AJ113

But this something that YOU do to other people all the time, isn't it Sabine?

Biff the unclean

Do you apply lack of integrity and the notion that it was immoral for Dr King to rely on his faith to find the motivation to promote american ideals of freedom?
King was cherry picking as far as his faith went. He decided to turn a blind eye to those parts of the Bible that instructed him to turn the other cheek and accept abuse. He turned a blind eye to the parts that instructed him to be a good little slave and obey his master. He focused on the Constitution itself and demanded that it be followed. Please notice that the part of America that was the most strongly opposed to following the Constitution is the section called "The Bible Belt." They are opposed to the Constitution on biblical grounds--or at least those biblical grounds that they deem to cherry pick.
The man was a christian and a minister.
But he managed some how to rise above that.
did he leave his faith in the lobby ? did he reject the "lie" or did he find inspiration in the " lie" ?
Depends on which part of the lie you are talking about. His accomplishments were purely social and had nothing to do with his religion.
Like it or not most members of American United are christians and led by a minister.
So what, they still battle only Christians. Or do you chose to cherry pick seeing the side you agree with being Christian and ignore the side that you disagree with being Christian?
Actualy Christ promoted separation between biblical laws and the laws of the land.
Actually most of the tyrants and dictators who have reigned in the last two thousand years have done so by "his will"
" render what is Ceasar's to Ceasar".He did not break any Roman Laws
In fact if you go through the NT you will find Jesus obeying the Romans and ordering his followers to do so to. If a Roman strikes you you should turn the other cheek. All the Romans in the NT are stern but fair. The Jewish authorities on the other hand haven't a single good word to be said about them. And in several places the Apostles bitterly complain that the Jews kill Jesus.
Funny stuff for a Jewish book to say.
...PP found himself unable to charge him with any violations against the laws implemented by the Roman government.
No, he try's his best to save Jesus…but the nasty Jews want him dead anyway.
Don't you get it? The NT is a Roman Book supporting Roman ideals.
By the way have you revised your perception that my understanding of humanism thru my father was soly based on the father love now that I have given more details as to his ideological heritage?
No, I haven't. I am still left with the impression that you use yourself as the measure of the rest of the world and not the other way around.
There was no need to post it again, my scroll button works just fine.

I must say that I find it hard to understand the position of almost all the Christians on this board. They act like Christianity is so caring about people and so socially responsible. That if people only were more Christian the world would be a better place.

But there was a time when the western world was completely Christian. When everyone was devout. When everyone lips sang Chris's praises and every knee was knelt to him. For a thousand years the Western world was like this. And it was the lowest point in our history. So bad that it was not give the title of "The Ages of Christ," but rather the "Dark Ages."
We have tried Christian ways, we have tried "living in Christ." We tried it for a thousand years so you can't say it didn't have a chance. Christianity was an utter and miserable failure. Time to move on…it's based on a fraud, and more importantly, it doesn't work.
:banghead:

Sabine Grant

Absolutly not... I have yet to see my quotes when I have asked them to be posted to support assumptions made on my account as to attributing thoughts to me I did not express. Those you have brought up from my posts I have responded to. Those that have been assumed by Biff or yourself are yet to be quoted clearly.

Sabine Grant

None of your arguments change the fact that Christ promoted the separation of religious laws from the laws of the land. And why not considering that Americans United are also aware of what Christ truly promoted?
As far as your assumptions go in regard to Dr. King, you have now thru your analysis determined that his faith was in no way related to his accomplishments. Well...your opinion does not necessarly reflect the impact his spiritual life had on his accomplishments. Are you so uncomfortable with the idea of a christian being able to contribute to the betterment of mankind?
Is that your criterion to establish the validity of someone's accomplishements? Please make it clear whether or not you can accept the accomplishements of a theist . That is the crucial point here.
Your evaluation of my father's humanistic beliefs is rejected by me. I provided you with adequate information to support the source of his humanistic beliefs. However you dismiss them and deny the authenticity of my statement that he was truly a humanist. What arguments can you provide against French freemasonry ideology which teaches humanistic principles? saying that you disagree is not enough..... provide arguments against my statement.

