|
|
RonnaRonna writes: Wednesday, September, 30, 2009 2:08 PM
Vladimir
YOu are the liar you piece of vile scum! I personally know the man who wrote that article. He lives 22 miles from me. He was in the Reagan Cabinet. So until you can prove the accusations of someone lying on here I suggest you keep your trash-filled Obama loving ignorant, Liberal mouth shut. I would love to shut it for you, and by God I am sure I could do so without any trouble whatsoever, even at 67 years of age. You Liberals are without a doubt, the most disguting, vile creatures on the planet. You will deserve your rightful place in hell, you filthy cretin!!!
Arch says
I agree Ronna! Vlad is one of the most disgusting liars and fakes on the forum. Every post he makes augers him deeper into his own filth. I have never dealt with such a horrible libtard with no self esteem or moral compass.
I truly feel sorry for the poor bustard as he must come here to soil the threads like a dog marking territory and get the boot to his head every time some one takes the time to kick at him.
BTW. I am 52 years old and can still kill libtards with my bare hands!! |
|
MaineConservative writes: Wednesday, September, 30, 2009 11:44 AM
vlad
"Note the times of Arch's posts. Those were the EXACT TIMES of the advertisement breaks while "Deliverance" was running on cable last night."
And you know that because....?
Arch says
MainConservative. LOL!! Vlad knows all about this Broadway musical or play. He can probably hum the tunes from it. I guess I never knew that one. Wasn't it Telly Savalas who played the king? |
|
initially sent me the article.
Hi Ronna: The guy has to be a liberal and a Democrat. Remember: Tell a liberal the truth and they will deny it! Make a liberal look at the truth and show them the facts and they will hate you forever! It is a fact, from an artist who has contributed to the Whitehouse tree for many years. If the idiot distrusts your word, tell him to talk to the First Lady himself! You know he will not because he's a liberal and therefore without backbone! LB |
|
I know I can always count on you.
This thread's too long, takes too much time to load. Fizzerro, why don't you tell Ronna all about genetic fallacies? |
|
|
YOu are the liar you piece of vile scum! I personally know the man who wrote that article. He lives 22 miles from me. He was in the Reagan Cabinet. So until you can prove the accusations of someone lying on here I suggest you keep your trash-filled Obama loving ignorant, Liberal mouth shut. I would love to shut it for you, and by God I am sure I could do so without any trouble whatsoever, even at 67 years of age. You Liberals are without a doubt, the most disguting, vile creatures on the planet. You will deserve your rightful place in hell, you filthy cretin!!! |
|
|
That story was shown to be a lie the first time you posted it. |
|
As her Masters Thesis made it abundantly clear, she hates anyone white (probably as a result of growing up on welfare and having her entire education funded by white people). It would therefore be my presumption that she doesn't like the idea of being "beholding" to those of another race, no matter what her personal gain! I believe that is what liberals call "racism"! Should anyone doubt that out "current President" is a Muslim, one has but to read his books and all doubt will be removed! One particular line continues to "ring through my head": "If push comes to Shove, I will stand with the Muslims"- Barack Hussein Obama. LB
|
|
A true story from a good friend who wrote:
Reference to the "radically altered" tradition below; My wife was honored by the Whitehouse in December 2008 as a "Outstanding Artist" and teacher of art. She was invited to spend the afternoon and evening at the Whitehouse with Laura Bush, because she had received a request from our Congressman to paint a tree ornament that would decorate the Christmas tree in the East Room, as has been tradition for many Presidency's. My wife did so and felt quite honored to have been chosen and was feted with a nice dinner and tour of the Whitehouse. It is a tradition dating back nearly 100 years and now I understand our "Muslim" President, who say's he's a Christian, will no longer honor this tradition. (As an aside; The Obama's have not attended church since he was inaugurated. I guess since his "old friend", "Hate Whitey" and "God-Damn America", Jeremiah Wright, isn't preaching hate and discontent anymore, he's lost interest. Then again, perhaps they couldn't find any black artists to paint the ornaments). Of course I am quite sure that Mrs. Obama, as "First Lady" (as Howard was fond of saying: "You can make a "silk purse" out of a Sow's ear, but in the end you still have a Sow's ear), had a lot to do with this decision. She, of course, would be the one who would be "charged" with greeting and speaking to the guests. |
|
|
I'm sure there will be an occasion in the future to raise the issue of the religious left in general, and the Episcopagan "Church" in particular. I'll bug you again about it then. |
|
"You sure do: every time you get shut down on something."
How would you know, since you've never shut me down?
And you're right, I have no "acolytes" here, though I do have a few kindred spirits. I'm not looking for acolytes. I'm only interested in providing a traditionalist conservative perspective here in the TH comments boxes. That's naturally not going to endear me to the neocon Powers That Be here or their distant cousins the liberal-lefties. If I make any converts, great. If I only annoy, that works too. |
|
"I interjected it because it's an issue you haven't yet addressed, though I've asked you to do so 2 or three times."
You sure do: every time you get shut down on something. Here, I'll help you out - cut and paste any time you need it:
Oh yeah, well what about Chesterton?
Oh yeah, well what about Sobran?
Oh yeah, well are you an Episcopalian?
And I'm sure that's quite enough on the whole matter, in a thread about pre-schoolers singing songs. Nobody cares about your little pet topics, perfessor. I certainly don't, and you don't seem to have any acolytes here, so just let it go. |
|
[[A teaching moment
"But a "wacko" who enjoys how he artlessly pwns Episcopalian moonbats like you."
The injection of "Episcopalian" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.]]
Yes, it is. I interjected it because it's an issue you haven't yet addressed, though I've asked you to do so 2 or three times. So, the interjection was made mainly to annoy you. See, your lefty moonbattery and your Episcopalianism are related.
[[I suppose it makes you feel good, even if it makes you look like a bigot to the rest of us.]]
Who's this "us" $hit? You, Munck, and the other relative handful of moonbats on this site? Why should I care whether or not you think I'm a bigot? Of course you think I'm a bigot. Conservatives are by definition bigots. You libby-lefties are all on a yellow brick road to a fantasyland over the rainbow: "Bigots and nativists and xenophobes, Oh My!"
God forbid we should call apostasy and stupidity by their names. |
|
"not one feckless little spineless Liberal would dare speak Truth in this unacceptable crapola dished up in schools that we've seen."
