dagblog - Comments for "Christians should pee into cups."

I brought up ACA as part and

rmrd0000 — Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:02:54 +0000

In reply to Single payer is your favorite

I brought up ACA as part and parcel of the flaws in some of the criticism that comes towards Obama. The critics don't have a viable alternative. I bring up ISIS because Islamists need to be separated out from Islam. Christianists should be separated out from Christians. Not everyone who claims Islam of Christianity actually follows the faith. As Christianity develops there have been separations into denominations for a variety of reasons. You seem to want to ignore separations that occurred because of a host of issues including slavery, women's suffer age, and Jim Crow. Obama's home church came under attack for preaching Black Theology. Churches who provide aid to voters are under attack by state legislators. I really don't care if you don't like my bringing up ACA or voter suppression. You point out church failures, I will point out things that the church is doing to create change. Sorry for the delay in responding to this, I took the long weekend off to spend time with family and friends over Easter.

I think this was more

rmrd0000 — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 21:16:21 +0000

In reply to And the debate rages on.

I think this was more outburst than debate. There is concern that her husband is a member of the school board and likely biased the decision regarding his wife's behavior. I don't see that there was a large outpouring of Christian support for her statement.

Edit to add: people are free to have their own definitions of Christianity. The Westboro Baptist Church and the Branch Davidians consider themselves Christian. Although, I suspect, most Christians would not identify themselves as in agreement with their interpretations of the faith. Others argue that Republicans can't be Christians because of the harsh attitudes towards the poor. I think most Christians identify Christians by, "I know one when I see one."

And the debate rages on.

ocean-kat — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 18:48:47 +0000

In reply to Christians should pee into cups.

And the debate rages on.

Georgia Teacher Tells Students Their Parents Aren’t Christians if They Voted for Obama

The letter stated that Perry told students that President Obama is not a Christian and “any parent who supports him is not a Christian.” She also reportedly challenged her students to “prove their Christianity.”

I'm wondering how the teacher, the students, or anyone can prove their Christianity. By what standard?

Oxy,

Wattree — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 14:02:40 +0000

In reply to Christians should pee into cups.

Oxy,
.
The solution is simple. All a litigant against these people should have to show in court is that the defendant's actions are contrary to Christian teachings, and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," should cover most issues.

Single payer is your favorite

ocean-kat — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 23:48:31 +0000

In reply to The reason that you consider

Single payer is your favorite bogeyman. You use it no matter what anyone posts about the ACA. I've suggested that an expansion of Medicare would have been better system, polling showed it had wide spread support among the populace, and therefore might also have been better politically. Your response was a non sequitur, single payer was not going to happen. An expansion of Medicare is not single payer. But this isn't the place to discuss the ACA.

"since you brought up Iran"

I didn't bring up Iran nor I have discussed it. You stated, "Obama tries to do is separate out the Islamists from other Muslims." Since the Islamists Obama was referring to was ISIS I addressed it. ISIS is based in Syria and Iraq, not Iran. You responded by bringing up Iran, "the Obama approach to separating out Muslims may lead to a good outcome in Iran." But this isn't the place to discuss Iran either. Post a blog on the subject if you want to discuss it.

I posted that choosing a definition for a real Christian today that excludes the majority of Christians for the majority of years Christianity has existed is not rational or justifiable. I don't see the history of Christianity as a diversion but as an integral part of the discussion.

The reason that you consider

rmrd0000 — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 22:45:51 +0000

In reply to Obama's approach may or may

The reason that you consider me an Obamabot is that I often ask what options are available that differ from wat Obama is doing and I am often met with crickets, On the topic of Obamacare, for example, I did not see how single payer was going to make it through Congress. I didn't hear rational theories on how single payer was going to happen.Since you brought up Iran, what is your rational alternative to Obama's approach? He has made forts to appeal to the Iranian man/ woman on the street by acknowledging their holidays. I'm not a politician, but that move seems to be an enlightened one.

The original topic was on present day Christians, it was you who diverted into historical aspects.

Obama's approach may or may

ocean-kat — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 22:24:38 +0000

In reply to I have point out that

Obama's approach may or may not be the wisest political choice. The subject of this blog is not What Politicians Should Say About Islam To Achieve America's Goals In The Middle East I'm not a politician, Maher isn't a politician, you are not a politician even though you often act like someone hired to do political spin for Obama and the democratic party. I'm not constrained by politics when expressing my views. I attempt to make rational arguments to support my views. You should do the same. I haven't seen it here.

