Most importantly, NOTHING he says or does justifies such mindless, unquestioning allegence. Many really DO consider him a messiah. Maybe it is them I "fear" more than him.
I was wondering when the Obamessiah thing would come up. I think this is one of those generalizations which is being blown out of proportions.
Perhaps, this is one of those cases where people are attributing to others their own beliefs? I.E. if someone thinks Palin is the second coming of Mary (rather than Christ), and they vehemently support her, then they might wrongly assume that people who ardently support Obama have a similar messiah complex about him.
Yes, except there are no such individuals I have met, nor are there any I have heard reported about. Certainly no prominent religious leaders. It is a combination strawman/redherring argument.
Well, I find any setting where people unquestioningly believing what they are told to be disturbing. Further, I strongly dislike when churches officially back a candidate.
I don't quite recall the quote, but it was something like "When the messiah speaks, the people will listen...and the messiah is definitely speaking".
The question is, does he mean Obama is the messiah or does he mean that Jesus is speaking to them that they should vote for Obama. I honestly can't tell from just that video, but perhaps if we had the next 30 seconds it would be more clear. Either way, it's anecdotal evidence and it does nothing to prove that this perspective is commonly held.
Well, I find any setting where people unquestioningly believing what they are told to be disturbing. Further, I strongly dislike when churches officially back a candidate.
I don't quite recall the quote, but it was something like "When the messiah speaks, the people will listen...and the messiah is definitely speaking".
The question is, does he mean Obama is the messiah or does he mean that Jesus is speaking to them that they should vote for Obama. I honestly can't tell from just that video, but perhaps if we had the next 30 seconds it would be more clear. Either way, it's anecdotal evidence and it does nothing to prove that this perspective is commonly held.
The real question is, how did he think the crowd would interpret it.
Does anybody else have the problem that sometimes the right hand side of the posts is cut off so you cannot hit the quote or edit buttons? It only happens for me on random threads, and then only on some groups.
Yeah, that drives me insane. It happens once about ever 30 posts.
I will tell you right now that I think there is a possibility that Obama is a black Muslim. I would not bet the farm on it - yet - but whenever the subject of Christianity comes up his answers are severely lacking. I can tell you that his description of his "Christian walk" is, from a biblical perspective, beyond "odd". It is as though his answer is not to be heard by other Christians, but rather, by those who are a little skeptical of Christianity. He seems to count on the hearer not really knowing much about Christianity. That is also odd.
I will tell you right now that I think there is a possibility that Obama is a black Muslim. I would not bet the farm on it - yet - but whenever the subject of Christianity comes up his answers are severely lacking. I can tell you that his description of his "Christian walk" is, from a biblical perspective, beyond "odd". It is as though his answer is not to be heard by other Christians, but rather, by those who are a little skeptical of Christianity. He seems to count on the hearer not really knowing much about Christianity. That is also odd.
Ya know, I feel the same way about McCain. Well, not that he's Muslim but his Christianity is obviously made up. I'm pretty sure that makes him a scientologist. That's the real reason I think the world will blow up if we elect him.
Ya know, I feel the same way about McCain. Well, not that he's Muslim but his Christianity is obviously made up. I'm pretty sure that makes him a scientologist. That's the real reason I think the world will blow up if we elect him.
McCain makes me nervous as well. Just nowhere near as nervous.
So does Biden for that matter. The only one that is pretty clear on the subject is Palin. It is why some like her and some hate her.
I've mentioned in another thread why successful candidates are like beer. You're goal is not to have a good strong flavor, like Mack & Jack, but to be bland and not offend too many people, like Bud.
Palin is Alaskan Amber. The rest are Bud. Well, Biden is really Bud Light...
I probably should mention that my first interest in Hitler and Nazism was back in 1967, in Jr. High, basically driven by my fascination with the aircraft they designed. I guess I was a little like Lindburg on that one. But it eventually broadened to an interest in the war on all fronts.
I have no doubt whatsoever that divine intervention was involved. And Hitler was a lousy commander in chief. He really had the world in the palm of his hand on several occasions and blew it. Thank God.
This is also one of the reasons the 1981 TV movie The Wave was so interesting to me. The story was fascinating and accurately telling about human nature. The book is better, naturally.
I will tell you right now that I think there is a possibility that Obama is a black Muslim. I would not bet the farm on it - yet - but whenever the subject of Christianity comes up his answers are severely lacking. I can tell you that his description of his "Christian walk" is, from a biblical perspective, beyond "odd". It is as though his answer is not to be heard by other Christians, but rather, by those who are a little skeptical of Christianity. He seems to count on the hearer not really knowing much about Christianity. That is also odd.