I assume that by now you've heard about the schoolchildren singing songs about FEMA and president Bush coming to help them after hurricane Katrina. Help me out, I don't recall conservatives speaking Truth about that "unacceptable crapola." |
|
"but I understand that my lessers may need some help."
Bwaaaaaa.
Good one!
Hahahahahahaha! |
|
...by the Left.
Nothing wrong with professing, "America is Great". Nothing wrong with announcing ways to help in making this country a better place to live.
Problem is, these teachers are politicizing the whole thing while injecting politics of Obama. Yep, the NEA has been proven to be a singularly skewed organization---to the Left. It has donated to Liberal and Leftist causes with 99% of its resources.
That other 1%?
Oh, they threw a bone to some conservative effort.
Yea indeedy, the teachers union and the lion's share of teachers pray to the altar of Liberalism, Leftism.
One is not allowed to sing, "Silent Night, Holy Night" in school.
One dare not teaches, "Thou shall not kill".
But-----"Praise be to Obama"?
All is fine with that nonsense...
AND-----not one feckless little spineless Liberal would dare speak Truth in this unacceptable crapola dished up in schools that we've seen. No credibility on that side----at all. |
|
"But a "wacko" who enjoys how he artlessly pwns Episcopalian moonbats like you."
The injection of "Episcopalian" is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I suppose it makes you feel good, even if it makes you look like a bigot to the rest of us.
But as it is irrelevant, it has no bearing on the issue and should be ignored.
And THAT is an example of the methodology that is Occam's Razor.
You're welcome, in advance. |
|
|
I apologize. I really need to come up with some sort of signal to you and Cicero when I'm not REALLY telling the truth. The people I hang out with can readily recognize these things, but I understand that my lessers may need some help. |
|
|
Well, that's easy. Vlad the Phlegm is in the movie. He's that toothless character who lives in the backwoods. Anytime the movie is shown, he's right there watching it---hence, he knows the commercial times. |
|
"Note the times of Arch's posts. Those were the EXACT TIMES of the advertisement breaks while "Deliverance" was running on cable last night."
And you know that because....? |
|
|
Note the times of Arch's posts. Those were the EXACT TIMES of the advertisement breaks while "Deliverance" was running on cable last night. |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 1:23 AM
arch 1:00 AM
"All were present at the beginning with nothing else."
So why wouldn't the same argument apply to all the matter and energy in the universe before the big bang? It was all present at the beginning, with nothing else. No creator or creators.
Arch says
Bob. If matter and energy were present at the beginning, What caused it to all expand and order itself into the finely tuned universe that resulted in the existence of intelligent life? What caused the Creation if not a Creator? Tell us how all matter and energy could exist in a super condensed state without expanding?
How did it get so condensed if it were present at the beginning? You are full of it Bob!
You don't know much do you? |
|
vladimir estragon writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 4:30 PM
Incidentally
I don't know who came up with the idea that Occam's Razor means "the simplest explanation is the best," but that isn't true, at least not according to William of Ockham.
Arch says
Vlad. What on earth gives you the impression that you would be any authority on what is true? You have been convicted of lying about your internet friend Lucky Pozzo!!
Nobody here is listening except to insult your vile moniker. You are insignificant because of your lies! |
|
mike writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 10:22 PM
arch
man's basic spiritual problem has always been the integrity of God's word. Does it mean what it says, and say what it means.
From the garden when Man was commanded not to eat, to every recorded incident in scripture, you see that God has always backed his word. Why do we think its any different today. Why do we think we have the freedom to have thousands of different religions just in Christianity, and yet there is more. Theres Jews, thers Islam, all lay claim to the same Creator, but this Rodney King, can't we all just get along, even though we think and believe different about the same God is Hogwash. Man has skirted along this road because of God's grace and mercy. If we ever got to the truth, what a day it would be.
The integrity of God's word is always at stake. Your alarmed that some are trying to seduce the electorate of this country into accepting a socialist change. Spiritual changes happened the same way. Problem is we have been on this road for so long, that tradition bears more wieght than truth.
Arch says
Mike. You have interesting views on religion. I disagree wholeheartedly but enjoy your views! |
|
vladimir estragon writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 12:11 PM
Bob
Arch had to leave: "Deliverance" is on cable again.
Arch says
Vlad. You have nothing to add to the thread. Just lies and fiction. You are a mental wasteland!! |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 11:35 AM
NOTW 2:56 AM
"Sorry its gibberish. Arch gets it"
Yes, arch get it. arch. Think about that.
Arch says
Bob. I get it along with the huge majority of human beings that inhabit the earth. I am sorry for those 22% misfits and oddballs such as you who do not! You are in the fringe Kook demographic on this Bob Munck! A mere fractional minority! A nerd of the common humanity! An infidel of morality to fear no judgment other than your own! Remember that when you die, the spits of hell are always warm and toasty!! |
|
Cicero writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 11:18 AM
Arch
Plantinga lives in a world way, way above Mr. Munck. Plus, it's clear Mr. Munck simply isn't interested, except to mock and misrepresent.
Something about pearls and swine comes to mind.
Arch says.
Cicero. I know what you mean. Bob called Plantinga's writing a word salad just because he assumed it to be mine. LOL!! I love it when they do that!! Quite pompous and vain! |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 9:10 PM
MaineConservative 7:58 PM
"Interesting isn't it how Munck can take a thread regarding children signing praises to Obama and turn it into a discussion on the Theory of Everything"
Don't blame me. arch is the one who introduced physics and the big bang into the discussion. You may have noticed that arch's comments are sometimes rather ... random.
Arch says
Bob. It is you who are simply too dense to understand logic and common sense! Why are you having problems understanding that? |
|
vladimir estragon writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 6:40 PM
Go take a nap
Look, I know for a fact that I said I wasn't going to discuss it any more and told people to go read it themselves. Maybe I provided the link, or maybe I just told them to use yours. Who cares?
"Point is, you quoted Sobran out of context."
Whatever. You say tomato and I say tomahto, so why don't we just let people go read for themselves? Does that sound fair to you?
Now go have a drink. You're just getting tired, and cranky because I pwned you on William of Ockham.
Arch says
Vlad. You own nobody here. YOU have ZERO creditability or decency. You have been caught red handed in a colossal lie about your fake internet buddy Lucky Pozzo! You own nobody. Get it pal????
