Just because you have an issue with me calling you on your original statement, that doesn't mean that attacking me will make it any less of a failure than it was.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> a CHRISTIAN nation founded on CHRISTIAN
> principles by CHRISTIAN men.
>
> Ah, I was wondering where slavery and inequal
> rights between the rights came from. Nice that
> Christianity steps up to claim the prize.
>

You implied something the OP never mentioned. It is obvious who is being intellectually dishonest here.

You're boring me now with your crying.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just because you have an issue with me calling you
> on your original statement, that doesn't mean that
> attacking me will make it any less of a failure
> than it was.

I'm sorry, but when someone is intellectually dishonest as you have been shown to be, I feel obligated to point it out. Deal with it or change your behavior.

> You implied something the OP never mentioned.

Irrelevant.

> It
> is obvious who is being intellectually dishonest
> here.

Yes, it is - YOU ARE BEING intellectually dishonest, which is why you are running from my questions.

> You're boring me now with your crying.

How about you support your statements if you are so bored?

Let's recap:

Either concede or argue for one of the follow - otherwise the only reasonable conclusion is that you have problems arguing your point and following along in discussions:

1. Slavery is decent (whether American slavery or ancient Hebrew slavery).
2. The bible cannot be said to support the anti-slavery movement.
3. Did you or did you not write the following:


"it is because of Christianity (more so than a lot of other reasons) that we DON'T have slavery today."

I have responded to EVERY point you have made and you have ducked the above two premises (and one question) I have repeatedly point blank asked you. Man up and at least take a position.


My guess is that you won't be able to answer any of these three and you will continue on about the irrelevancy of my first post and about 'crying' and all that. If you'd like to rationally discuss these issues, I'm all game - but this B.S. you are pulling has brought my opinion of you way down.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/05/2009 09:02AM by Professor Pangloss.

I am not here to "satisfy" your need for a gunfight on a topic I never supported. Perhaps you should have clarified your original comment if you didn't want it to be misunderstood in the context you used it - because it certainly looked like you had an issue with Christianity, and wanted to imply it was responsible for an issue that had nothing to do with the OP (to discredit the OP). Now you want to act like your statement should just be accepted as sarcasm since you obviously don't believe what you posted - sure.

If you want satisfaction you will need to find it elsewhere.

But feel free to keep calling me out, I am sure it will give you something more meaningful to do then just accepting your failure.

*yawn*

I know I am good at boring people - but you have even bored me.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not here to "satisfy" your need for a
> gunfight on a topic I never supported.

You cannot 'satisfy' my request for you to support your statements because, quite simply, you cannot. I doubt anyone could, so don't take it too hard.

> Perhaps you
> should have clarified your original comment if you
> didn't want it to be misunderstood in the context
> you used it -

I clarified the OP on the prior page - you kept up with the ridiculous strawman you made.

> because it certainly looked like you
> had an issue with Christianity, and wanted to
> imply it was responsible for an issue that had
> nothing to do with the OP (to discredit the OP)

It only looks like *I* said Christianity created slavery if you have problems reading.

> Now you want to act like your statement should
> just be accepted as sarcasm since you obviously
> don't believe what you posted - sure.

Again, it does not actually matter whether or not my initial statement was sarcastic (although it obviously was) since the crux of the matter is that I was implying that the OP believed that Christianity was responsible for slavery.

> If you want satisfaction you will need to find it
> elsewhere.

In other words, you are not here for a reasonable discussion, right? If that's the case, why did you bother posting in the thread???

> But feel free to keep calling me out, I am sure it
> will give you something more meaningful to do then
> just accepting your failure.

Keep asserting I failed - you are the one running and unable to support your premises.

> *yawn*
>
> I know I am good at boring people - but you have
> even bored me.

I've only bored you because I called you out and you realized that you could not support your premises. If you could support them, you would. Simple as that.