Ya know, I feel the same way about McCain. Well, not that he's Muslim but his Christianity is obviously made up. I'm pretty sure that makes him a scientologist. That's the real reason I think the world will blow up if we elect him.
Well, Obama is definitely half black. And maybe half Muslim. So I guess he's 1/4 black Muslim, whatever that's supposed to mean. Maybe a one in four chance that he'll implement Sharia infused with black supremacy, and the 5% of the country who unquestionably worship him will enforce black supremacist Sharia on the other 95%. Of course that will come after the socialist takeover, which was started a few weeks ago by Obama's disciples, George W Bush and Henry Paulson.
In all seriousness, I think this country would be the better for having a president who doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve.
In all seriousness, I think this country would be the better for having a president who doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve.
Agreed. People forget that the primary reason we have religious freedom in this nation is due to our secular government. The separation of church and state might tick you off if you can't put the 10 commandments in a courthouse, but it's also the reason you can attend a vibrant church. Europe has state sponsored religions (though they wield little power nowadays), and it's one of the reasons why they are less religious.
I will tell you right now that I think there is a possibility that Obama is a black Muslim. I would not bet the farm on it - yet - but whenever the subject of Christianity comes up his answers are severely lacking. I can tell you that his description of his "Christian walk" is, from a biblical perspective, beyond "odd". It is as though his answer is not to be heard by other Christians, but rather, by those who are a little skeptical of Christianity. He seems to count on the hearer not really knowing much about Christianity. That is also odd.
I'll bet that if Christ were resurrected and walking around today that you'd similarly question his Christianity and find it bizarre.
Well, Obama is definitely half black. And maybe half Muslim.
You can't be half-Muslim any more than you can be half-Christian.
And if religion is genetic, what am I given that all my grandparents were Christian, while neither of my parents were?
I think WestSide was mainly using reducto-adsurdum to point out why holding a 100% belief that someone is a secret <any religion> is just pointless and silly.
Well, Obama is definitely half black. And maybe half Muslim.
You can't be half-Muslim any more than you can be half-Christian.
And if religion is genetic, what am I given that all my grandparents were Christian, while neither of my parents were?
I think WestSide was mainly using reducto-adsurdum to point out why holding a 100% belief that someone is a secret <any religion> is just pointless and silly.
Definitely.
Lamont, you should have read the part about black supremacist Sharia law. I thought that would give it away.
Lamont, you should have read the part about black supremacist Sharia law. I thought that would give it away.
I can understand his confusion. If Robroy had written the exact same post minus the quantifiers about being 1/4 whatever, it probably would have been serious rather than tongue in cheek. This whole thread is, after all, dedicated to him.
Well, Obama is definitely half black. And maybe half Muslim.
You can't be half-Muslim any more than you can be half-Christian.
And if religion is genetic, what am I given that all my grandparents were Christian, while neither of my parents were?
I think WestSide was mainly using reducto-adsurdum to point out why holding a 100% belief that someone is a secret <any religion> is just pointless and silly.
robroy has broken my ability to detect sarcasm or raa arguments on this site... raa doesn't get you very far when you're arguing with the absurd..
In all seriousness, I think this country would be the better for having a president who doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve.
That is a tough one for me. I am very skeptical of a politician who makes a big deal of it, but if they are asked, they do need to answer. As a Christian I can tell you that my religious belief colors everything I do and my thoughts and feelings about everything I do, or anyone else does.
And as pointed out in the Bible, "a little leaven leavens the whole loaf". You either are or you are not. There is no middle ground. A true Christian does not parade it around, but shows it in their actions. They also are not ashamed of it when called on it. They are clear and honest about their belief. Only Palin has been forthcoming when asked.
I think WestSide was mainly using reducto-adsurdum to point out why holding a 100% belief that someone is a secret <any religion> is just pointless and silly.
I would certainly agree with that. I will add that it is impossible to be a secret Christian. That is, if asked, you will say you are.
You can be a secret Muslim however. The koran allows one to violate all the tenets of the faith if it's purpose is to work for the faith in secret. Christianity does not allow for such a thing.
It literally means one can be a "sleeper Muslim" Manchurian Candidate, yet deny it while smoking a cigar with his shot of single malt while watching a lap dancer at a nude bar.