It's true that who is a real Christian has been a subject of debate for centuries within the Christian communities. There's a pretty substantial debate in the christian community about whether Mormans are Christians. For a long time is was whether Catholics were real Christians and whether the pope was the antichrist. Before that the Catholics had a big deal council at Nicea to try to decide who was a real Christian. Just a few years after Jesus died Paul and the apostles had an argument about whether converts had to be circumcised to be real Christians. Frankly I find most of those discussions irrational. Often the conclusion was that those with the most power were the real Christians sometimes if they had enough power they killed or terrorized those who they decided were not real Christians.

Therefore I've come to the conclusion that the only definition of real Christians is someone who believes Jesus is god, or god's son, and uses the bible as their guide. Any other definition excludes a vast number of Christians for the majority of centuries Christianity has existed.

I have point out that

rmrd0000 — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 21:17:18 +0000

In reply to This is a blog about

I pointed out Christians have challenged other Christians on issues like slavery, a Civil Rights, Jim Crow, and yes even homosexuality. That is part of the history as well. I do note that secular beliefs do not necessarily lead to better outcomes. I think that is a valid observation.

BTW,the Obama approach to separating out Muslims may lead to a good outcome in Iran. I find that superior to the Mahrer approach.

This is a blog about

ocean-kat — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 20:19:11 +0000

In reply to I think the other thing I

This is a blog about distinguishing "real" Christians from the charlatans, euphemistically suggesting they should pee in a cup. I posted my views based on the history of Christianity. I'm at a complete loss as to how the lack of diversity in the Occupy Wall Street movement has any relevance to that issue. You have not addressed a single point I made regarding that history. No I didn't discuss Occupy Wall Street. I didn't discuss stop and frisk. I didn't discuss Hitchens or atheism. Until you brought up Maher and Islam I didn't discuss that either. That's because this is a blog about distinguishing "real" Christians from charlatans. If you would care to explain how the lack of diversity in the Occupy Wall Street movement relates to distinguishing "real" Christians from charlatans I look forward to reading that explanation.

Obama has the same problem with his comments about ISIS that some have in their comments about who is a real christian. There are tens of thousands of people in ISIS who believe Allah is god and Mohammed is his prophet. They use the Koran as their guide. The actions and beliefs of ISIS has a centuries long tradition in Muslim history. There are millions of people today, while not actively engaged in ISIS, who agree in whole or in a large part with the beliefs of ISIS. They all consider themselves Muslim. Yet somehow Obama and others have decided they are not real Muslims. By what standard?

I've posted some data that you have not once shown to be inaccurate. Maher has posted some polling data that no one has claimed was inaccurate. It's just data. If you find that data Islamophobic or antichristian that is on you. I suppose its possible that discussing that polling data might lead some idiots to justify killing all Muslims. I don't find the hypothetical reactions of a few idiots a valid reason for silence. If Wattree had a highly rated TV program I suppose its possible that some idiots might use his posts on Israel as justification for killing all Zionists. I don't see that as a valid reason for censorship.

When Maher offers polling data as a basis for discussion imo the reaction borders on the ridiculous. The most common response is that he's painting a diverse religion with a broad brush. It's a astonishing lack of understanding of statistics. If Maher quotes a poll that majorities, sometimes as many as 70%, of Muslims think that the death penalty is justified for leaving the religion, blasphemy, adultery he is not saying all Muslims. He is quite explicitly saying that it's not all Muslims, that 30% of Muslims do not believe the death penalty is justified for those "crimes."

If you want to discuss Occupy Wall Street or black atheists write a blog on the subject. If you want to discuss distinguishing "real" Christians from charlatans this is the place to do that. If you want to address my comments here stop pointing at Occupy Wall Street and other total irrelevancies and actually address my comments.

I think the other thing I

rmrd0000 — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 12:37:08 +0000

In reply to There is a strong anti

I think the other thing I sense is that the mostly secular Occupy Wall Street was mostly white, not very diverse. Moral Mondays led by Rev. Barber were more diverse. Al Sharton reached out to the LGBT community and Occupy Wall Street in Stop and Frisk.You have concerns about Christians and Muslims, I have concerns about the secularists.

Here one black atheists take on things.

https://rhoadestoreality.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/my-black-atheist-faq/

Here is a notation on the racial differences and goals among atheists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/16/blacks-are-ev...