "intolerance"?

Okay, I'll bite. In this case, belittling someone's religious beliefs by comparing them to Peter Cottontail.

[Pro]

He also turned over a money changing table and threw some guys out of the temple. Just sayin'.

Apples and oranges. That was about someone using a religious facility for something it was not intended for. Indeed, it could be called expelling a tresspasser.

Did Christ say anything about getting your panties in a bunch when someone said anything derrogatory about your releigion?

[Pro]

Okay, I'll bite. In this case, belittling someone's religious beliefs by comparing them to Peter Cottontail.

An insult equals intolerance? Well, if that's what you believe, fine. As for me, I'd call intolerance what Hitler did to German Jews and Stalin did to Russian Jews. Anything stopping the free practice of religion is, IMO, "intolerance". And anyone advocating that people should not be allowed to express religious views is "intolerance". Short of that, I wouldn't call it intolerance. But that's just me.

[Jax]

I didn't see any intolerance coming from people on this board. (At least not in this thread)

Doesn't need to be just in this thread, but you did miss one...

No--and please be careful. Our resident know-it-all anti-religious bigot will accuse you of "diverting."

I'm guessing this is aimed at Dap... Anti-religious bigot is not how I would describe her. But if Christians would treat Atheists like human beings and not the least trusted group in America (http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686), you'd get a lot more tolerance.

[Mr. Rugen]

Apples and oranges. That was about someone using a religious facility for something it was not intended for. Indeed, it could be called expelling a tresspasser.



The money changers were welcome in the temple by the law of the time. Jesus "evicted" them for the practice just as much as the location of their practice.

Jesus didn't have much to say on the topic of people who said derogatory things about Him, though. Usually people caught following Jesus were beheaded, imprisoned, evicted from their homes, or stoned to death. Not much comparison between that and an anonymous internet ranter.

[trunky]

"The media isn't covering Obama more because they are Liberal, they're covering Obama more because he's more interesting."

pretty much.

[Pro]

The money changers were welcome in the temple by the law of the time. Jesus "evicted" them for the practice just as much as the location of their practice.

Then couldn't Jesus' actions be taken as a statement of his views on that law? An act of civil disobedience?

[Dap]

Okay, I'll bite. In this case, belittling someone's religious beliefs by comparing them to Peter Cottontail.

That is my belief on religion. So then you are belittling my beliefs. Intolerant you are!

Really now. You are allowed to state your opinion on religion and I am allowed to state mine without fear of flogging or prison or death. That, my dear, is tolerance.

[Mr. Rugen]

Then couldn't Jesus' actions be taken as a statement of his views on that law? An act of civil disobedience?

In my opinion, yes. The things that Jesus presented during His ministry were radical.
He was going against the status quo of the time. The Pharisees of Jesus time had taken Jewish law and used it as a tool to rule over people. In fact, the government of the time, although under Roman rule, was a theocracy.

[Kace]

He also turned over a money changing table and threw some guys out of the temple. Just sayin'.

So he was a hypocrite?

[Mr. Rugen]

Thanks for sharing.

[Pro]

In my opinion, yes. The things that Jesus presented during His ministry were radical.
He was going against the status quo of the time. The Pharisees of Jesus time had taken Jewish law and used it as a tool to rule over people. In fact, the government of the time, although under Roman rule, was a theocracy.

OK, fine. But how does that equate to someone feeling the need to lash out - verbally - when another person questions their faith? The moneychangers were't questioning faith. They were trying to make a buck (or whatever they called it then).

I'm not saying they don't have the right to lash out. They do. It's just that, to me, it seems inconsistent with Christ's teachings.

[Jax]

That is my belief on religion. So then you are belittling my beliefs. Intolerant you are!

Really now. You are allowed to state your opinion on religion and I am allowed to state mine without fear of flogging or prison or death. That, my dear, is tolerance.

Besides, last I checked, Peter Cottontail was the true Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Easter_Special).