Life must be miserable for someone such as yourself to carry on as you do. Everyone knows you Vlad! They think you are disgusting and insignificant. Some might even hate you. Can't you tell? |
|
man's basic spiritual problem has always been the integrity of God's word. Does it mean what it says, and say what it means.
From the garden when Man was commanded not to eat, to every recorded incident in scripture, you see that God has always backed his word. Why do we think its any different today. Why do we think we have the freedom to have thousands of different religions just in Christianity, and yet there is more. Theres Jews, thers Islam, all lay claim to the same Creator, but this Rodney King, can't we all just get along, even though we think and believe different about the same God is Hogwash. Man has skirted along this road because of God's grace and mercy. If we ever got to the truth, what a day it would be.
The integrity of God's word is always at stake. Your alarmed that some are trying to seduce the electorate of this country into accepting a socialist change. Spiritual changes happened the same way. Problem is we have been on this road for so long, that tradition bears more wieght than truth. |
|
"Interesting isn't it how Munck can take a thread regarding children signing praises to Obama and turn it into a discussion on the Theory of Everything"
Don't blame me. arch is the one who introduced physics and the big bang into the discussion. You may have noticed that arch's comments are sometimes rather ... random. |
|
[["Point is, you quoted Sobran out of context."
Whatever. You say tomato and I say tomahto, so why don't we just let people go read for themselves? Does that sound fair to you?]]
No, has nothing to do with tomatoes vs. tomahtoes. Has everything to do with a quote being taken out of context vs. understanding it in context.
Regarding people here at TH reading the Sobran article for themselves, well, I know full well that there are certain people looking in here who will agree with you and not me. But that's because they're Townhall neocons (your distant cousins). That or young "conservatives" who don't know that they've been hopelessly bamboozled by Townhall neocons. I have another target audience: intelligent conservatives who may have been bamboozled by Townhall neocons but not hopelessly so; who sense that all it not right in conservativedom, and that maybe they missed something along the way; who are SO dead set againt the zeitgeist of political correctness that they're willing to both do a little historical digging and suspend judgment when Hugh Hewitt From On High dictates "truth" to them while at the same time turns of his comments boxes.
See, I *am* a different kind of conservative. A "wacko", to you. But a "wacko" who enjoys how he artlessly pwns Episcopalian moonbats like you. |
|
Last comment first:
"Now go have a drink. You're just getting tired, and cranky because I pwned you on William of Ockham."
LOL. It's true I'm getting tired, and I could use a drink, but I'm not cranky. But I especially enjoy the humor of your last comment, especially as it tells us all that, at the end of the day, you're not really serious.
"Look, I know for a fact that I said I wasn't going to discuss it any more and told people to go read it themselves. Maybe I provided the link, or maybe I just told them to use yours. Who cares?"
Good enough then. I *am* tired, and I don't especially want to go look for the damning evidence (to you) again. It's instructive enough when you say here, as you've in essence said several times before in your exchanges with me, "Look, I'm not going to discuss it anymore." That's what you do when I've pwned you.
You know it to be true. |
|
Interesting isn't it how Munck can take a thread regarding children signing praises to Obama and turn it into a discussion on the Theory of Everything.
I learned this technique when preparing to take the CPA exam. If you don't know the answer to the question, tell the grader everything else you know.
That seems to be Munck's approach here. |
|
mike writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 7:31 AM
Arch says.
Mike. If you want to interpret the religion that way fine! I won't! |
|
It looks like the trolls derailed the topic of the post with great effectiveness. That's understandable considering how deplorable it is to teach children religious hymns in public school.
I wonder if Bob has a religious shrine set up in his basement to his Messiah, Obama. I mean, if one doesn't believe in God, that makes govt the most powerful entity in the world.
The hatred of conservatives by the Left makes sense now. Our beliefs are a threat to their religion. |
|
Look, I know for a fact that I said I wasn't going to discuss it any more and told people to go read it themselves. Maybe I provided the link, or maybe I just told them to use yours. Who cares?
"Point is, you quoted Sobran out of context."
Whatever. You say tomato and I say tomahto, so why don't we just let people go read for themselves? Does that sound fair to you?
Now go have a drink. You're just getting tired, and cranky because I pwned you on William of Ockham. |
|
Yes, Bob, I'm familiar with the infinite probability theorum.
Even with the current age of the universe, I find it an unlikely event. Possible? Yes. I suppose so.
I find it more likely that the condition of our world, the 'chance' that brought us to be, is the result of someone or something's interference. And I find Christian apologia convincing enough to believe in.
And if I happen to be wrong, I will die one day and go into the ground, ceasing to exist, until my component atoms are recycled, and my progeny will go on until humanity incinerates themselves through sheer stupidity at some point, and then I suppose life will continue on somewhere else until the great, useless cosmic tragedy ends in cold death or a collapse into itself as the universe reincarnates again. And there will be no harm to anyone for my 'delusion'.
|
|
"Absolutely. I reiterate, I'm not going to parse a wacko with another wacko. Anybody interested can go read Sobran for him/herself. If you said so first, fine with me, who cares."
In addition to being prone to selective citation and to misremembering what you wrote a few days ago, you have difficulty remembering what you wrote *a few minutes ago*, don't you? The issue wasn't who said so first, the issue was who said so at all, or who did so more vociferously, and provided a link to the article you quoted so that people could actually see your quote in context.
I briefly looked for that exchange a little while ago, but so far haven't been able to lay my hands on it. Do you remember what the blog title was? If you can't - or don't want too - I'll spend a little more time on it tonight to see if I can dig it up.
Point is, you quoted Sobran out of context, and you're doing something similar with respect to the article on Occam's Razor that I linked above.
But then again, that's the kind of legerdemain to which you typically resort in these comments boxes, isn't it?
|
|
"That thread is not too far down the chain. Would you like me to find it and cite you?"
Absolutely. I reiterate, I'm not going to parse a wacko with another wacko. Anybody interested can go read Sobran for him/herself. If you said so first, fine with me, who cares. |
|
"I pulled a quote from Sobran's article which you call "selective." Since then, I have encouraged anyone actually concerned with the issue to go and read the entire speech themselves, and draw their own conclusions."
Uh, no, I don't believe you did. I did. (Either that or you did and I did so even more strenuously.) I also provided the link to the article with the recommendation that people actually read the article, where they would have discovered: 1) that Sobran is himself NOT a holocaust denier; 2) that he was addressing both holocaust deniers and holocaust believers; and 3) that he is an anti-Zionist, not an anti-Semite.