Radorth

Really Biff? Who's the majority, if you don't mind us asking? You also vouched that " a number" of people have contacted you to cheer you on. I would guess it's a very small number, like 2, but definitely "a number."

I'm afraid you are acknowledging the weakness of your own arguments when you feel compelled to vouch for them.

Rad

Sabine Grant

Then why are you commenting back on his character if you do not believe that he even existed? You gave him the intent that his character validates the OT by frequently referencing to it... did not you ?

Biff the unclean

I can't help but wonder if you are ignoring the point (cherry picking) or that you simply don't get it. Forgive me if I repeat myself or if I seem to be "talking down" to you but the point is already simple enough for a child to understand. I'll try to make it simpler still.
Real life runs along a single history. When you find a story where contradictory events, personalities, philosophies are all coming from the same person at the same time that is a sure give away that the story is fiction.

None of your arguments change the fact that Christ promoted the separation of religious laws from the laws of the land.
That's right he did. And none of your arguments change the fact of "The Divine Right of Kings" which also comes straight from the teachings of Jesus. A contradiction which shows that the bible is fiction.
And why not considering that Americans United are also aware of what Christ truly promoted?
They are aware of what the Jesus character truly promoted. The people they are fighting against are aware of contradictory things that the Jesus character truly promoted. Another contradiction which shows that the bible is fiction.

As far as your assumptions go in regard to Dr. King, you have now thru your analysis determined that his faith was in no way related to his accomplishments.
King only used religion to bond his followers together. He wasn't concerned with sin, he was concerned with the enforcement of the United States Constitution.
Well...your opinion does not necessarly reflect the impact his spiritual life had on his accomplishments. Are you so uncomfortable with the idea of a christian being able to contribute to the betterment of mankind?
But this Christian with his Christian ideals was fighting against other Christians who had equally valid (in a biblical sense) Christian ideals that were a complete contradiction to the ones he held. Another contradiction which shows that the bible is fiction. You are foolish to say that Christianity is the solution to the problem when it is Christianity which is the cause of the same problem.

Please make it clear whether or not you can accept the accomplishements of a theist . That is the crucial point here.
No the crucial point here is that you cannot accept the negative accomplishments of theists. Every case that you proudly assert that people are fighting for Christian ideals you have neglected to acknowledge that their opposition is also fighting for Christian ideals. Both sides can point to specific teachings of the Jesus character to support their claims. And both sides contradict each other. Yet another contradiction which shows that the bible is fiction.

Your evaluation of my father's humanistic beliefs is rejected by me.
Your daddy is irrelevant to this conversation.
I provided you with adequate information to support the source of his humanistic beliefs.
The French businessmen's club he belonged to is also irrelevant.
However you dismiss them and deny the authenticity of my statement that he was truly a humanist.
No, I was noting that, as in so many other things, Sabine's definition is unique to Sabine.
What arguments can you provide against French freemasonry ideology which teaches humanistic principles? saying that you disagree is not enough..... provide arguments against my statement.
I could give a rats hinny about French freemasons. I made no comments on your father's humanism only on your ego-centric view of it. Though I am beginning to understand what made his personality change, and I don't think it was caused by a stroke.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Sabine Grant

" The French businessmen's club" as you defined french freemasonery indicates your lack of appreciation of humanistic beliefs. Is that why you never answered my question addressed in a previous post " do you consider yourself a humanist?"

I answered your question as to defining humanism. So what I commented on is very relevant. Did you expect a dictionary definition or one based on PERSONAL experience? do you have a problem with arguments based on PERSONAL experience?
You have yet to answer my inquiry : do you dismiss the accomplishement of any individual based on their religious preference? Does a theist hold less credibility as an individual who can contribute to the betterment of mankind simply because he is a theist? yes or no at this point will suffice.