[Mr. Rugen]

OK, fine. But how does that equate to someone feeling the need to lash out - verbally - when another person questions their faith? The moneychangers were't questioning faith. They were trying to make a buck (or whatever they called it then).

I'm not saying they don't have the right to lash out. They do. It's just that, to me, it seems inconsistent with Christ's teachings.

There is inconsistency there. They are flawed. They get angry.

I hate it when people call me stupid for being a Christian. I don't like it when people purposefully say something derogatory about Christ/Bible/Christians knowing that it will cause a fight.

In the same vein, aren't people who seek inner peace without the use of a deity being equally inconsistent when saying derogatoryy things about Christians? Someone on this thread talked about seeking inner peace and finding something useful in all religions but can still justify derogatory comments about Christianity and blame it on the Christians themselves, as if all Christians think and feel and believe the exact same way.

Christianity is a discipline. It takes study, meditation, and patience. Too many people see Pat Robertson, James Dobson or even Jesse Jackson and use their actions as a meter to judge all Christians by.

[Diplomat]

Doesn't need to be just in this thread, but you did miss one...



I'm guessing this is aimed at Dap... Anti-religious bigot is not how I would describe her. But if Christians would treat Atheists like human beings and not the least trusted group in America (http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/03/24/67686), you'd get a lot more tolerance.

Nope. Not referring to her.

[Diplomat]

That is my belief on religion. So then you are belittling my beliefs. Intolerant you are!

Really now. You are allowed to state your opinion on religion and I am allowed to state mine without fear of flogging or prison or death. That, my dear, is tolerance.


You seem to think you can call religious people every name in the book, yet you don't seem to believe they have the right to fire back if you toss out one of your hateful comments.

Tolerance is respecting the rights of others, not hating them because they don't agree with you.

You have the right to believe as you wish. Others have the right to believe as they wish. This is how we do things in America.

[Diplomat]

There is inconsistency there. They are flawed. They get angry.

I hate it when people call me stupid for being a Christian. I don't like it when people purposefully say something derogatory about Christ/Bible/Christians knowing that it will cause a fight.

In the same vein, aren't people who seek inner peace without the use of a deity being equally inconsistent when saying derogatoryy things about Christians? Someone on this thread talked about seeking inner peace and finding something useful in all religions but can still justify derogatory comments about Christianity and blame it on the Christians themselves, as if all Christians think and feel and believe the exact same way.

Christianity is a discipline. It takes study, meditation, and patience. Too many people see Pat Robertson, James Dobson or even Jesse Jackson and use their actions as a meter to judge all Christians by.

Nicely said.

We would not want to judge all Christians by those people you mentioned, just as we would not want to judge all atheists by the equally repugnant behavior of the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

[Pro]

In the same vein, aren't people who seek inner peace without the use of a deity being equally inconsistent when saying derogatoryy things about Christians?

Oh absolutely. Dispite what some posters would have you believe, the only deratory thing I have said about Christians concerns some - many - of them attempting to blur the line against separation of church and state. As far as their personal religious practices are concerned, that's none of my business.

[Pro]

You seem to think you can call religious people every name in the book, yet you don't seem to believe they have the right to fire back if you toss out one of your hateful comments.

Countering someone's views is not the same thing as saying they have no right to express them.

If someone said "You have no right to say that", then you'd have a point. But I do not recall that sentence being used in this discussion.

[Dap]

You seem to think you can call religious people every name in the book, yet you don't seem to believe they have the right to fire back if you toss out one of your hateful comments.

Tolerance is respecting the rights of others, not hating them because they don't agree with you.

You have the right to believe as you wish. Others have the right to believe as they wish. This is how we do things in America.

Quite. However, having a difference of opinion isn't hate, darling.

[cinehead]

That is my belief on religion. So then you are belittling my beliefs. Intolerant you are!

Really now. You are allowed to state your opinion on religion and I am allowed to state mine without fear of flogging or prison or death. That, my dear, is tolerance.

