Steve Harvey introduces Jesus

Quote: (Poppa Willis @ Jul. 01 2009, 10:32 AM)

With all the great music posted here and the friendships, etc.. I seem to only see your posts jump up when..... well I don't want to make that blanket statement.

No, you just want to imply it.

How very disingenuous.

You were not here in the early days. And (despite your post count) you have not been around long enough to have any idea how much I have contributed to "...all the great music posted here and the friendships, etc..."

You detect a pattern that you dislike in my posts? Don't read 'em; don't respond to 'em.

Since you clarified your question as being 'personal', let me give you my 'personal' answer. My 'problem' is I react negatively to people pushing a religious agenda. Surely you have the right to post whatever you wish but, just as surely, I have the right to point out when it is a pandering performance by a documented bigot.

Thanks for the opportunity to have the last word, but I don't need or want your permission.

How do people who don’t believe in God know they are right?

They have faith.

Steve Harvey made one of three simple mistakes when he said that Athiests “don’t have a moral barometer”.

It is possible he has simply misunderstood some very fundamental facts about Christianity. It’s possible he thinks that morality comes from God and therefore only people who have a relationship with God can have access to a moral barometer.

This is clearly a misunderstanding. In order to truly repent, which is a requirement for receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), one must know they have sinned. The moral compass is therefore not reliant on having access the Holy Spirit or repentance would be a logical impossibility.

The ‘moral barometer’ is patently available to everyone, I don’t think any true Christian could disagree.

Or, it’s possible he meant to say “if you don’t believe in God, why do you believe in morality?”. I know that’s not what he said, but a Christian trying to stand in an atheists shoes is bound to make mistakes.

By trying to “think like an atheist” a Christian may suppose that there is no God, but in doing so may not be able to reconcile their entire outlook to such a view. It’s all very well trying to imagine there is no God, but it only works if you replace God with something else; you have to reshuffle your entire philosophical understanding of the world. That’s a very hard thing to try and do in your head.

As a result of that it would be understandable that a Christian may think that an atheist has no ‘reason’ to act morally; but although it would be understandable it would be a gross misunderstanding nonetheless.

Or, it it’s just possible that Steve was speaking from his own personal experience and overgeneralised. It’s possible that what he meant to say was “when I was an atheist I didn’t see any reason to be a moral person”. If that’s what he meant then he simply overstepped the mark when he made a generalisation about all atheists.

Regardless of the reason for his mistake (and I don’t see how it could be taken as anything other than a simple mistake of judgement, ) Steve should be forgiven for making a mistake. Fallibility and the ability to change are perhaps two of the greatest things that make us human.

“If you’re an atheist you’re basing your goodness and morality on what?”
- Steve Harvey



Clearly a bigot of the first order.

This is no mistake - the man is clearly a bigot. “Atheists are idiots” he says. “I just walk away” he says.

Substitute ANY OTHER GROUP for ‘atheists’ in his statements and then justify it as a mistake… you can’t.

You are a bigot too Bill. So am I and everyone else. Why not just let it go…

D

Because I am not presenting a pandering performance of my bigotry as something to be admired or even seen. That’s why I don’t let it go.

Because no one is justifying whatever bigotry I may possess as being acceptable simply because they happen to agree with it.
That’s why I don’t let it go.

Because, common or not, bigotry is NOT to be tolerated. That’s why I don’t let it go.

Quote: (BillClarke @ Jun. 29 2009, 1:17 PM)

We are all entitled to believe whatever we wish to believe but certain beliefs mark one as a bigot. Steve Harvey is a case in point; substitute any other identifiable group for "atheist" in his statement from the Tyra Banks Show and his bigotry becomes obvious.

This is what he said:
"You talking to a person who don't believe in God - where's his moral barometer? It's nowhere."

What if he said:
"You talking to a Jewish Person - where's his moral barometer? It's nowhere."

Or

"You talking to a Liberal - where's his moral barometer? It's nowhere."

Or

"You talking to a Muslim Person - where's his moral barometer? It's nowhere."

Or

"You talking to an Asian Person - where's his moral barometer? It's nowhere."

Basically any identifiable group placed in that statement marks it as a bigoted statement - including Atheists. So Steve Harvey is a bigot.

Now, think of a set of intermeshing gears. They can have some teeth missing from one of their cogs and they will likely appear to function normally most of the time. But something is seriously wrong with the underlying structure of the gear system and it would be unwise to count upon it to function correctly, even though it appears fine on the outside - inside it is seriously flawed.

Bigotry is like that. The bigot may appear to function correctly from the outside but inside something is seriously wrong and it is unwise to count upon one to function correctly - they are seriously flawed.

So, entitled to his beliefs? Certainly. But everything he says is suspect because you can't tell from the outside just how flawed his 'underlying structure' has become.

HEy bill :)

Let me start by saying welcome back, your intelligent and often insightful to the human psyche post are usually worth reading if one has the time.

I see where you are coming from with putting the "Jewish" word in their, and the "Muslim" name in the same statement.

What that is telling me is Steve is saying "unless you believe in "my God" you have no moral compass.......which is the same attitude and spirit responsible for the holocaust and all the religious wars of past centuries.

You put a person like this into power over military forces and you have yourself another problem.

Unfortunately, many people identify with this sort of bigotry, not only that they whole hardily support it and are convinced they are justified in doing so.
To me that is the real danger, not this guy himself (he ain't got much power to speak of) but the fact that the is a large part of the population that agree with statements like that, that is scary, and all they need is an Adolf or any other leader to share that with them and they can justify genocide of anyone not like them.

Sorry poppa if I farted on your thread with the long post, but as Bill said it took that many words to say what I was wanting to say, and I am still not sure I have said everything I was thinking, and we do have a problem, me and Bill with certain lines of "thinking" that are signs of a social norm that is as he says "bigotry" and the dangers it can posse if not spoken against.
IT is a personal problem I guess, but it doesn't have to be......


keep shinin

jerm :cool:
Quote:

Because, common or not, bigotry is NOT to be tolerated.


Isn't that an oxymoron?

I don't think the original post was meant to start a debate on Harvey's alleged bigotry.

D

So we were just supposed to be quiet, that what the Jews and Poles did in prewar Germany, it worked out good for them…

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Good grief…

This one guy, who some may deem as a bigot is a looooonnnnggg way from Nazi Germany Jerm. Try to keep some perspective eh? There are many others in offices of great power we should be more concerned about. You think Harvey is gonna raise an army and invade California or something? :p

D

Quote: (Diogesneez @ Jul. 04 2009, 10:40 AM)

Good grief...

This one guy, who some may deem as a bigot is a looooonnnnggg way from Nazi Germany Jerm. Try to keep some perspective eh? There are many others in offices of great power we should be more concerned about. You think Harvey is gonna raise an army and invade California or something? :p

D

Again it is not about the "guy" specifically, but the mentality present in the population.
Although I could see this guy or another like him running for an office and getting in, thanks to the large part of the "public" that agree with statements like this.

There are a few things we can do, ignore it and hope it goes away, say something (at least voice our opinion that we do not agree or accept this mentality) or agree with and support it.

There is perspective to consider, but as with any fungus on the toe of humanity that starts small, it only grows if it has fuel and does not meet resistance.

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Aight… you win. I can see the whole point is lost on you so I won’t bother you any more. :agree:

D

You had a point?

Just wear a hat no one will notice. (conehead joke)

BTW I wasn’t bothered, just was willing to stand in a place with Bill that few people are for whatever reason.

keep shinin

jerm :cool:

Quote: (Diogesneez @ Jul. 04 2009, 10:13 AM)

Quote:

Because, common or not, bigotry is NOT to be tolerated.


Isn't that an oxymoron?

I don't think the original post was meant to start a debate on Harvey's alleged bigotry.

D

I don't think it an oxymoron. Ignorance, too, is rampant yet not to be tolerated. How much less common would bigotry and ignorance be if both were treated as illnesses to be cured rather than common conditions to be tolerated?

I dunno. I just know that they get under my skin when I see them blatantly presented. (Nonetheless, I see the humour in your observation.)

Of course, I don't know what the intent was behind the original post - I have my suspicions but they are only suspicions and that has already been discussed. I took the position that it was pandering and, in support of that position, I presented the subject's bigotry as an issue since the leap from bigotry to pandering strikes me as not much of a leap at all - more of a step, really. And likely a natural one at that.

"Consider the source" is, I suppose, what I am saying - consider the source.