Grassroots Motorsports

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Did Obama jump the shark?? 9 10 11 12 13 14

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:02 p.m. z31maniac SuperDork

  oldsaw wrote:

  fast_eddie_72 wrote:

  oldsaw wrote:

  "1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - Agent K

  The Bible says the Earth is flat. It has corners. If you literally believe every word in the Bible is fact, you should be able to travel to a corner where the Earth ends.

  If you write that off as a translation issue, then what else is translated wrong? And how can you take the rest of it literally if you know that one bit was translated poorly? And if God directed the people who wrote the Bible, why didn't he direct those who translated it?

  WTF? You're taking a freakin' quote from a comedy movie seriously?

  Eddie, get a grip, my friend.

  That's indicative of his "bull in a china shop" approach to debate.

  I think he makes some good points, but could pare back the aggresiveness just a touch.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:02 p.m. fast_eddie_72 Reader

  poopshovel wrote:

  What I will say is that science and archeology will never prove or disprove any religion. You're not going to dig up a house and find a sign that says "Mary and Joseph lived here."

  I agree and I made no effort to prove or disprove religion. What I provided proof of is that the story of Creation told in Genesis is not literal history.

  poopshovel wrote: Religion is about faith. As silly as that may sound to you, that's what it's about, and anyone on the religious side screaming and beating their chest trying to prove science wrong is wasting their time just as much as someone trying to argue the concept that there is no god to someone who believes there is.

  Why do you say that may sound silly to me? As I've said several times, I am a religous person myself.

  I agree with you, but wonder why you're saying this to me. I didn't say there is no God. In fact, I said there is a God. I'm not being pedantic, just trying to be clear. I agree with everythig you are saying here.

  I really do like that quote from the Catholic Catechism:

  "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth"

  There is no disconnect for me between science and religion. This seems to be a position the Catholic Church shares. That's a powerful statement. Not only does it say that science isn't wrong, it demands that religion and reason co-exist. I completely agree with that idea.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:11 p.m. fast_eddie_72 Reader

  z31maniac wrote:

  That's indicative of his "bull in a china shop" approach to debate.

  I think he makes some good points, but could pare back the aggresiveness just a touch.

  No doubt you are correct and my sincere apologies for coming on too strong. Believe it or not, I'm actually a lot better about it than I used to be and even in this thread have self edited a lot. But you are right. A lot of this was posted from a defensive postion and said in response to or anticipation of attacks, many of which never came. I am sorry for that. Please try to see the intent of my posts and look past the agressive language.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:18 p.m. oldsaw SuperDork

  fast_eddie_72 wrote:

  There is no disconnect for me between science and religion. This seems to be a position the Catholic Church shares. That's a powerful statement. Not only does it say that science isn't wrong, it demands that religion and reason co-exist. I completely agree with that idea.

  Umm, had you posted that to begin with, you'd have avoided a lot confrontation with those agree with you.

  The devout atheists and creationists will reveal themselves and then they can start their own thread.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:22 p.m. DILYSI Dave SuperDork

  fast_eddie_72 wrote:

  DILYSI Dave wrote:

  FWIW, that's a pretty narrow definition of Creationism. One can believe in a supernatural origin without believing in a young earth for instance.

  Yup. That is so. In fact, that is exactly what I'm saying.

  If one believes in supernatural origin witout believing in a young earth, they do not belive in Creationism. They believe something happend other than what is recorded in the Bible. That is exactly my point. The creation story in Genesis is not literal fact.

  OK - I never connected Creationism = Literal reading of Genesis. That's a new definition to me. I've always understood Creationism to be the belief that there is a creator. Thus, when you said you knew 100% that there wasn't, you got my initial response.
  

  Thanks for continuing the exchange. I learned something.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:26 p.m. fast_eddie_72 Reader

  Well, shoot.

  I have to say - I didn't do this very well. I wan't trying to hide my position, but it sure seems like I didn't make it very clear. I tried.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:28 p.m. fast_eddie_72 Reader

  DILYSI Dave wrote:

  OK - I never connected Creationism = Literal reading of Genesis. That's a new definition to me.

  I dunno, it could be me. That's my understanding of Creationism. I'm not trying to argue semantics. Sorry for the confusion. I clearly didn't exlpain my ideas well or present myself in a very good light.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:38 p.m. z31maniac SuperDork

  fast_eddie_72 wrote:

  z31maniac wrote:

  That's indicative of his "bull in a china shop" approach to debate.

  I think he makes some good points, but could pare back the aggresiveness just a touch.

  No doubt you are correct and my sincere apologies for coming on too strong. Believe it or not, I'm actually a lot better about it than I used to be and even in this thread have self edited a lot. But you are right. A lot of this was posted from a defensive postion and said in response to or anticipation of attacks, many of which never came. I am sorry for that. Please try to see the intent of my posts and look past the agressive language.