Your beliefs are dependent on the bashing of others beliefs? Good luck with that.

And, if you weren't already drunk you might have noticed that I don't want people being bashed for their lack of religion either.

[Dap]

Your beliefs are dependent on the bashing of others beliefs? Good luck with that.

And, if you weren't already drunk you might have noticed that I don't want people being bashed for their lack of religion either.

If bashing is disagreeing, so be it. Mr. Diplomat has called me a bigot because I don't believe as he. You are calling me drunk. Is that bashing in your opinion?

[Mr. Rugen]

It's funny, because of all the people involved in this conversation I'm probably the most inebriated because of the hydrocodone after a recent medical procedure.

[cinehead]

If bashing is disagreeing, so be it. Mr. Diplomat has called me a bigot because I don't believe as he. You are calling me drunk. Is that bashing in your opinion?

Disagreeing is not bashing. Disagreeing can be done in a mature fashion. Adults exchange ideas. Children resort to belittling and name calling. All name calling does is stifle the exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Maybe my calling you a drunk is bashing, but I'm not bashing you on some broad generalization or stereotype. I put a lot of thought into my comment after reading your post. I'm sorry if you're not drunk. If you were at least you would have some excuse for your inane comments.

[Jax]

Not to bash, but first this...

Disagreeing is not bashing. Disagreeing can be done in a mature fashion. Adults exchange ideas. Children resort to belittling and name calling. All name calling does is stifle the exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Then this....

I'm sorry if you're not drunk. If you were at least you would have some excuse for your inane comments.

What?

[Another OMB]

Major biblical scholars believe the New Testament was authored between 100 AD and 300 AD. No evidence exists to suggest the gospels were written earlier. Most believe Matthew and Luke were written by the same person.

What "major Biblical scholars" are you referring to? Everyone I've seen has Matthew and Mark written anywhere from the 50s to the 70s and Luke written anywhere from 59 to the 70s. Scholars put John writing his gospel anywhere from as early as the 50s to as late as 85 or later. Acts is dated either 63, if it was written after the last event recorded, or 70 or later. I could go on.

"No evidence exists to suggest the gospels were written earlier"? Where do you get that?

Yes, there are some scholars who believe Matthew and MARK may have been written by the same author, but I haven't read that about Matthew and Luke, as you suggest. The author's name does not appear in Luke, but, according to my study Bible, "much unmistakable evidence points to Luke."

[Another OMB]

I try not to belittle the religion itself overtly. What I try to belittle is attempts to elevate one's religion over others. Keep your assertions of 'fact' about certain passages and "He did this" from whatever religious text to yourself, please. Or at least don't expect others whose beliefs are different to accept them as you do according to your faith. I don't care what you believe in, and you shouldn't really care what I do or don't believe in.

I just come from a perspective that we can all learn a little from every religion, large or small. As long as you find your inner peace - your religion - that's great. I just do not understand the need to advertise it. That's highly offensive.

Honestly, I think if there were ever a Medialine Meet & Greet or cocktail party, or something like that... we'd all get along great, speak respectfully with each other, and make a few friends. It is kind of fun to argue on here, but there's more to life no matter how vitriolic we get.

Thank you, Join us for Cake, for trying not to belittle us. I certainly appreciate it. (Sincerely. I'm not being sarcastic, just to be clear.)

Having read your post, I'm hoping maybe I can shed some light on where Christians are coming from to help your understanding.

You may not care what I believe in, and you wonder why we care what you believe in. Christ told His believers to go out to the entire world and make disciples, to share His message. That's why we care about what you believe in. I'm sorry if that's offensive. That's certainly not our goal.

It's funny that you wrote that you think you can learn something from all religions, because I'm a Sunday School teacher and my lesson this week is about that. A lot of people think there are many paths to heaven, or "enlightenment". But Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except by me." So, as Christians, we can't, and shouldn't, believe that there are many paths to heaven and they're all equally as good. The basis of our religion is that Jesus is the Son of God and the only way to heaven.