That thread is not too far down the chain. Would you like me to find it and cite you? |
|
I said, "Not according to William of Ockham," and I showed that to be true. I also said if things have changed, that's fine with me.
I pulled a quote from Sobran's article which you call "selective." Since then, I have encouraged anyone actually concerned with the issue to go and read the entire speech themselves, and draw their own conclusions. |
|
"We can't respect each other's differing beliefs?"
Bunck is what's commonly known as a "pop-atheist". That is, he's more like Madlyn Murray O'Hair than like, say, the academic atheists C.S. Lewis hung around with and debated from time to time. So the answer to your question is, no, in his case, he cannot. |
|
Fond of citing articles selectively, aren't you? (A reference to the Sobran article, and now this one.)
You wrote, "I don't know who came up with the idea that Occam's Razor means "the simplest explanation is the best," but that isn't true, at least not according to William of Ockham."
The article elaborates how the principle became "the simplest explanation is the best" and how it is still generally accepted by scientists and philosophers. Do with that what you will. Makes me no never mind. You're just annoyed, I know, because I've shown you once again why you're wrong when you say it "isn't true." |
|
Like Bob Munck, I've learned that when you provide a link, it inevitably means you're wrong.
From your ucr.edu page:
"To begin with, we used Occam's razor to separate theories that would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories that make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended."
I know, I know, different context - or maybe you'll tell me it's a pathetic jealousy. But the point is the same.
And if you follow the references on the same page -
"In an article published in Mind 27 (1918), 345-353, William Thorburn gives convincing evidence that what is now called 'Ockham's Razor', the principle that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity, is a 'modern myth'."
Now, I believe that if words or phrases come to have a different meaning from what they used to mean, the meaning that is currently commonly understood is what counts. But I was taught (you know, back in the days when education really meant something) that 'Ockham's Razor' was not a principle of logic, but a description of Ockham's brilliant way of arguing, wherein he snipped away all of the irrelevancies in an opponent's case. |
|
The principle has evolved beyond what William of Ockham said about it:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
|
|
|
I don't know who came up with the idea that Occam's Razor means "the simplest explanation is the best," but that isn't true, at least not according to William of Ockham. |
|
[[That "nearly impossible" is your opinion, and only shows that you don't understand probability. There are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe, each of which contains about 100 billion stars. It appears, from our recent and local observations, that most stars have planets. The universe is about 14 billion years old. In all that time and space, any "nearly impossible" sequence of events becomes "nearly a certainty."]]
These guys don't think so:
http://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Complex-Uncommon-Universe/ dp/0387987010
|
|
"So either there is a god who doesn't actually DO anything, or there isn't a god."
No, Munck. Just because you are unable to, or refuse to, see what God does, does not mean He is not present. I respect your right to your belief that there is no God, and I certainly will not try to impede your belief in the Theory of Everything. In turn, why does it bother you if I have a belief in a Creator? Can't you equally respect my right to believe in that without resorting to denigrating that belief by the sky pixie talk, the god in an ineffective doofus talk, etc.?
We can't respect each other's differing beliefs? |
|
"Surely you do not support tailoring our laws to your bible?"
You are right, I do not. I believe we all have the right of worshiping God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
I believe government should not be beholden to any one religion but should allow, and even encourage adherence to one's religion of choice.
|
|
"the process occurred through a nearly impossible run of magnificent luck"
That "nearly impossible" is your opinion, and only shows that you don't understand probability. There are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe, each of which contains about 100 billion stars. It appears, from our recent and local observations, that most stars have planets. The universe is about 14 billion years old. In all that time and space, any "nearly impossible" sequence of events becomes "nearly a certainty." |
|
|
It was string theory you mentioned in the prior exchange I mentioned. I natually assumed you meant string theory when you referred to TOE above. |
|
|
But it appears to be a key contender. Which one or ones do you think are more promising? |
|
"Debunking the "Theory of Everything"
The article you linked to doesn't say anything about the ToE, only about string theory. String theory is only one of the possible paths to a ToE. http://xkcd.com/397/ |
|
|
|
[The entire sequence you walked through can be explained by the laws of physics]
Plus a great deal of random chance/mutation and the resultant organism 'lucking' out by being in a environment that is optimum for it's particular mutation at a nearly infinite improbability.
And I wasn't trying to explain a creator, I was simply stating that if you look at the process that appeared to create humans and try to apply Occam's Razor you are facing a scenario where there was either a first cause (and a subsequent guiding hand or establishment of natural laws) or there was no first cause and the process occurred through a nearly impossible run of magnificent luck that allowed a rational being to evolve, you are not going to find many takers on the latter. Hence, Occam's razor is inappropriate.
As far as laying out a case for a Creator, that would take a great deal of space, but I'd be happy to recommend some books on the subject. |
|
|
|
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article672464 .ece
I went through this exercise once before with (de)Bunck(ed). He didn't have anything to say, except to make some wry comment about the newspaper it was published in.
Point is, it is by no means certain that "the laws of physics, which are actually becoming SIMPLER as we understand them better." |
|
"Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a creator. ... The creator I believe in does not force anyone to do anything. He gives all men free agency ..."
Assume instead, for the sake of argument, that there isn't: Nothing in what you said needs to change.
So either there is a god who doesn't actually DO anything, or there isn't a god. |
|
"See? A bit problematic for Occam's razor."
Not in the least. The entire sequence you walked through can be explained by the laws of physics, which are actually becoming SIMPLER as we understand them better and approach the Theory of Everything.
In contrast you don't even try to explain your creator hypothesis, just throw up your hands and declare that it's beyond human understanding. Here's your problem:
http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle3.gif |
|
I know of few (if any) Christians who would wish to impose biblical law on America.
What most Christians who are involved in these political disputes and talks want is recognition that religion in general (and Christianity in particular) played an important role in much of our history (including the early progressive movement which was based on a social gospel interpretation of Christ's teachings) and the freedom for towns to put up stuff like the ten commandments or nativity sets or say a prayer without everyone getting their feathers in a ruffle as if the government were imposing strict biblical morality upon you. |
|
[Occam's razor.]
Doesn't really apply to God.