  Perfectly OK, I'm guilty of it myself from time to time.

  No harm, no foul.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:40 p.m. z31maniac SuperDork

  But now you have piqued my interest, if you don't mind, I'm now curious as to your position on the God vs Creation idea.

  I, and presumably wrongly, always assumed people who believe in God believed in Creationism.

  Would you mind attempting to show me how you've reconciled your belief in God vs "how did we get here" debate?

  I'm genuinely interested.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:41 p.m. DILYSI Dave SuperDork

  z31maniac wrote:

  fast_eddie_72 wrote:

  z31maniac wrote:

  That's indicative of his "bull in a china shop" approach to debate.

  I think he makes some good points, but could pare back the aggresiveness just a touch.

  No doubt you are correct and my sincere apologies for coming on too strong. Believe it or not, I'm actually a lot better about it than I used to be and even in this thread have self edited a lot. But you are right. A lot of this was posted from a defensive postion and said in response to or anticipation of attacks, many of which never came. I am sorry for that. Please try to see the intent of my posts and look past the agressive language.

  Perfectly OK, I'm guilty of it myself from time to time.

  No harm, no foul.

  +1. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:51 p.m. Datsun1500 Dork

  After 14 pages have we answered the question of if Obama letting Clinton speak was a good thing or not?

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 1:52 p.m. DILYSI Dave SuperDork

  Datsun1500 wrote:

  After 14 pages have we answered the question of if Obama letting Clinton speak was a good thing or not?

  Of course not. Duh. :)

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 2:15 p.m. fast_eddie_72 Reader

  z31maniac wrote:

  Would you mind attempting to show me how you've reconciled your belief in God vs "how did we get here" debate?

  Oh boy. That could get tough. I'll try to say a couple of short things that will give you some idea.

  First off, it looks like I did a very poor job saying what I intended to say. When I say Creationism, I'm talking about the belief that the Universe was created just as the Genesis story says. That's what I don't belive. I think it's an easy step to say "I know Genesis is a story intended to teach me something, but I don't belive it is a literal account of the first six days of the Universe." You can still believe in God in a very taditional sense and believe that Genesis isn't literally true.

  And that's a step I took along the way to where I am now. It would really be hard to explain where I am now though. Let's say my understanding of what God is has changed. See, this is really getting out threre. But my God is not something unknowable and unseeable. I see God all around when I'm still enough to look. Quite the opposite of what I've been doing in this thread.

  Here's how I sometimes like to put it- I belive my purpose is to be a healthy cell in the body of Christ.

  Finally, two book recomendations. This one is really easy, but really profound.

  http://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Look-Expanding-Universe/dp/0615130798

  This one changed the way I see, well, everything.

  http://www.amazon.com/Power-Now-Guide-Spiritual-Enlightenment/dp/1577314808/ref=sr...

  And just talking about all this makes me feel really bad about how I approached this whole thread.

  Take care,

  Ed

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 2:16 p.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork

  DILYSI Dave wrote:

  Datsun1500 wrote:

  After 14 pages have we answered the question of if Obama letting Clinton speak was a good thing or not?

  Of course not. Duh. :)

  I'll take a quick stab at this one.

  It wasn't that bad of an idea.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 2:28 p.m. DILYSI Dave SuperDork

  fast_eddie_72 wrote:

  Here's how I sometimes like to put it- I believe my purpose is to be a healthy cell in the body of Christ.

  Whoa. I like that. That might get stolen.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 2:30 p.m. fast_eddie_72 Reader

  DILYSI Dave wrote:

  fast_eddie_72 wrote:

  Here's how I sometimes like to put it- I believe my purpose is to be a healthy cell in the body of Christ.

  Whoa. I like that. That might get stolen.

  I certainly didn't make it up. No idea where I got it.

• 

  Dec. 17, 2010 3:00 p.m. oldsaw SuperDork

  Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

  DILYSI Dave wrote:

  Datsun1500 wrote:

  After 14 pages have we answered the question of if Obama letting Clinton speak was a good thing or not?

  Of course not. Duh. :)

  I'll take a quick stab at this one.

  It wasn't that bad of an idea.

  Hey, we're back on-topic!

  It may not have been a bad idea in the long run. Temporarily, it did little to appease those Democrats who never wanted to concede anything and it provided ammunition to those who question how seriously the President approaches his office. Now, the Democrats have faced a political reality and are even saying that tax hikes are bad in a down-economy.

  But if that's the current position, it would have been just as valid anytime in the last two years. The current rates could have been extended with bipartisan support. Instead, we got a bunch of spoiled brats throwing a tantrum - which has contributed to Congress' 87% DISapproval rating.

  The real test for Mr. Obama begins when the new Congress convenes. Time will tell.............

You'll need to log in to post.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Jump to
• Top
• Grassroots Motorsports
• Off-Topic
• Sprockets
• $200X Classifieds
• Classic Motorsports