Lieberman’s speeches? I don’t know the reference. Must have missed those… I’ll go find a link, unless you have one handy?
Burning, I will most certainly look up those titles. I don’t think the left is imploding, however. 
Yes, I think my perception of Bush's Christianity, as I have described it and IN THAT CONTEXT, was the piece that tipped the scale for me. Tipping the scale is the key concept here... there are other things in there too - on both sides, so it is not so neat and clean as you would like to make it.
And this is exactly what's tipped it in the other direction for me! I believe Bush is incapable of looking objectively at things because of his religious beliefs, i.e., that God directs him, God answers his prayers. There's no way for him to separate his religion from his political actions. For Bush, the end justifies the means, and the "end" is one dictated by his Christian beliefs IMO. Because of this, Bush can never be wrong in his mind - that's why he couldn't answer the reporter's question at the press conference.
So I agree with Tom about Bush. And I think if you really look at his record, you'll see that Bush doesn't do everything he says he's going to do. So he's like other politicians in this regard.
For me, it was how Bush misled the country (and I still feel that he did do it). He was able to justify doing that because the "end justifies the means". And the end was to rid the world of Saddam regardless of the reasons used. That's why the reason why we went to war has CHANGED so many times. It doesn't matter that we didn't find WMD, nuclear stockpiles, mobile biological labs are any of the other reasons cited for going to war.
I know about your Clinton research & I remained unconvinced about most of it. The American Spectator had a Clinton fund & they tried to dig up everything they could on him - from money fraud to murder. And all they could get was trooper-gate & Monica - sex, sex, sex. It's sad that we did all that (Arnold had that one right).
And this is exactly what's tipped it in the other direction for me! I believe Bush is incapable of looking objectively at things because of his religious beliefs, i.e., that God directs him, God answers his prayers. There's no way for him to separate his religion from his political actions. For Bush, the end justifies the means, and the "end" is one dictated by his Christian beliefs IMO. Because of this, Bush can never be wrong in his mind - that's why he couldn't answer the reporter's question at the press conference.
So I agree with Tom about Bush. And I think if you really look at his record, you'll see that Bush doesn't do everything he says he's going to do. So he's like other politicians in this regard.
For me, it was how Bush misled the country (and I still feel that he did do it). He was able to justify doing that because the "end justifies the means". And the end was to rid the world of Saddam regardless of the reasons used. That's why the reason why we went to war has CHANGED so many times. It doesn't matter that we didn't find WMD, nuclear stockpiles, mobile biological labs are any of the other reasons cited for going to war.
I know about your Clinton research & I remained unconvinced about most of it. The American Spectator had a Clinton fund & they tried to dig up everything they could on him - from money fraud to murder. And all they could get was trooper-gate & Monica - sex, sex, sex. It's sad that we did all that (Arnold had that one right).
Here’s a read for conservatives by a conservative:
http://www.harpercollins.com/catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060752920
Actually I can’t stand Joe most of the time but I occasionally do like what he has to say. I’ve heard him discuss this book alittle. He’s a true Reagan Repub.
| Quote (TomS @ Sep. 17 2004,07:45) |
| There is something interesting here, as a matter of history - most early Christians thought that what one did was more important than what one believed. The action was what mattered. Constantine changed all of that, so that now people can claim to be good Christians by virtue of what they believe, who are at the same time completely self-centered, and ignore Jesus's very difficult moral teaching. That describes Bush, I think. |
Tom-
i respec tfully disagree with the statement that early christians sought to base righteousness solely on their works and not their faith. Long before Constantine, this was the crux of the jewish law. For a biblical reference, Gen. 15:6 says that Abraham believed and it was credited to his righteousness.--not...Abraham (Abram at the time)-did his sacrifices and so he was righteous before God.
Was this and has this been a central issue in Christianity since the beginning...absolutely. The idea that what we do is more important than what we believe is a human reaction to the manifest desire of God for us to have a right heart...and show what we believe by what we do...not the other way around.