Because if you think, which do you find the simplest explanation:
God created the universe through some process, and created human beings as rational creatures.
or
Matter and energy existed as something like a singularity until something happened to destablize it and it exploded. Slowly the matter began over eons to congregate together where they eventually collapsed into stars. One of those stars rolled a 20 and got some planets, one of which eventually become perfect for life. Then randomly, something (perhaps a lightning strike) inspired a group of amino acids to form into more complex chains. And these chains, rather than immediately break up, stuck together and more chains got together and formed organelles, which eventually somehow congregated together into a collective of symbiotic parts and made a cell, which divided, then mutated by random chance and environment into a more complex cell, and then some of the descendants of this initial cell got together for some reason and started forming a multicelluar organism which then started (again through random chance and environment) specializing into tissues, and its descendants became more complex, down through the ages until at some point (through chance mutation) we got a complex organism that was capable of logical and rational thought despite being a creature of random mutation and ever changing environmental factors.
See? A bit problematic for Occam's razor. |
|
your bible has some pretty nasty stuff in it. Divorce is not accepted, etc.
Surely you do not support tailoring our laws to your bible? |
|
The evil plan will come to fruition. Soon the Death Star will be complete, the Jedi will be crushed and your children will snitch to their appointed government liaison officer about your firearms.
(Insert evil cackle here...) |
|
"I'm afraid that that part of the Declaration is pretty much a meaningless sound-bite."
Stupid founding fathers, huh?
Actually your response highlights the fundamental misunderstanding which you have. It's a bit difficult to start this discussion, however, with someone who believes his only "creator" is his Mom, but let's give it a try. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a creator.
The creator I believe in does not force anyone to do anything. He gives all men free agency (you know, the liberty part), thus, we see the failings and suffering you noted in your post, not because He is an "ineffectual doofus", but because we, as imperfect human beings aren't perfect stewards of the humanity around us. So our Creator does endow those rights upon all men, and just because some men abuse the rights they've been endowed with, oftimes creating suffering by others, does not negate the rights bestowed by our Creator
We believers, who take more of an eternal perspective, understand that suffering does occur in this life, but there is a higher and eternal plan. My kids sometimes went through what they thought were difficult and unfair times in their life, not knowing that in the long term, those would make them stronger and better. This life is not much different. Better things will follow.
My belief is the founding fathers understood this concept. Too bad so many like you look at it as a "meaningless sound-bite".
Now, go ahead. Let the mockery begin. It's what we've come to expect. |
|
|
Arch had to leave: "Deliverance" is on cable again. |
|
"Matter and energy did not exist before the Creation."
Why not? How do you know that?
"Only the Intelligent Creator existed."
If it was possible for a creator to exist before the big bang, then it was certainly possible for simple matter and energy to exist. So the creator wasn't needed. Occam's razor. |
|
"It's quite another for a six-year-old to have formulated an opinion, good or bad, without the knowledge of the parents."
Six-year-olds shouldn't be forming their own opinions? Maybe if your're attempting to raise a batch of pod people. |
|
"If they try this at my kid's school, I'll need bail money!"
How do you know that they aren't doing this already? My sister and BIL live in a solidly conservative area, and are themselves conservative. Their bright-eyed six-year-old walked in on a discussion about Obama and said, "Ooh, I love President Obama!"
SIX! She didn't get that from home. It's one thing to know the name of the President. It's quite another for a six-year-old to have formulated an opinion, good or bad, without the knowledge of the parents.
PS: My sister said that she was going to track down who's been indoctrinating her children. I haven't talked to her since then. |
|
"Sorry its gibberish. Arch gets it"
Yes, arch get it. arch. Think about that. |
|
want a pay raise. It's hard, specialized work brainwashing kids, you know.
Interesting theologics, here. As Creator, the physical laws we live by don't apply to Him, such as time, space, etc. We can't understand God because His existence is beyond our ability to comprehend. He can only reveal snippets of Himself, and those are what we argue about. Why? 'Cause it's a matter of faith, not proof. Believe what you want. Eventually, you'll find out. |
|
|
|
"How To Make Conservative Activists 101"
Step 1: Get caught on video teaching children hymns decicated to a narcissistic socialist in a state-run school. |
|
Plantinga lives in a world way, way above Mr. Munck. Plus, it's clear Mr. Munck simply isn't interested, except to mock and misrepresent.
Something about pearls and swine comes to mind. |
|
|
If they try this at my kid's school,I'll need bail money! |
|
on this subject is that Progressives are bringing Obama and his policies to light in our children as an accepted way of life. Nothing to fight against if you're raised that way.(Chavez)
And secondly there is indeed "death panels" in the H C gov.plan,to weed out more quickly those of age who know socialism when they see it.
Colleges have been indoctrinating our young people for decades,right under our noses. Hello?
Who does that leave? Well all of us working-age right wing extremists. Demonize them and talk over them until the new crop of socialist followers are of collective voting age. Then Euphoria by the left.
No one will miss that pesky Constitution by then.
|
|
"Boys and girls that is the nature of international politics today."
So you're pointing out that the beliefs of the christian religion were largely determined by political compromise? That's certainly true, but not just during Roman times; the same forces would have been at play during the writing of the books of the old testament, the selection of those books from the much larger number of such writings, etc. The faith was created in much the same way as the US Tax Code.
"321 A.D. When Jesus became god. ... The queen of heaven was replaced by Mary."
Ah, but there are many more than just three (four?) gods in the christian theology. There's satan, evil but clearly a god with powers nearly equivalent to the head guy; there are angels and archangels, with powers far above mortal man.
And there's a whole hierarchy beyond that they don't talk about in sunday school: thrones, dominions, powers, cherubim, seraphim, virtues, etc. And satan has his own separate command staff.
It seems likely that christianity actually has MORE gods than the Romans did. |
|
"endowed by their Creator ...
Hmmm, I wonder what else these pesky founding fathers lied to us about?"
I've always assumed they meant Mom.
If they really meant some higher power, then he's kind of an ineffectual doofus, because his unalienable rights have been alienated all over the place. Through history, hundreds of millions of people have been born, lived their entire lives, and died in slavery; doesn't sound like "liberty" was especially unalienable. Millions of infants die while being born; what happened to their unalienable right to life?
I'm afraid that that part of the Declaration is pretty much a meaningless sound-bite. |
|
It's just a plain as a close-fisted punch to the nose.
Child abuse. |
|
Sorry, there aren't any "higher powers." You've been lied to your entire life.
Declaratioin of Independence "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Hmmm, I wonder what else these pesky founding fathers lied to us about? |
|
The words "begotten not made..." Was that the Nicene Creed?
Yeah, I sure do hate for you people who don't believe in a higher anything except the Pied Piper. For as a mere mortal, he will fail you.
And I can concede that education is the key if you trolls will concede that had GWB made any such speech or had any teacher taken it upon herself to change words to a song to worship the Pied Piper and had kids singing it, that you wouldn't have gone postal. |
|
The trinity is Christianity's self- inflicted wound. This doctrine was not formalized until about 350 A.D. although it was the council of Nicea on 321 A.D. When Jesus became god. Constantine was ruler of Rome. Seeking comprimise he brought together the major pagan religions and Christianity. The queen of heaven was replaced by Mary. The celebration of Saturn, the sun god, became Christmas. The Lord Jesus Christ was most likely born in September or Tishri(Judean) The revolt in the east was dramatic, the hardliners that would not follow idolatry, became enemies of Rome. It was from this rift that Islam came to be. Boys and girls that is the nature of international politics today.
While Munck's assessments of God's are wrong, you have to give him the point that the largest branch of Christianity, has systematically supressed any truth that was contrary to "Church doctrine" i.e. Newton, Galileo. The church has been held in a vacum of tradition. Any who dare to say different about the trinity, are held as cults. Trinity occurs no where in scripture, and if Mary is the mother of god, Jesus, then its a quad. The fact is, that nature, dress, customs of the Roman Catholic Church, find more afinity to Dagon, the Philistine god, than they do to Jewish customs of the old testament.
To exceed in meaning who Christ is, is to do the same dis-service as to diminish him. He is God's only begotten son, but seed of Abrahm, seed of David. (seed is the greek word sperma)
Oh ya, Newton wrote a paper called three notable corruptions of Scripture. Ephesians 3:9, I Timothy 3:16, and I John 5:7,8. Luke record's the genology going back to Adam. The words "son of" are in the text, but not supplied in English. Adam was a son of God, Jesus Christ is the second Adam.
I Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
I Cor. 15:27, Eph. 1:3,17 |
|
One extra "get" and you are lost? A jetlag typo. (was home in Schweiss for a quick trip).
Again, open your mind in the rear of your behind. Listen to some color of pixiedust. No need to feel indoctinrated like the kids. Tolle is heavy, like the Einstein of god. Or you can go new wave like Deepak or Dyer. Funny enough those last two relate their wisdom to physics.
Sorry its gibberish. Arch gets it, so its a tie score on my delusion. Or 2 to 1. |
|
NOTW writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 2:24 AM
Munck II
Again, you miss the point. (greek sin).
32%?
Do you not understand how many langauges pixiedust speaks? You found the same % as rasmussen strong right #. Funny coincidence (see deeper meaning of earlier post coupled with a study of Choprah).
Why not study Campbell? Funny enough he was pretty much an atheist. But he clearly understood The Power of Myth. Even Star Wars found comfort in him. (Sadly Harry Potter did not. Modern folklore is based on relativism. What say you?)
Arch says
NOTW. That is great! Bob doesn't like being a fringe Kook |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
For all to peruse!
Unlike Bob Munck, this guy is not a fringe kook! |
|
Again, you miss the point. (greek sin).
32%?
Do you not understand how many langauges pixiedust speaks? You found the same % as rasmussen strong right #. Funny coincidence (see deeper meaning of earlier post coupled with a study of Choprah).
Why not study Campbell? Funny enough he was pretty much an atheist. But he clearly understood The Power of Myth. Even Star Wars found comfort in him. (Sadly Harry Potter did not. Modern folklore is based on relativism. What say you?) |
|
Gee I must have left Bob speechless in confusion!
Does anybody else see what I am posting about? Are all the libtards in the 22% minority concerning this matter?
Odd balls and misfits roosting in our nation and holding the reigns of power as we frequent this Blog forum. Truly the moral minority is in actual control of our destiny as a nation. Yet we hold the power of the vote to oust their sorry a sses.
Can't wait till 2010! |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 1:43 AM
arch 1:34 AM
"I believe you are in the minority here Bob!"
You think that the correctness of your religion can be determined by POPULAR VOTE? Then you're in trouble, because only 32% of the world's population believe in the christian god. McCain got a higher percentage of the vote than that, and he lost.
Arch says
No Bob! I don't think the correctness of my religion is determined by the % of Christians. I think just as the correctness of science is determined by majority consensus, so should Creationism Vs Random chance be determined by consensus! Makes it come home to roost: doesn't it?
How does it feel to be a fringe minority oddball?
In a modern Muslim nation, You would be beheaded for your stated unbelief!
Lucky for you we are a Christian nation, Huh? |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 1:23 AM
arch 1:00 AM
"All were present at the beginning with nothing else."
So why wouldn't the same argument apply to all the matter and energy in the universe before the big bang? It was all present at the beginning, with nothing else. No creator or creators.
"This would be known as the Triune God!"
Oh, yeah, the father, son, and casper the wholly ghost; your cult's attempt to explain that its polytheism isn't REALLY polytheism.
Arch says
Still a mystery to you is it? It took an intelligent Creator to bring this order into existence. Only a fool cannot see it!
Matter and energy did not exist before the Creation. Only the Intelligent Creator existed. The big bang resulted in the Creation of matter and energy in a package about the size of a nickel and was so unstable that it exploded forth. It had plan and design as evidenced by our own existence in a finely tuned universe for the existence of life!
What else could have done such a miracle? Random inert pixie dust? |
|
"I believe you are in the minority here Bob!"
You think that the correctness of your religion can be determined by POPULAR VOTE? Then you're in trouble, because only 32% of the world's population believe in the christian god. McCain got a higher percentage of the vote than that, and he lost. |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 1:18 AM
arch 1:09 AM
"That is what is left unexplained by logic or science!"
So you invoke science in arguing against my point ("I thought you understood the physical laws of nature! You just don't know much do you?") but run away from it when it's turned around at you.
"It's a mystery" and "some things are not meant for man to understand" is a cop-out argument; it means you've got nothing.
There's no Intelligent supreme Creator. Prove me wrong.
Arch says.
Let us have a worldwide consensus in a democratic fashion.
All those in favor of explaining the origins of reality by Intelligent Creationism say Aye! All those in favor of random chance bringing on our reality say Aye!
The total sum of all Creationists is,
As of 2005 (most recent data), approximately 88 percent of the world's population were said to "believe in God" (Cambridge University). This is down from 96 percent in 2000. In the United States, 95 percent of the population "believe in God."
I believe you are in the minority here Bob! |
|
"The irony is the deeper pixiedust side makes me get get Hawking."
Your entire comment is just gibberish. Come back when you can express a coherent thought. |
|
Too bad you hardly reveal yourself. And you miss the point ( ancient greek meaning of sin).
So what about stephen hawking besides space dust is so important to the natural order of evolution? Gaia will do just fine without humans. The irony is the deeper pixiedust side makes me get get Hawking. You should listen to pixiedust teacher Eckhart Tolle. He knows Hawking. He knows pixiedust (I think he is actually smarter than you).
We are blips on the planet. Yet you seem to be very attached? You have yet to rise to the next level of consciousness in any post. So throw a respectable bone of depth instead of your usual shallow retort.
Speaking of dust...Stardust and Gore are at odds. Deeper than you think. |
|
"All were present at the beginning with nothing else."
So why wouldn't the same argument apply to all the matter and energy in the universe before the big bang? It was all present at the beginning, with nothing else. No creator or creators.
"This would be known as the Triune God!"
Oh, yeah, the father, son, and casper the wholly ghost; your cult's attempt to explain that its polytheism isn't REALLY polytheism. |
|
"That is what is left unexplained by logic or science!"
So you invoke science in arguing against my point ("I thought you understood the physical laws of nature! You just don't know much do you?") but run away from it when it's turned around at you.
"It's a mystery" and "some things are not meant for man to understand" is a cop-out argument; it means you've got nothing.
There's no Intelligent supreme Creator. Prove me wrong. |
|
Oh yeah! I forgot to foot note the word salad I posted.
Here it is
Alvin Plantinga - God and others minds. A study of the rational justification of belief in God. - Cornell University Press (1967) pp. 26-27. |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 12:47 AM
arch 12:37 AM
"The ontological argument for the existence of God ..."
Nice word salad. It may actually be more meaningless than your usual comments.
Come on, arch; if you can't get something from nothing, where did your god come from?
Arch says
That is what is left unexplained by logic or science!
Your doubt of any intelligent Creator does not explain that. My faith in an Intelligent supreme Creator nicely explains the mystery of how the order and majesty of all that exists came to be.
Prove me wrong Bob! |
|
Bob Munck writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 12:34 AM
arch 12:15 AM
"The Creator was begotten not made."
Begotten by whom? And where did his begetter come from?
Actually, the "begotten not made" bit was supposed to apply to the son of god, not himself. You seem to be unclear on your own theology.
Arch says
The Alpha and the Omega my friend. Still a mystery? I thought you knew all about Creation! There are three God Heads all encompassed into one. Each separate yet totally one God! All were present at the beginning with nothing else. Hence the term Creation by the omnipotent Creator! This would be known as the Triune God!
Three in one. Each a separate part of one God!
Monotheism, yet three persons in one! Now you got it Bob? |
|
"The ontological argument for the existence of God ..."
Nice word salad. It may actually be more meaningless than your usual comments.
Come on, arch; if you can't get something from nothing, where did your god come from? |
|
|
Like I said, *Good Night!* |
|
What accounts for this fascination? Not, I think, the religious significance of the argument, although no doubt that can be underrated. The cause is perhaps twofold. First, the ontological argument offers an enormous return on a pretty slim investment - a definition, and a perplexing but not altogether implausible premise connecting existence and 'greatness,' yield the theistic conclusion. Second, although the argument certainly looks at first sight as if it ought to be unsound, it is profoundly difficult to say what exactly is wrong with it. Indeed, it is doubtful that any philosopher has given a really convincing and thorough refutation of the ontological argument. Too often philosophers merely remark that Kant refuted the argument by showing that existence is not a predicate and that 'one cannot build bridges from the conceptual realm to the real world.' But it is very doubtful that Kant specified a sense of 'is a predicate' such that, in that sense, it is clear both that existence is not a predicate and that Anselm's argument requires that it be one. Nor are the mere claims that no existential propositions are necessary or the above comment about bridge building impressive as refutations of Anselm - after all, he claims to have an argument for the necessity of at least one existential proposition. So one must either show just where his argument goes wrong, or else produce a solid argument for the claim that no existential (in the appropriate sense) propositions can be necessary-and this, I think, no one has succeeded in doing."
|
|
"The ontological argument for the existence of God has fascinated philosophers ever since it was formulated by St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109). It is doubtful, I think, that any person was ever brought to a belief in God by this argument, and unlikely that it has played the sort of role in strengthening and confirming religious belief that, for example, the teleological argument has played. To the unsophisticated, Anselm's argument is (at first sight at least) remarkably unconvincing, if not downright irritating, it smacks too much of word magic. And yet almost every major philosopher from the time of Anselm to the present has had his say about it; the last few years have seen a remarkable flurry of interest in it.
More continued.....
|
|
"Your intelligence is certainly imaginary, anyway."
It's a combination of imaginary and real: complex. |
|
[[needs to know that Munckey Poop is a self-professed college indoctrinator......oops...my bad....I meant instructor.......
Point being he sees absolutely NOTHING wrong with indoctrination, even at the elementary, middle and high school levels....
After all.....he's been doing it for years at the college level.....]]
Here's an example of the intellectual milieu in which BunckBunck moves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rytC4QsIiG8&feature=player_e mbedded
Probably should send some of these kids to the Jesus Camp. It can't be worse then where they are now. |
|
"The Creator was begotten not made."
Begotten by whom? And where did his begetter come from?
Actually, the "begotten not made" bit was supposed to apply to the son of god, not himself. You seem to be unclear on your own theology. |
|
"Sure, they prayed TO an imaginary sky pixie. . . ."
I believe you're the imaginary sky pixie, Bunck. Your intelligence is certainly imaginary, anyway.
That is all. G'Night. |
|
cottoneyed writes: Tuesday, September, 29, 2009 12:00 AM
"Only a fool says there is NO GOD"
The Bible is a book of truisms, none more true than the above passage.
Arch says.
Cotton!
I believe you are the hammer that drove the nail deep into Mr. Bob Munck! |
|
Bob Munck writes: Monday, September, 28, 2009 11:58 PM
arch 11:54 PM
"If there is no higher power, then how did something come to exist from nothing?"
How did your higher power come to exist from nothing?
The Creator was begotten not made. He is the Creator of all things, omnipotent and superior to all creation. Hell! Thomas Jefferson even knew that! |
|
|
The Bible is a book of truisms, none more true than the above passage. |
|
"If there is no higher power, then how did something come to exist from nothing?"