In all seriousness, I think this country would be the better for having a president who doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve.
That is a tough one for me. I am very skeptical of a politician who makes a big deal of it, but if they are asked, they do need to answer. As a Christian I can tell you that my religious belief colors everything I do and my thoughts and feelings about everything I do, or anyone else does.
And as pointed out in the Bible, "a little leaven leavens the whole loaf". You either are or you are not. There is no middle ground. A true Christian does not parade it around, but shows it in their actions. They also are not ashamed of it when called on it. They are clear and honest about their belief. Only Palin has been forthcoming when asked.
Not true. Obama doesn't wear it on his sleeve, but has been more than forthcoming about his Christian faith when asked about it.
In a previous post I said his answers were odd. This interview is a good example. From the interview:
"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful."
First, he says his faith gives him "a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life". That is odd. Is he suggesting he is not yet cleansed but must follow some path to "get there"? I wonder what that path is, and how he is judged regarding staying on that path. Can he "lose" his cleansing if he goes off the path? That is not the message of Christ. It could just be his way of saying it though. I don't really know and would have to ask a follow up to see what he really meant by that. After all, he was not using a teleprompter and we all sometimes don't say what we really mean.
But the bigger one is this: "But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick ..."
That is not what is most important to Christians. What is most important to Christians is their relationship with God. Feeding the Hungry and healing the sick is great, and we should do it, but we also should live all aspects of our lives as He would have us live them.
And he is just wrong when he says: "...always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful."
Jesus saw all people as equal. There are many examples of him singling out "the least" but also the powerful. He ate with tax collectors, there is the story of the Centurion, etc. His example is that we fellowship with other people regardless of their position. To suggest that the least are better is simply wrong.
Obama's response does sound Christian though. I do not judge whether he is or not, but am commenting on his response. From my perspective there are a few backward priorities, but heck, I don't agree with every church on everything either. I am sure there is rightness and wrongness to spread around. Frankly, if he had just left out the words "more importantly" I would have said that it sounds "basically Christian" to me.
The biggest problem is based on my belief here: I believe that if a man says he is not a Christian, then he is not a Christian. If he says he IS a Christian, then he may be a Christian. He could also be lying. And back in January, Obama had an odd habit of shaping his message to the particular audience of the particular interview. It is what many really despise in him.
His answers regarding his faith have become more squishy as the election progresses.
I would certainly agree with that. I will add that it is impossible to be a secret Christian. That is, if asked, you will say you are.
You can be a secret Muslim however. The koran allows one to violate all the tenets of the faith if it's purpose is to work for the faith in secret. Christianity does not allow for such a thing.
LOL. Yes, the Muslim faith does explicitly allow for lying as you have laid out. But in the annals of time, secret Christians hid in the catacombs of Rome. Each is possible, you simply do not feel threatened by secret Christians, while you are obviously terrified that secret Muslims are lurking, looking for a way to strike.
That is a tough one for me. I am very skeptical of a politician who makes a big deal of it, but if they are asked, they do need to answer. As a Christian I can tell you that my religious belief colors everything I do and my thoughts and feelings about everything I do, or anyone else does.
Well, as Chuck said, Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin have all answered that question. You don't believe half of them because you untrusting; it does not make them liars. Also, it's BS that religion colors your every though or action. What is 2+2? Math is foundational to logic, and you can make many sound arguments using only math or using only mathematically sound principals. In fact, when you sum those values, you are using Arabic Numerals: AKA Muslim Numbers!
I would certainly agree with that. I will add that it is impossible to be a secret Christian. That is, if asked, you will say you are.
You can be a secret Muslim however. The koran allows one to violate all the tenets of the faith if it's purpose is to work for the faith in secret. Christianity does not allow for such a thing.
LOL. Yes, the Muslim faith does explicitly allow for lying as you have laid out. But in the annals of time, secret Christians hid in the catacombs of Rome. Each is possible, you simply do not feel threatened by secret Christians, while you are obviously terrified that secret Muslims are lurking, looking for a way to strike.
Not terrified, but their religion does tell them to strike. The Christian faith tells its adherents just the opposite, beyond shaking the dust off their sandals as a "testimony against them", of course...
That is a tough one for me. I am very skeptical of a politician who makes a big deal of it, but if they are asked, they do need to answer. As a Christian I can tell you that my religious belief colors everything I do and my thoughts and feelings about everything I do, or anyone else does.