This is the issue Jesus brings up again and again in the New Testament. To the Pharisee, to the teachers of the law and to the apostles and believers. Jesus "difficult moral teachings" as you rightly describe them are unattainable...
Yes I said unattainable. They are to be the measuring stick to which we say..I can't do this on my own...and cry out to God.
For you to pin a self-centered badge on Bush because he believes differently than you is not warranted. You think him wrong about issues so you draw the conclusion that he is self centered and his belief system doesn't match his actions...in your mind.
In my mind, they are in harmony.
You say he doesn't believe in democracy...baloney.
Its an "ivory-tower" cop-out
His bioethics beliefs are different so you believe he limits participation-no way.
He uses his power in a way you don't like...fine...he is no diffrent than any other politician...hungry for what the powwer brings him
Just say you don't like his politics. And you don't share his beliefs.
Let’s see…came to America, Religious freedom, seperation between church and state, constitution, many different religions in America, big topic always at election time, WHY?
| Quote (YazMiester @ Sep. 17 2004,11:18) |
| Let's see....came to America, Religious freedom, seperation between church and state, constitution, many different religions in America, big topic always at election time, WHY? |
The Liberal Elite lack substantive issues to run on ....
They need to create victims first, thereby establishing a need for .... and justifying their politics.
This cycle has been more of the same .... unfortunately.
Though as hard as they try to portray the US negatively,
good people(s) from all over the globe still come ..
Thanks Tom, I've had my eye on Joe's book ...
--
For you to pin a self-centered badge on Bush because he believes differently than you is not warranted. You think him wrong about issues so you draw the conclusion that he is self centered and his belief system doesn't match his actions...in your mind.
In my mind, they are in harmony.
No - I don't think it's NOT because Bush believes differently than Tom or I.
I won't speak for Tom but for me, it's the concern that a religious fundamentalist leader could justify (and start) something like a war, in the same way a bunch of regilious fundamentalists could fly planes into some buildings & kill thousands of people. For me, it's about the separation of church & state.
In my mind, they are in harmony.
No - I don't think it's NOT because Bush believes differently than Tom or I.
I won't speak for Tom but for me, it's the concern that a religious fundamentalist leader could justify (and start) something like a war, in the same way a bunch of regilious fundamentalists could fly planes into some buildings & kill thousands of people. For me, it's about the separation of church & state.
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Sep. 17 2004,11:54) |
| it's the concern that a religious fundamentalist leader could justify (and start) something like a war, in the same way a bunch of regilious fundamentalists could fly planes into some buildings & kill thousands of people. For me, it's about the separation of church & state. |
I didn't know Woodrow Wilson, FDR, et al were religious fundamentalists ..... (?)
--
I won't speak for Tom but for me, it's the concern that a religious fundamentalist leader could justify (and start) something like a war, in the same way a bunch of regilious fundamentalists could fly planes into some buildings & kill thousands of people. For me, it's about the separation of church & state.
You have just disqualified our founding fathers from doing what they did in establishing this nation, and disqualified most of the presidents we have ever had from serving, and disqualified the majority of folks serving at all levels of government. Oh... you've also dismissed the very foundation of our legal system.
Should Christians even be allowed to vote, Mike?
You have just disqualified our founding fathers from doing what they did in establishing this nation, and disqualified most of the presidents we have ever had from serving, and disqualified the majority of folks serving at all levels of government. Oh... you've also dismissed the very foundation of our legal system.
Should Christians even be allowed to vote, Mike?
Its so classic…
"Bush started a war because he believes in God and wants to follow what the Bible says."
Now Bush is a religios fundamentalist leader? Big leap…
Spin away.
Tom should be able to address this from the logical perspective. Isn’t this called a syllogism or something like that?
A is B, and B did C, therefore A results in C.
It is one of the basic logical fallacies they teach the young’uns in middleskewl, isn’t it?