I'll give you another chance:
Either concede or argue for one of the follow - otherwise the only reasonable conclusion is that you have problems arguing your point and following along in discussions:

1. Slavery is decent (whether American slavery or ancient Hebrew slavery).
2. The bible cannot be said to support the anti-slavery movement.
3. Did you or did you not write the following:

"it is because of Christianity (more so than a lot of other reasons) that we DON'T have slavery today."

I have responded to EVERY point you have made and you have ducked the above two premises (and one question) I have repeatedly point blank asked you. Man up and at least take a position.

Seriously, why are you still arguing here? Your only point was dealt with, what, 20-30 posts ago? Why are you harping on something that no one is arguing for (ie, that Christianity is responsible for creating slavery)?

If that's all you got and you don't want to support your other statements (post above), why don't you take your irrational self elsewhere? Or do you really expect to go on another 20 posts arguing about your misunderstanding of my initial post - even though I've clarified it a dozen times now?

Is this old thread - of which I read only the title - newly relevant?

Here is a link to a PDF of an article I (in a manner of speaking, i.e., speaking in the manner of one who has adopted another's "persona" - pardon the not entirely irrelevant cinematic allusion - and merged her own into an other "I") wrote as both a substantive analysis of a moment in film history (the moment when High Noon and other westerns began to reflect the impact of the Cold War on American culture) as well as a coded message to users of FU (much in the fashion that Paul McCartney sent a coded message via the song Helter Skelter; I hasten to add, I am no McCartney, and I surely hope that you, dear reader, are no Manson):

www.t.studythepast.com/reelhistory/readings/high%20noon.pdf

Rosetta stone / secret decoder key ring:
   -- This = Bay of Pigs;

   -- Cultural change from High Noon to Tin Star/Warlock/Firecreek parallels FU "cultural" change from implosion of Prada Denim (= firm imposition of cultural norm against outing) to the rise of the eesh / Evil Cary regime of outing.

Thus FU, today, stands poised in a posture of "growing discomfort," much as the United States did in the early 60s:

With the growing realization that containing communism had made the United States appear increasingly like its enemy, with domestic surveillance, purges, and disinformation generating a growing credibility gap, the moral certitude of the center (and the certain threat posed by these groups) faded into increasing ambiguity and ultimately dissolved. This ambiguity, emergent in the 1950s and apparent to very close reading in High Noon and The Tin Star, becomes clearer by 1959 (Warlock) and loses all semblance of subtlety by 1968 (Firecreek).

The articulation of these various elements — vital center, government, youth, and gender — reveal in these films a growing discomfort with American cultural norms, ambiguity about moral action, and increasing doubt that moral action is possible within the American community.

Youth questions the authority of cultural icons like Richard Nixon/eesh and John Wayne/Cary, and culturally sanctioned projects like the Vietnam war/outing.

And finally - Hail, Satan! - all hell breaks loose.

why not? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama did a lot of talk during his campaign about
> his love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but ever since
> taking office, he has yet to mention him in any
> significant manner. What is this about? Bush did a
> good job invoking Christ into his speeches and
> Billy Clinton brought him up on more than one
> occasion. Why doesn't Obama bring Christ into the
> mix more? Perhaps it would raise his approval
> ratings? Either way, it's the right thing to do.

Above is the OPs quesion.

Ever think his talking about Christ may have been a campaign ruse to draw votes from church-goers?

Good question though. Why is he not behaving like a Christian, if he claims to be one.

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I worked for a government contractor
> and we had daily sermons from a Christian lady.
> Somehow she found out that I was a non Christian
> (I think it's because I didn't attend her morning
> prayer meetings) and she'd heckle me about 'gawd',
> 'mel gibson and his fantastic movie' and how I was
> going to hell.


What a load of shit.

Obama is NOT Christ! Even He has said this is a rediculous claim!

Even though they are some obvious similarities.

There is only one way to find out for sure... lets crusify him and see if he comes back!