Well, as Chuck said, Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin have all answered that question. You don't believe half of them because you untrusting; it does not make them liars.
True. But actually I don't trust any of them. I believe man is basically evil. The only living human I fully trust is Jesus.
Also, it's BS that religion colors your every though or action. What is 2+2? Math is foundational to logic, and you can make many sound arguments using only math or using only mathematically sound principals.
But what I do with the answer is colored by my religion. And honestly, it is not lost on me even when pondering the equation, that God created a being that could even ponder such a question.
In fact, when you sum those values, you are using Arabic Numerals: AKA Muslim Numbers!
Now you're being silly. Symbols used to communicate values are areligious. They are like guns, neither good nor evil. That determination is made by the person wielding them.
I do not judge whether he is or not, but am commenting on his response.
Ahem <cough><cough>. BS.
You are free to believe that if you wish, but whether a man is Christian or not is between him and God. And I adhere to this old joke:
When you get to heaven there will be three surprises:
1. There will be people there you did not expect to see there.
2. There will be people absent that you expected to be there.
3. You're there.
In fact, when you sum those values, you are using Arabic Numerals: AKA Muslim Numbers!
Now you're being silly. Symbols used to communicate values are areligious. They are like guns, neither good nor evil. That determination is made by the person wielding them.
Yes, of course I'm being silly about Arabic numerals, and proving a point. You are able to separate the religious from the secular when discussing mathematics. You - probably(?) - don't mind using trigonometry which was invented by Greek pagans, and you don't mind exploiting Einstein's additions to our knowledge even though he was a deist. You seem able to ignore religion when employing many fields of knowledge.
You seem content with millions of nonbelievers acting independently around you just in USA (billions world wide), but the thought that a single elected official might also be a nonbeliever fills you with dread. The problem, is that in a world like yours where everything is black and white, there is no room for the colours that truly make life nuanced, delightful, and surprising.
Last thought, I don't understand the whole "guns don't kill people" argument. I mean, we're talking about a weapon. It's designed to kill things. If everyone should have a gun because guns don't kill people, then by that logic shouldn't everyone have a nuclear device? A similar argument could be applied to anything inherently dangerous: derivatives don't destroy financial institutions, mismanagement does.
I can understand people who own a rifle for hunting or simply find target shooting an enjoyable hobby, but if you own a gun for self defense, your professed possession is already to kill someone.
In fact, when you sum those values, you are using Arabic Numerals: AKA Muslim Numbers!
Now you're being silly. Symbols used to communicate values are areligious. They are like guns, neither good nor evil. That determination is made by the person wielding them.
Yes, of course I'm being silly about Arabic numerals, and proving a point. You are able to separate the religious from the secular when discussing mathematics. You - probably(?) - don't mind using trigonometry which was invented by Greek pagans, and you don't mind exploiting Einstein's additions to our knowledge even though he was a deist. You seem able to ignore religion when employing many fields of knowledge.
All true.
You seem content with millions of nonbelievers acting independently around you just in USA (billions world wide), but the thought that a single elected official might also be a nonbeliever fills you with dread.
Not true. It is the thought that the president of the United States could be a Muslim. And I believe it is possible, albeit remotely. I am very serious when I say Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the 1930's. That may sound whacky to some, but how whacky would it have been in the early 30's to say the Nazi's would exterminate millions of Jews? Very. I leave my emotion out of the statement and speak from an historical perspective.
The problem, is that in a world like yours where everything is black and white, there is no room for the colours that truly make life nuanced, delightful, and surprising.
.
That is a nicely worded analogy, but it really doesn't fit. My world allows for all sorts of things I disagree with with restrictions. I don't think abortion adds color and makes "life nuanced, delightful and surprising."
Last thought, I don't understand the whole "guns don't kill people" argument. I mean, we're talking about a weapon. It's designed to kill things. If everyone should have a gun because guns don't kill people...
Which is it? People, or things? And is one less moral than the other?
...even, then by that logic shouldn't everyone have a nuclear device? A similar argument could be applied to anything inherently dangerous: derivatives don't destroy financial institutions, mismanagement does.
Some things are "bigger than a breadbox" and different rules apply. You know, like, diving into the ocean off a diving board can be fun, but out of an airplane at 1000 feet without a chute, the laws of physics make the experience less pleasant. A line is crossed.
Likewise with nukes and howitzers.
I can understand people who own a rifle for hunting or simply find target shooting an enjoyable hobby, but if you own a gun for self defense, your professed possession is already to kill someone.