How did your higher power come to exist from nothing? |
|
Bob Munck writes: Monday, September, 28, 2009 11:03 PM
douglas 10:54 PM
"BELIEVE AND TRUST IN GOD , A HIGHER POWER"
Sorry, there aren't any "higher powers." You've been lied to your entire life.
Arch says.
Bob. If there is no higher power, then how did something come to exist from nothing? I thought you understood the physical laws of nature! You just don't know much do you?
I guess you are just another intellectual wannna be!
What you would have us believe is that a random miracle occurred that brought everything into being. I think you have more faith in pixie dust than Christians do in their Creator! |
|
"The alpha wins out, and the week die off."
On Sunday, even.
"Why on PixieDusts earth should we be giving healthcare to everyone? Just let nature take its course, and the storng will be left"
Two-word answer: Stephen Hawking. |
|
Wow. I love people that are so certain that nothing exists beyond worm food.
The problem is there's conflict between secular equality and our animal spirit we have evolved from (no pixiedust involved on this). In that world, survival of the fittest should rule the day. The alpha wins out, and the week die off.
Why on PixieDusts earth should we be giving healthcare to everyone? Just let nature take its course, and the storng will be left....oops I think I just stumbled on Hitlers mentality. Nevermind.
Is karma out the door? What about coincidences and life lessons that bring epiphanies? Just trying to clue in what actually drives your brain beside binary code...
|
|
is absolutely sure there is "no higher power"....
Heard that before from other lib-turds......
Have also heard some of them recant it when faced with the end-stages of life........
|
|
|
Isn't there a Manson re-union you have to plan for. A Pelosi festival. I know your hosting the stupid symposium this weekend. Everytime someone punches you in the face with logic, your rebuts are insults and cardboard knowledge. Go french kiss Michael Moore, and dry hump Sean Penn. Go back to Huffington. That's where the sky Pixies live. |
|
"One is to BELIEVE AND TRUST IN GOD , A HIGHER POWER, your favorite is to BELIEVE OBAMA IS THE HIGHER POWER."
This line of "reasoning," if we're going to shamelessly defame that word, has always confused me. I voted for Obama, so therefore he is my higher power. You voted for Bush (I presume), but somehow he escaped being yours.
Do you simply believe that saying things makes them true? OR DOES IT REQUIRE ALL CAPS TO WORK? |
|
"BELIEVE AND TRUST IN GOD , A HIGHER POWER"
Sorry, there aren't any "higher powers." You've been lied to your entire life. |
|
"he's been doing it for years at the college level"
That's true, but pushing object-oriented methodologies and high cohesion/low coupling modularity has never been seen as a bad thing in my classes. There was some controversy about glass-box testing methods. |
|
|
you again cant seem to distinguish between the dangers. One is to BELIEVE AND TRUST IN GOD , A HIGHER POWER, your favorite is to BELIEVE OBAMA IS THE HIGHER POWER. And if you dont want YOUR kids to believe or pray I DONT SEE ANY OF THESE SO CALLED TEACHERS, TEACHING YOU CHILD TO PRAY ANYWAY, you are a TOTAL IDIOT, and your LEADER AND YOU POLITICAL PARTY WILL SOON BE DESTROYED FOR ITS BEEN EXPOSED FOR WHAT IT TRUELY IS, bye idiot. |
|
"Sure, they prayed TO an imaginary sky pixie FOR a cardboard cutout. It was creepy; that's a pretty universal reaction to it."
If you had not been so careless in your original post you would not now have to defend it with such a pathetically weak statement. |
|
"But what dear student is 5 times 4 and 12 divided by six and what is the capitol of your state and can you find Cyprus on the map and where is the Black Sea and can you define a verb, a noun, an adverb or a pronoun? No comes the answer and then they chant, "mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama."
There is something very wrong with this picture."
Yes, because Americans weren't horribly bad at math, geography, and grammar prior to Obama taking office.
Of course, a proposal to try and deal with those very problems by extending the time kids spend in school is simply met with accusations of indoctrination. Let me put it to you this way: What, short of dissolving the public education system and ensuring that every child in America goes to a private school run by an Assemblies of God minister and/or Jesus, would satisfy conservatives on this issue?
|
|
needs to know that Munckey Poop is a self-professed college indoctrinator......oops...my bad....I meant instructor.......
Point being he sees absolutely NOTHING wrong with indoctrination, even at the elementary, middle and high school levels....
After all.....he's been doing it for years at the college level..... |
|
"you would know that they GAVE him their blessing and prayed FOR him."
Sure, they prayed TO an imaginary sky pixie FOR a cardboard cutout. It was creepy; that's a pretty universal reaction to it.
"It's a private organization and not a public school."
Kids in school being told that education is a good thing and they should study hard. What a horrible lesson for our children. |
|
"...being taught to pray to a cardboard cutout of George Bush?"
Had you actually listened to the segment, you would know that they GAVE him their blessing and prayed FOR him. But then, you often miss the important details when it is convenient for you to do so.
It's a private organization and not a public school. Yet another detail that you choose to ignore. |
|
How about a clip from Jesus Camp showing the kids being taught to pray to a cardboard cutout of George Bush?
Here's one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg |
|
ouch is right. I am one tax raise away from so-deep-in-the-red-I-can't-see-the-light.
Right now there's a glimmer. Barely. |
|
|
I agree with Anne, just hope the changes allow us to keep paying the tuition! |
|
|
They talk about uniting blacks and whites as a change that has come. I see one black girl and she is kind of off by herself - no other kids around. How does she feel about that unity? |
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMLLVX5E65Q
|
|
The new Hitler Youth?????
The Mussolini Brown Shirts????
The charter Honky chapter of the Black Panthers?????
This is SICK........
PEOPLE.........WAKE THE HELL UP!!!!!!! |
|
is 5 times 4 and 12 divided by six and what is the capitol of your state and can you find Cyprus on the map and where is the Black Sea and can you define a verb, a noun, an adverb or a pronoun? No comes the answer and then they chant, "mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama."
There is something very wrong with this picture. |
|
And that's why it's called "Government School."
As deep in the tank for Obama and leftist causes as the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers are, you can rest assured that if your child is in a "public school" they are exposed, to a greater or lesser extent, to this kind of propaganda. |
|
|
about that $20k a year tuition bill. |
|