The reason we "advertise it" is because we believe we've been given the greatest gift possible, and we want others to have it, too. We're not trying to offend or belittle, but to share a gift.

It's also funny that you mention a "Medialine Meet and Greet or cocktail party", because I was thinking about that just this morning before I read your post. I was thinking how enjoyable it would be to actually meet some of the people whose posts make me laugh, teach me something or make me see a perspective I hadn't thought about before. And I thought it's kind of a shame that we'll never know much, if anything, about the real identities of the posters here. I understand why we don't and the need for anonymity, but I'd love to meet a lot of the people on here and talk to them.

[Another OMB]

I thought Christ said to "turn the other cheek".

I would think that anyone secure in his/her religion wouldn't care what another person said or wrote about it.

Yes, He did say we should turn the other cheek. But He also told us to stand up for Him, and that if we weren't willing to stand up and defend Him on earth, when we got to heaven He wouldn't be able to stand up for us before God because, since we didn't defend Him, He wouldn't know us.

And to say that "anyone secure in his/her religion wouldn't care what another person said or wrote about it" is silly. Refer to the first part of my post for one reason. For another, if you're married and are secure in that marriage, would you NOT care what another person said or wrote about your wife?

[Pro]

But He also told us to stand up for Him, and that if we weren't willing to stand up and defend Him on earth, when we got to heaven He wouldn't be able to stand up for us before God because, since we didn't defend Him, He wouldn't know us.

Wasn't that "defense" meant to oppose and fight those who would prohibit the practice? Or does it also include insults?

For another, if you're married and are secure in that marriage, would you NOT care what another person said or wrote about your wife?

"Sticks and stones....."

Really all it is, is giving in to a base emotion. Not a whole lot different than road rage. It's all insecurity. And, yeah, I've done it too. Doesn't make it right, though. Just that I'm as flawed as the next person.

[Another OMB]

Wasn't that "defense" meant to oppose and fight those who would prohibit the practice? Or does it also include insults?



"Sticks and stones....."

Really all it is, is giving in to a base emotion. Not a whole lot different than road rage. It's all insecurity. And, yeah, I've done it too. Doesn't make it right, though. Just that I'm as flawed as the next person.

I'm not sure I follow you on the first part. I think the bottom line is that we're not supposed to be ashamed of Jesus, and we're to defend our religion.

However, you're right about the sticks and stones part and turning the other cheek. If someone were to simply call be bonkers for being a Christian, I would be upset and want to respond, but probably shouldn't.

The difference is that's an insult against me. Maybe I should let it pass and turn the other cheek. In most cases, I probably would. But insulting Jesus Himself, or God, is different and I'm going to stand up for Him.

And I should point out that my reaction is not one of hatred toward anyone doing the insulting.

[Pro]

Well, no, I don't think you should go along with the insult. But I would think that "turn the other cheek" means to acknowledge your faith without being confrontational . Unless, of course, it is necessary for you to practice your fatih....say, if someone tried to persecute you for your faith. But a mere verbal insult? I could be wrong, but I don't think that Biblically requires a return insult, or even admonishion.

[Dap]

Disagreeing is not bashing. Disagreeing can be done in a mature fashion. Adults exchange ideas. Children resort to belittling and name calling. All name calling does is stifle the exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Maybe my calling you a drunk is bashing, but I'm not bashing you on some broad generalization or stereotype. I put a lot of thought into my comment after reading your post. I'm sorry if you're not drunk. If you were at least you would have some excuse for your inane comments.

You say my remarks are inane. I say your remarks are inane.

[Clever Login Name]

How could I? "Elitist" is used as a slur to brand people you disagree with.

Kinda like racist. You know ... the term you sling around to brand people you disagree with.

[JoinUsForCake]

I haven't logged on here in a few days, but I must say this thread has proven to be very interesting.

[Mr. Pratfall]

Yeah, it kind of took a left turn.