No, it is to protect yourself against another. Even Jesus told the disciples to buy a sword. It wasn't for hunting.
Comments
Well, I find any setting where people unquestioningly believing what they are told to be disturbing. Further, I strongly dislike when churches officially back a candidate.
I don't quite recall the quote, but it was something like "When the messiah speaks, the people will listen...and the messiah is definitely speaking".
The question is, does he mean Obama is the messiah or does he mean that Jesus is speaking to them that they should vote for Obama. I honestly can't tell from just that video, but perhaps if we had the next 30 seconds it would be more clear. Either way, it's anecdotal evidence and it does nothing to prove that this perspective is commonly held.
Yeah, that drives me insane. It happens once about ever 30 posts.
Ya know, I feel the same way about McCain. Well, not that he's Muslim but his Christianity is obviously made up. I'm pretty sure that makes him a scientologist. That's the real reason I think the world will blow up if we elect him.
So does Biden for that matter. The only one that is pretty clear on the subject is Palin. It is why some like her and some hate her.
I've mentioned in another thread why successful candidates are like beer. You're goal is not to have a good strong flavor, like Mack & Jack, but to be bland and not offend too many people, like Bud.
Palin is Alaskan Amber. The rest are Bud. Well, Biden is really Bud Light...
I have no doubt whatsoever that divine intervention was involved. And Hitler was a lousy commander in chief. He really had the world in the palm of his hand on several occasions and blew it. Thank God.
This is also one of the reasons the 1981 TV movie The Wave was so interesting to me. The story was fascinating and accurately telling about human nature. The book is better, naturally.
Well, Obama is definitely half black. And maybe half Muslim. So I guess he's 1/4 black Muslim, whatever that's supposed to mean. Maybe a one in four chance that he'll implement Sharia infused with black supremacy, and the 5% of the country who unquestionably worship him will enforce black supremacist Sharia on the other 95%. Of course that will come after the socialist takeover, which was started a few weeks ago by Obama's disciples, George W Bush and Henry Paulson.
In all seriousness, I think this country would be the better for having a president who doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve.
Agreed. People forget that the primary reason we have religious freedom in this nation is due to our secular government. The separation of church and state might tick you off if you can't put the 10 commandments in a courthouse, but it's also the reason you can attend a vibrant church. Europe has state sponsored religions (though they wield little power nowadays), and it's one of the reasons why they are less religious.
I'll bet that if Christ were resurrected and walking around today that you'd similarly question his Christianity and find it bizarre.
You can't be half-Muslim any more than you can be half-Christian.
And if religion is genetic, what am I given that all my grandparents were Christian, while neither of my parents were?
I think WestSide was mainly using reducto-adsurdum to point out why holding a 100% belief that someone is a secret <any religion> is just pointless and silly.
Definitely.
Lamont, you should have read the part about black supremacist Sharia law. I thought that would give it away.
I can understand his confusion. If Robroy had written the exact same post minus the quantifiers about being 1/4 whatever, it probably would have been serious rather than tongue in cheek. This whole thread is, after all, dedicated to him.
robroy has broken my ability to detect sarcasm or raa arguments on this site... raa doesn't get you very far when you're arguing with the absurd..
That is a tough one for me. I am very skeptical of a politician who makes a big deal of it, but if they are asked, they do need to answer. As a Christian I can tell you that my religious belief colors everything I do and my thoughts and feelings about everything I do, or anyone else does.
And as pointed out in the Bible, "a little leaven leavens the whole loaf". You either are or you are not. There is no middle ground. A true Christian does not parade it around, but shows it in their actions. They also are not ashamed of it when called on it. They are clear and honest about their belief. Only Palin has been forthcoming when asked.
You can be a secret Muslim however. The koran allows one to violate all the tenets of the faith if it's purpose is to work for the faith in secret. Christianity does not allow for such a thing.
It literally means one can be a "sleeper Muslim" Manchurian Candidate, yet deny it while smoking a cigar with his shot of single malt while watching a lap dancer at a nude bar.
Not true. Obama doesn't wear it on his sleeve, but has been more than forthcoming about his Christian faith when asked about it.
Palin does wear it on her sleeve.
Here's an interview Obama did with Christianity Today back in January: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/200 ... -32.0.html
"I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful."