You have just disqualified our founding fathers from doing what they did in establishing this nation, and disqualified most of the presidents we have ever had from serving, and disqualified the majority of folks serving at all levels of government. Oh... you've also dismissed the very foundation of our legal system.
You know I disagree with you here, but I'm certainly willing to listen to you expand/explain this. Maybe you're right about some of the Presidents but not the Founding Fathers.
Should Christians even be allowed to vote, Mike?
Well - I wouldn't be able to vote then. However, I knew that you'd interpret this as discrimination against Christians which was NOT meant to be.
PB - that's not what I said so please don't stretch & mis-interpret what I said.
You know I disagree with you here, but I'm certainly willing to listen to you expand/explain this. Maybe you're right about some of the Presidents but not the Founding Fathers.
Should Christians even be allowed to vote, Mike?
Well - I wouldn't be able to vote then. However, I knew that you'd interpret this as discrimination against Christians which was NOT meant to be.
PB - that's not what I said so please don't stretch & mis-interpret what I said.
Tom should be able to address this from the logical perspective. Isn't this called a syllogism or something like that?
A is B, and B did C, therefore A results in C.
It's called discrete math or propositional logic. You study it in Computer Science.
Definitinon: A proposition, P, is said to be a logical consequence of a set of propositions, S, if P is true for every truth assignment that makes every proposition in S ture.
An argument consists of a set of propositions called hypotheses and a proposition called the conclusion. An argument is said to be valid if the conclusion is a a logical consequence of the hypotheses.
1st Argument (valid) - hypotheses:
- If Joe is a communist, Joe is an atheist.
- Joe is a communist.
Conclusion: Joe is an atheist. Is this argument valid?
Hypo 1: P->Q
Hypo 2: P
Conclusion: Q
This problem is an example of the reasoning rule called "modus ponens" or the law of detachment.
The truth table (TT) for this argument is:
P P->Q Q
T T Tx
T F F
F T T
F T T
The only truth assignment (marked x) in this TT where P and P->Q are both true is the first row. If this case Q is also true, therefore this argument is true.
2nd argument (invalid) - hypotheses:
- If Joe is a communist, Joe is an atheist.
- Joe is a an atheist.
Conclusion: Joe is an communist. Is this argument valid?
Hypo 1: P->Q
Hypo 2: P
Conclusion: P
TT for this argument is:
P->Q Q P
T T Tx
F F T
T T Fx
T F F
The two truth assignments marked with an x are the only ones that make both hypotheses true. In the first case, the conclusion is true but in the second, it's false. Thus the conclusion does not follow from the hypotheses.
It gets more complicated after this.
A is B, and B did C, therefore A results in C.
It's called discrete math or propositional logic. You study it in Computer Science.
Definitinon: A proposition, P, is said to be a logical consequence of a set of propositions, S, if P is true for every truth assignment that makes every proposition in S ture.
An argument consists of a set of propositions called hypotheses and a proposition called the conclusion. An argument is said to be valid if the conclusion is a a logical consequence of the hypotheses.
1st Argument (valid) - hypotheses:
- If Joe is a communist, Joe is an atheist.
- Joe is a communist.
Conclusion: Joe is an atheist. Is this argument valid?
Hypo 1: P->Q
Hypo 2: P
Conclusion: Q
This problem is an example of the reasoning rule called "modus ponens" or the law of detachment.
The truth table (TT) for this argument is:
P P->Q Q
T T Tx
T F F
F T T
F T T
The only truth assignment (marked x) in this TT where P and P->Q are both true is the first row. If this case Q is also true, therefore this argument is true.
2nd argument (invalid) - hypotheses:
- If Joe is a communist, Joe is an atheist.
- Joe is a an atheist.
Conclusion: Joe is an communist. Is this argument valid?
Hypo 1: P->Q
Hypo 2: P
Conclusion: P
TT for this argument is:
P->Q Q P
T T Tx
F F T
T T Fx
T F F
The two truth assignments marked with an x are the only ones that make both hypotheses true. In the first case, the conclusion is true but in the second, it's false. Thus the conclusion does not follow from the hypotheses.
