danivon wrote:

No, I'd say the evidence is not so bad. If we look at what he does instead of what he says . . .

You seriously believe that?

I'll answer both ways: the way I want to and the way I should.

I believe there is more evidence he's a Muslim than there is that he's a Christian.

That said, I firmly believe he's an atheist. There is only room for one god in his universe. In other words, he believes he is himself the most powerful and knowledgeable being in the Universe.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

No, I'd say the evidence is not so bad. If we look at what he does instead of what he says . . .

You seriously believe that?

I'll answer both ways: the way I want to and the way I should.

I believe there is more evidence he's a Muslim than there is that he's a Christian.

care to present any?

That said, I firmly believe he's an atheist. There is only room for one god in his universe. In other words, he believes he is himself the most powerful and knowledgeable being in the Universe.

You are not describing "atheism". You are describing "solipsism"

fate

I believe there is more evidence he's a Muslim than there is that he's a Christian.
That said, I firmly believe he's an atheist.

Your mind does not work like that of a rationale person.
That there are apparently a lot of minds like yours in the Republican party is evidenced by the large percentage of people who also make the baseless claim that Obama is a Muslim.
And when people are capable of making these kinds of claims out of thin air, then fear mongering to move the electorate is easy.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

No, I'd say the evidence is not so bad. If we look at what he does instead of what he says . . .

You seriously believe that?

I'll answer both ways: the way I want to and the way I should.

I believe there is more evidence he's a Muslim than there is that he's a Christian.

care to present any?

He's made plenty of statements as to the greatness of Islam. I would ask YOU this simple question: is there a single record of him EVER proclaiming the Gospel? Just once?

If I had 10 minutes to talk to him and I asked him how he was going to get to heaven, what do you suppose he would say?

That said, I firmly believe he's an atheist. There is only room for one god in his universe. In other words, he believes he is himself the most powerful and knowledgeable being in the Universe.

You are not describing "atheism". You are describing "solipsism"

Sure, but he would not admit that. Every liberal, in their heart, knows he's an atheist. You know this. Search your feelings. You know it to be true. He believes in God like I believe in communism.

rickyp wrote:fate

I believe there is more evidence he's a Muslim than there is that he's a Christian.
That said, I firmly believe he's an atheist.

Your mind does not work like that of a rationale (SIC) person.

Let's examine your evidence.

That there are apparently a lot of minds like yours in the Republican party is evidenced by the large percentage of people who also make the baseless claim that Obama is a Muslim.

Hmm, is it baseless? Did you prove that? Btw, I did not say he was a Muslim. However, here's the evidence he's a Christian:

Our fact-checking also showed clear evidence that Obama is a Christian. According to the president's memoirs and independent biographies, Obama was not raised in any particular faith. He became a Christian when he was in his 20s while working as a community organizer in Chicago. Obama said the churches there impressed him with their commitment to social justice and the hope they gave to the poor.

"It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith," Obama said in a 2006 speech. "It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... t-changed/

I know you would not know this, but that is not a Christian testimony.

And when people are capable of making these kinds of claims out of thin air, then fear mongering to move the electorate is easy.

Better than 1/7 Democrats think he's a Muslim. So, how about that? P. 32 here. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/image ... anpoll.pdf

After looking at all of your evidence, it's clear: your mind doesn't work. Period.

Fate

Hmm, is it baseless? Did you prove that?

Yes. And so do you with your quote from Politfact.


Fate

I know you would not know this, but that is not a Christian testimony.

The percentage of people who proclaim their Christianity, and your allowance that they are True Christians, is pretty small. And not representative of how anyone but your sect accepts Christianity and those who proclaim their faith.
But for anyone who isn't so restrictive its clear, he considers himself a Christian. Goes to what most everyone calls a Christian Church. And refers to his faith regularly.
That it isn't enough for 43% of republicans and 1/7th of Democrats is not evidence that he isn't but evidence of enduring willful ignorance.
When its enough that they believe he isn't really Christian, and believe that they see evidence in his behaviors that belie his proclaimed faith to disqualify him then you have irrational thought. Its the kind of mind that accepted that people could be witches performing black magic.
Its also the kind of mind that resists scientific facts like global warming and evolution... Because what you feel about something is truth, right?
Fate

. Search your feelings

rickyp wrote:Fate

Hmm, is it baseless? Did you prove that?

Yes. And so do you with your quote from Politfact.

It's not "baseless." How many bits of evidence do you want? There are plenty.

Fate

I know you would not know this, but that is not a Christian testimony.

The percentage of people who proclaim their Christianity, and your allowance that they are True Christians, is pretty small.

My opinion is immaterial. Tell you what--take his statement and try to prove it is a Christian testimony.

And not representative of how anyone but your sect accepts Christianity and those who proclaim their faith.

Wrong. We actually have a fairly broad definition, but it is biblical. We accept as believers many who differ with us on "Non-essentials." What are those? Some things you will know, others you won't: baptism, eschatology, ecclesiology, charismatic gifts, and other, similar, secondary issues.

But for anyone who isn't so restrictive its clear, he considers himself a Christian. Goes to what most everyone calls a Christian Church. And refers to his faith regularly.

That is not a biblical standard. Read all of Matthew 7 and make the case. Or, anywhere in the Bible for that matter. Jesus says "Many will say . . ."

That it isn't enough for 43% of republicans and 1/7th of Democrats is not evidence that he isn't but evidence of enduring willful ignorance.

Nah, the American people just aren't as fixated on the issue as the media and you are. But, he ain't no Jimmy Carter, that's for sure.

When its enough that they believe he isn't really Christian, and believe that they see evidence in his behaviors that belie his proclaimed faith to disqualify him then you have irrational thought. Its the kind of mind that accepted that people could be witches performing black magic.

Right, there's no reason to compare what he says with what he does, then actually compare his actions with the Bible--that's an "irrational" standard, right? It's kind of like when the 1976 decathlon champion declares himself a woman--there's no need to think about biology. After all, he says he's a woman, so to not accept that would be irrational, right?

Its also the kind of mind that resists scientific facts like global warming and evolution... Because what you feel about something is truth, right?

The funny thing is YOU are suggesting a subjective standard re Obama. I'm suggesting an objective standard--yet you call me "irrational" and imply that I'm being "unscientific." However, you are accepting your own hypothesis, namely that Obama is a Christian, on the flimisies of evidence. All you have is his self-identification. If he says he's a woman, will you accept that too?

How about testing your hypothesis? Put it through the wringer.

Well there was Rev. Wright...

bbauska wrote:Well there was Rev. Wright...

Which is a great argument for him not being a Christian . . . That is a church so detached from any biblical norm it's not even funny.

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:Well there was Rev. Wright...

Which is a great argument for him not being a Christian . . . That is a church so detached from any biblical norm it's not even funny.

Purely tongue in cheek.

More prayers for the French...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/world/europe/nice-france-truck-bastille-day.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

dag hammarsjkold wrote:More prayers for the French...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/world/europe/nice-france-truck-bastille-day.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

You can't "control" an ideology. You can only kill its adherents and force their surrender.

I wonder about that Doc Fate.

I don't think the West has ever attempted to call Fundamentalistic Islamic theology into question. I've mentioned before that Islam has never had to deal with its own version of an Enlightenment. Perhaps dealing with their own version of "the turn to the self" in the modern post/modern age would yield interesting results?

I'm beginning to think a key to the Islamic puzzle is theology and calling their so called theologians out.

As I see it, this religion has no leadership and no heroes. Perhaps by forcing the issue of interpreting the Koran for modern times, imams would be forced to reckon with its literal interpretation versus its contextual interpretation?

I think in what's become a war with this religion's extreme adherents, we should stop at nothing to try everything.

And like you say, we're dealing with an ideology. So lets go after that ideology and get to the heart of revelation for this religion.

A theological debate concerning what it means to be a true Muslim seems necessary to me. But let that debate take place between their own rank and file.

How?

I have no idea. They have no structure, no leaders, no heroes (depending on how you define heroes of course).

I have no problem with sending as many of them to their god and paradise as possible via warfare but that won't solve the issue. In fact, so far, it has only proven to fall into their plan for division and disruption of peace and has only served to fuel the rise of more adherents.

We have to hit them where it really hurts. We need to instigate a dialogue on what true Islam really is. Call it a propaganda war perhaps but if imams the world over were on the same page when it comes to the hermeneutics of the Koran we might get further down the road toward creating leaders and heroes.

Doctor Fate wrote:

dag hammarsjkold wrote:More prayers for the French...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/world/europe/nice-france-truck-bastille-day.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

You can't "control" an ideology. You can only kill its adherents and force their surrender.

So is that how Communism was defeated?

This is a very interesting question--how do we defeat Radical Islam? And thus we might look to how the West defeated Communism. I would argue that Communism was defeated through the following steps: (1) we held the line defensively, making it difficult for Communism to spread, win victories and therefore propagandize that it had a superior system, (2) the economic changes due to the Information Age made the economic gap (and necessarily the militarily gap) between the West and the Communist Bloc manifest, and (3) a reformist leader arose--Gorbachev--that essentially conceded the failure of Communism as a competitor to the West, tried to reform it, and then it just blew up.

So how does that compare to Radical Islam? To me, Radical Islam is not a rational movement. Islam as an alternative to Western culture was a serious threat to the West...in 1683. In the 1850s Japan recognized it needed to adopt many western institutions if it wanted to survive as an independent country. Radical Islam is more like the Boxer rebellion or Indians at Wounded Knee--searching for a magical solution to beat the West.

The West is immeasurably stronger than Muslim countries. A rational solution would be for them to make changes so that their state accords with Western values--separation of church and state, freedom of expression (particularly to criticize religion), the rule of law, penal system reforms, and equality of women. There is simply no way that a country that hampers the ability of women to contribute , makes people afraid to say things, and has religion permeate every part of society and too much of the working day can compete with Western countries who do not operate under such restrictions. So we can hold the line on preventing them from making gains and wait for a reformer but they have known (or should have known) for over 300 years that their religious-based governmental system cannot compete with the West.

Now Kemal Ataturk was such a reformer and he created the modern Turkish state. But instead of that example spreading to other states it's Turkey that appears to be back-sliding.

So will a reformer arise within Islam? That would be great but I just can imagine the reception a reformer would get by saying that the religion needs to change because the West is better. The way the West has previously won similar contests with other ideological systems is either to use or at least show that it has much greater military strength but the dispersal of terrorists among the general Muslim population makes that difficult to do.

I don't know when we will do this but ultimately I think we need to put more and more pressure on Muslim countries to crush this movement. If the moderate Muslims are essentially harboring the radicals then we need to put pressure on the moderates to get rid of the radicals. Somehow, I think the Saudis would figure out a solution if their economic future was threatened. I'm not saying we have reached that point...but at some point we need a better solution than we have now, which is basically having to spend endless amounts of money on security and hit terrorists when they pop up. But we defeat one radical terrorist organization and another pops up. We need to figure out a better way to deal with this problem. The way we have been dealing with it for 15 years has been ineffective