What do you imply by your last remark ? are there some details of my father's life I may not be aware of but you are ? I doubt so..... I can let you off the hook as you resorted to another assumption . But I will not..... explain clearly what you mean.

As of now Biff.... your arguments point to you resorting to characterization and more gross assumptions as well as demeaning labeling of a group you obviously have no knowledge of and wish to not document yourself on . Your quote " I could give a rats hinny about French freemasons". Are you then forfaiting the opportunity I gave you to demonstrate that my knowledge of my father's humanistic beliefs were indeed based on my " ego centric view" ( your quote) and not the product of his association with a humanistic ideology centered group?

Biff the unclean

" The French businessmen's club" as you defined french freemasonery indicates your lack of appreciation of humanistic beliefs.
Rather it demonstrates an objective understanding of Freemasons.
Is that why you never answered my question addressed in a previous post " do you consider yourself a humanist?"

I answered your question as to defining humanism. So what I commented on is very relevant. Did you expect a dictionary definition or one based on PERSONAL experience? do you have a problem with arguments based on PERSONAL experience?
I had hoped for a definition based on historic usage of the term, the dictionary would have been fine too. I feared that I would get your personal definition based on your personal experience.
It seems odd that you of all people should be concerned with not getting your questions answered when you have raised evasion to an art form (in fact you are doing it now). And that after all your complaints that people claim to know what you are thinking (after you tell them what you are thinking!!) that you expect people to know the meaning of a word that exists only in your thoughts.
Sigh, oh well.
To answer your question--by any historic or dictionary usage of the word Yes I'm a Humanist. By you personal definition, No I am not. The reason I would not be in Sabinespeak is that I follow the warnings of Jesus. I do not think myself wise for gladly suffering fools. Which seems to be a requirement in your world.

You have yet to answer my inquiry : do you dismiss the accomplishement of any individual based on their religious preference? Does a theist hold less credibility as an individual who can contribute to the betterment of mankind simply because he is a theist? yes or no at this point will suffice.
Unlike you, I do not. If a person accomplishes evil based on their religious delusions I do not ignore them and focus solely on the people who are fighting them who hold exactly the same religion but choose different sections of the same bible.


What do you imply by your last remark ?
Surely all those little yellow guys banging their heads against a wall are a give away.

are there some details of my father's life I may not be aware of but you are ?
Hmmm a person who had you as a daughter and had to deal with your unique logic and your ego -centric mania whose personality shifts away from his normal pleasantness…is anyone surprised?

your arguments point to you resorting to characterization and more gross assumptions
Observations, not assumptions.
as well as demeaning labeling of a group you obviously have no knowledge of and wish to not document yourself on . Your quote " I could give a rats hinny about French freemasons". Are you then forfaiting the opportunity I gave you to demonstrate that my knowledge of my father's humanistic beliefs were indeed based on my " ego centric view" ( your quote) and not the product of his association with a humanistic ideology centered group?
Sabine try to understand this. French Freemasons, and your father are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I said that your definition of Humanism was ego-centric because I read it. I assumed nothing, I observed what you yourself had written.

Just as I observe that AGAIN you are ignoring the point which is
The completely contradictory positions that the bible holds demonstrates that it is fictional.
Every example that you put forward of a Christian doing good by values that they had found in the bible they were combating other Christians who had taken completely opposite values from the exact same bible.
Just as I observe that AGAIN you portray yourself as a victim rather than deal with the issue at hand.
This new business of "cherry picking" the argument, while ignoring the entirety of it, is an interesting type of strawman. It's a strange thing to do when you are attempting to extol Christian virtues. But it does demonstrate another reason why Christianity is a failure and should be abandoned. It shows that Christians think that any damn thing they do is just fine because they are Christians.

AJ113

This is going nowhere and is threatening to derail the thread. I would like to give you the opportunity to reply in full to my comments so I shall start a new thread.