It gets more complicated after this.
Thank you, Mike. You’ve just discredited your own thesis in a far more scholarly manner than I was able.
Maybe but you’d have to draw the truth table for this. I believe I could discredit your essay alos using propositional logic.
But you get the point, it’s tricky & we all can make logic mistakes in our arguments. It takes someone who’s trained in this (I’m not but I used to be pretty good at this) to see flaws in logic.
| Quote (MidnightToker @ Sep. 17 2004,11:54) |
| I won't speak for Tom but for me, it's the concern that a religious fundamentalist leader could justify (and start) something like a war, in the same way a bunch of regilious fundamentalists could fly planes into some buildings & kill thousands of people. For me, it's about the separation of church & state. |
If thats not what you said, its implied.
a-Religious people do violence against others in the name of their beliefs
b- GWB is a religious person
c-GWB started the war in the name of his belief
just thought I'd jump in on the logic track!
I apologize if I read to much into that, but it seems that is where you were going.
Nice Iraq-911 comparison,
talk about faulty logic
Ok - I’m game. Let’s see…
The President is a Christian, and the President started a war,
Conclusion: The war was started because the President is a Christian.
Hypo 1: P->Q
Hypo 2: P
Conclusion: P
TT for this argument is:
P->Q Q P
T T Tx
F F T
T T Fx
T F F
The two truth assignments marked with an x are the only ones that make both hypotheses true. In the first case, the conclusion is true but in the second, it’s false. Thus the conclusion does not follow from the hypotheses.
Ya gotta love cut 'n paste. What did we ever do without it?
a-Religious people do violence against others in the name of their beliefs
b- GWB is a religious person
c-GWB started the war in the name of his belief
Right - I realized I simplified the argument greatly & didn't explain my argument well, but these are not my hypotheses.
Mine would be more like
- P1: FUNDAMENTALIST religious people will do violence if "the means justify the ends"
- P2: GWB is a fundamentalist
- C: GWB would start a war if he felt it would justify the end that he wanted & he believed that this end is what GOD wants.
This is what I'm trying to say (and I didn't run it through the truth tables) but it's very different than your interpertation of what I said.
PS - the FF's were not fundamentalists
b- GWB is a religious person
c-GWB started the war in the name of his belief
Right - I realized I simplified the argument greatly & didn't explain my argument well, but these are not my hypotheses.
Mine would be more like
- P1: FUNDAMENTALIST religious people will do violence if "the means justify the ends"
- P2: GWB is a fundamentalist
- C: GWB would start a war if he felt it would justify the end that he wanted & he believed that this end is what GOD wants.
This is what I'm trying to say (and I didn't run it through the truth tables) but it's very different than your interpertation of what I said.
PS - the FF's were not fundamentalists
- P1: FUNDAMENTALIST religious people will do violence if "the means justify the ends"
Ok, Mike - back this one up.
Pragmatism was formalized by Dewey, wasn't it, Tom? Where do you find pragmatism in Christianity? It is QUITE the opposite. We find pragmatism in just about every totalitarian system. Marxism embraces it. The Christians I know, have known, have spent my life around, listened to and read from refuse to accept this premise. The end never justifies the means. Evil is absolute, not a gray area that can be justified away with the end goal.
You have to do better than just saying it this time, Mike. Where do you get this from?
Ok, Mike - back this one up.
Pragmatism was formalized by Dewey, wasn't it, Tom? Where do you find pragmatism in Christianity? It is QUITE the opposite. We find pragmatism in just about every totalitarian system. Marxism embraces it. The Christians I know, have known, have spent my life around, listened to and read from refuse to accept this premise. The end never justifies the means. Evil is absolute, not a gray area that can be justified away with the end goal.
You have to do better than just saying it this time, Mike. Where do you get this from?