First, he says his faith gives him "a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life". That is odd. Is he suggesting he is not yet cleansed but must follow some path to "get there"? I wonder what that path is, and how he is judged regarding staying on that path. Can he "lose" his cleansing if he goes off the path? That is not the message of Christ. It could just be his way of saying it though. I don't really know and would have to ask a follow up to see what he really meant by that. After all, he was not using a teleprompter and we all sometimes don't say what we really mean.
But the bigger one is this: "But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick ..."
That is not what is most important to Christians. What is most important to Christians is their relationship with God. Feeding the Hungry and healing the sick is great, and we should do it, but we also should live all aspects of our lives as He would have us live them.
And he is just wrong when he says: "...always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful."
Jesus saw all people as equal. There are many examples of him singling out "the least" but also the powerful. He ate with tax collectors, there is the story of the Centurion, etc. His example is that we fellowship with other people regardless of their position. To suggest that the least are better is simply wrong.
Obama's response does sound Christian though. I do not judge whether he is or not, but am commenting on his response. From my perspective there are a few backward priorities, but heck, I don't agree with every church on everything either. I am sure there is rightness and wrongness to spread around. Frankly, if he had just left out the words "more importantly" I would have said that it sounds "basically Christian" to me.
The biggest problem is based on my belief here: I believe that if a man says he is not a Christian, then he is not a Christian. If he says he IS a Christian, then he may be a Christian. He could also be lying. And back in January, Obama had an odd habit of shaping his message to the particular audience of the particular interview. It is what many really despise in him.
His answers regarding his faith have become more squishy as the election progresses.
LOL. Yes, the Muslim faith does explicitly allow for lying as you have laid out. But in the annals of time, secret Christians hid in the catacombs of Rome. Each is possible, you simply do not feel threatened by secret Christians, while you are obviously terrified that secret Muslims are lurking, looking for a way to strike.
Well, as Chuck said, Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin have all answered that question. You don't believe half of them because you untrusting; it does not make them liars. Also, it's BS that religion colors your every though or action. What is 2+2? Math is foundational to logic, and you can make many sound arguments using only math or using only mathematically sound principals. In fact, when you sum those values, you are using Arabic Numerals: AKA Muslim Numbers!
Ahem <cough><cough>. BS.
Yep, agreed.
True. But actually I don't trust any of them. I believe man is basically evil. The only living human I fully trust is Jesus. But what I do with the answer is colored by my religion. And honestly, it is not lost on me even when pondering the equation, that God created a being that could even ponder such a question. Now you're being silly. Symbols used to communicate values are areligious. They are like guns, neither good nor evil. That determination is made by the person wielding them.
When you get to heaven there will be three surprises:
1. There will be people there you did not expect to see there.
2. There will be people absent that you expected to be there.
3. You're there.
Whew! I'm glad we agree on SOMETHING here.
Yes, of course I'm being silly about Arabic numerals, and proving a point. You are able to separate the religious from the secular when discussing mathematics. You - probably(?) - don't mind using trigonometry which was invented by Greek pagans, and you don't mind exploiting Einstein's additions to our knowledge even though he was a deist. You seem able to ignore religion when employing many fields of knowledge.
You seem content with millions of nonbelievers acting independently around you just in USA (billions world wide), but the thought that a single elected official might also be a nonbeliever fills you with dread. The problem, is that in a world like yours where everything is black and white, there is no room for the colours that truly make life nuanced, delightful, and surprising.
Last thought, I don't understand the whole "guns don't kill people" argument. I mean, we're talking about a weapon. It's designed to kill things. If everyone should have a gun because guns don't kill people, then by that logic shouldn't everyone have a nuclear device? A similar argument could be applied to anything inherently dangerous: derivatives don't destroy financial institutions, mismanagement does.
I can understand people who own a rifle for hunting or simply find target shooting an enjoyable hobby, but if you own a gun for self defense, your professed possession is already to kill someone.
That is a nicely worded analogy, but it really doesn't fit. My world allows for all sorts of things I disagree with with restrictions. I don't think abortion adds color and makes "life nuanced, delightful and surprising."
Which is it? People, or things? And is one less moral than the other? Some things are "bigger than a breadbox" and different rules apply. You know, like, diving into the ocean off a diving board can be fun, but out of an airplane at 1000 feet without a chute, the laws of physics make the experience less pleasant. A line is crossed.
Likewise with nukes and howitzers. No, it is to protect yourself against another. Even Jesus told the disciples to buy a sword. It wasn't for hunting.
When you kill someone in self defense, the blood is on their hands:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument