PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

[Guest 2smart4u]

What it means is that there is no separation between my religion and my life. There is never a conflict between the best course of action and the dictates of my religion. That's because I practice a reality-based religion. That doesn't mean that I have all the answers or that all the answers are clear, but it does mean that there is greater moral and ethical clarity than I could find in any other religion. I stand by everything I wrote here: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=85935

I would welcome an intelligent discussion. You're never going to understand another human being, whether me or anyone else, if you don't stop telling us what we think and start listening. Don't you ever get tired of behaving like a badly spoiled child?

It seems that Paul has indeed experienced an epiphany. He has gone from an evolutionist, scoffing at any suggestion of a God to a proponent of religion. His own words, "there is no separation between my religion and my life" suggests that he has now found God. I think next he'll be apologizing to the HS teacher and urging the Bd. of Ed. to introduce Creationism into the curriculum.

I think it's wonderful that Paul has found God and I look forward to having meaningful discussions about our lives and Jesus Christ. Bless you, Paul.

[WilliamK]

Are all of Paul's multiple personalities atheist or are one or more Christian?

Are all of yours morons?

[Guest Guest]

It seems that Paul has indeed experienced an epiphany. He has gone from an evolutionist, scoffing at any suggestion of a God to a proponent of religion. His own words, "there is no separation between my religion and my life" suggests that he has now found God. I think next he'll be apologizing to the HS teacher and urging the Bd. of Ed. to introduce Creationism into the curriculum.

I think it's wonderful that Paul has found God and I look forward to having meaningful discussions about our lives and Jesus Christ. Bless you, Paul.

We didn't need more proof of the fact that you're an idiot. He's describing a religion without a god.

[Guest Guest]

What it means is that there is no separation between my religion and my life. There is never a conflict between the best course of action and the dictates of my religion. That's because I practice a reality-based religion. That doesn't mean that I have all the answers or that all the answers are clear, but it does mean that there is greater moral and ethical clarity than I could find in any other religion. I stand by everything I wrote here: http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=85935

I would welcome an intelligent discussion. You're never going to understand another human being, whether me or anyone else, if you don't stop telling us what we think and start listening. Don't you ever get tired of behaving like a badly spoiled child?

"There is never a conflict between the best course of action and the dictates of my religion."

Then how do you practice law?

[Guest Guest]

"There is never a conflict between the best course of action and the dictates of my religion."

Then how do you practice law?

So how many law schools turned you down before you finally gave up? Or did you figure out in third grade that you'd never be able to cut it?

[Guest Guest]

"There is never a conflict between the best course of action and the dictates of my religion."

Then how do you practice law?

Paul of all people is the one who dictates how we should live our lives and yet he has the audacity to write:

QUOTE (Paul @ Nov 14 2008, 11:01 PM)

You're never going to understand another human being, whether me or anyone else, if you don't stop telling us what we think and start listening. Don't you ever get tired of behaving like a badly spoiled child?

The he proceeds to provide us his 6 step approach to what his so called religion is. Something smells like rotten fish and it sure it Paul.

[Guest Guest]

Paul of all people is the one who dictates how we should live our lives and yet he has the audacity to write:

QUOTE (Paul @ Nov 14 2008, 11:01 PM)

You're never going to understand another human being, whether me or anyone else, if you don't stop telling us what we think and start listening. Don't you ever get tired of behaving like a badly spoiled child?

The he proceeds to provide us his 6 step approach to what his so called religion is. Something smells like rotten fish and it sure it Paul.

In other words you don't agree, and don't like hearing it from someone capable of defending it. If you don't agree, explain why.

[Guest 2smart4u]

We didn't need more proof of the fact that you're an idiot. He's describing a religion without a god.

"religion without a god" ?? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: "Religion; The service and worship of God". I think it's clear that Paul has found God. How ironic that someone who conspired to secretly tape record a teacher because of his beliefs, has now began posting on KOTW, proudly proclaiming his religion. Readers of KOTW, I think we're all witnessing a miricle.

[Guest Guest]

"religion without a god" ?? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: "Religion; The service and worship of God". I think it's clear that Paul has found God. How ironic that someone who conspired to secretly tape record a teacher because of his beliefs, has now began posting on KOTW, proudly proclaiming his religion. Readers of KOTW, I think we're all witnessing a miricle.

That's only one definition. Look at the others.

In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, this is the fourth definition of religion: "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

If you have word, use the dictionary function. You'll find the following definition of religion: "3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by."

Don't you ever get tired of acting like an ignorant fool?

[Guest Guest]

"religion without a god" ?? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: "Religion; The service and worship of God". I think it's clear that Paul has found God. How ironic that someone who conspired to secretly tape record a teacher because of his beliefs, has now began posting on KOTW, proudly proclaiming his religion. Readers of KOTW, I think we're all witnessing a miricle.

http://www.godweb.org/whatisbuddhism.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Without-God...n/dp/0415217865

http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?opti...iew&id=2233

http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/aciv.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoogYcegYG0

http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/dietrich.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb64...s_/ai_n29049155

[WilliamK]

That's only one definition. Look at the others.

I'm sure he's fully aware of the other definitions. This is not a problem of knowledge, but of honor. He knows the truth, but chooses to speak falsely anyway.

[Guest Guest]

That's only one definition. Look at the others.

In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, this is the fourth definition of religion: "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith."

If you have word, use the dictionary function. You'll find the following definition of religion: "3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by."

Don't you ever get tired of acting like an ignorant fool?

"fourth definition"?? The primary definition of religion concerns the worship of God. Lay off the Kool-Aid.

[Guest Guest]

"fourth definition"?? The primary definition of religion concerns the worship of God. Lay off the Kool-Aid.

So what? All that proves is that the monotheistic religions have become dominant. (Tell us something we don't know.)

That doesn't mean religion has to be about a god. For the growing percentage of us who practice a religion without a god, it's not (about a god). The third and fourth dictionary definitions are still acceptable, even though they may be used by a substantial minority of people. That's why they made the dictionary.

In this culture, you have it your way. Monotheism is dominant. If you didn't like it, you'd be whining about it, just like you whine about the dominant forces in this culture that you don't like.

What you won't do is acknowledge the fact that individuals decide their own religious beliefs. You want it forced on everyone, so you treat anyone who dares to have a different idea with contempt.

What you also won't do is make any attempt at thinking logically, critically or intelligently. Among other things, religion is a collection of ideas. You would like to congeal it around one idea. As long as people are free to think for themselves, you will not succeed. The worst thing that ever happened to religion is that much of it was turned into a collection of fairy tales. You won't respond to that, except maybe with another of your juvenile one-liners, because you don't know how.

[Guest 2smart4u]

So what? All that proves is that the monotheistic religions have become dominant. (Tell us something we don't know.)

That doesn't mean religion has to be about a god. For the growing percentage of us who practice a religion without a god, it's not (about a god). The third and fourth dictionary definitions are still acceptable, even though they may be used by a substantial minority of people. That's why they made the dictionary.

In this culture, you have it your way. Monotheism is dominant. If you didn't like it, you'd be whining about it, just like you whine about the dominant forces in this culture that you don't like.

What you won't do is acknowledge the fact that individuals decide their own religious beliefs. You want it forced on everyone, so you treat anyone who dares to have a different idea with contempt.

What you also won't do is make any attempt at thinking logically, critically or intelligently. Among other things, religion is a collection of ideas. You would like to congeal it around one idea. As long as people are free to think for themselves, you will not succeed. The worst thing that ever happened to religion is that much of it was turned into a collection of fairy tales. You won't respond to that, except maybe with another of your juvenile one-liners, because you don't know how.

I'm curious, if you practice religion without a god, what or who do you pray to? Do you pray to Mother Nature, hug trees or just drink a lot of Kool-Aid while you sing Kumbaya?

[Guest Guest]

I'm curious, if you practice religion without a god, what or who do you pray to? Do you pray to Mother Nature, hug trees or just drink a lot of Kool-Aid while you sing Kumbaya?

I don't pray to anyone. I don't sneer at people either.

[Guest James Buchanen]

It's more than that. Obama did not run on his race.

But his election is the closest thing America can have to redemption for our original sin. Obama's race didn't keep us from electing him. That shouldn't be a big deal, but it is. The world will look at us with respect and admiration and wonder again, beginning right now.

This will be remembered forever as the moment when we Americans turned a big page in our history. I couldn't be happier.

But his election is the closest thing America can have to redemption for our original sin.

What is my original sin in this statement??

The world will look at us with respect and admiration?!?!?!?

Al Quada sure hammered that home today with the warning to the black man with the Muslim name.

[Guest Guest]

But his election is the closest thing America can have to redemption for our original sin.

What is my original sin in this statement??

The world will look at us with respect and admiration?!?!?!?

Al Quada sure hammered that home today with the warning to the black man with the Muslim name.

1. With original sin, you didn't do anything wrong but you get punished anyway.

2. You're looking to Al Qaeda for guidance on world opinion. That doesn't make sense.

[Bern]

But his election is the closest thing America can have to redemption for our original sin.

What is my original sin in this statement??

The world will look at us with respect and admiration?!?!?!?

Al Quada sure hammered that home today with the warning to the black man with the Muslim name.

Since when did we need the respect and admiration of AlQaeda? Why do you care? Do you need it?

Considering the response from respectable world leaders, foreign editorials and news columnists, and foreign forums, I know that our stock has gone up in the eyes of the world.

[wu-su]

The reason future generations aren't "responsible" to "pay for" your mistakes is that it's unjust. I agree with you, but they're going to pay anyway if our mistakes are bad enough.

The Adam and Eve story says that a perfectly just God makes future generations pay for two people's mistake. That's one way we know the story is a fairy tale. If God was just, he wouldn't do that. Add to that the talking snake, people created out of nothing, Cain's wife somehow appearing out of nowhere, and it's pretty obvious that the story is a fairy tale. And that tree of the knowledge of good and evil - exactly what fruit grows on it? Do you think maybe "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" just might be a metaphor and not a real tree? If hundreds of millions of people didn't believe in this poorly constructed fairy tale, you'd be treating it just like Mother Goose.

Very valid points; well taken.

[WilliamK]

I'm curious, if you practice religion without a god, what or who do you pray to? Do you pray to Mother Nature, hug trees or just drink a lot of Kool-Aid while you sing Kumbaya?

When did "pray" become a required part of the definition of "religion"?

[Guest Paul]

When did "pray" become a required part of the definition of "religion"?

Some people think it is. They think their own limits are everyone else's.

[Guest Guest]

So what? All that proves is that the monotheistic religions have become dominant. (Tell us something we don't know.)

That doesn't mean religion has to be about a god. For the growing percentage of us who practice a religion without a god, it's not (about a god). The third and fourth dictionary definitions are still acceptable, even though they may be used by a substantial minority of people. That's why they made the dictionary.

In this culture, you have it your way. Monotheism is dominant. If you didn't like it, you'd be whining about it, just like you whine about the dominant forces in this culture that you don't like.

What you won't do is acknowledge the fact that individuals decide their own religious beliefs. You want it forced on everyone, so you treat anyone who dares to have a different idea with contempt.

What you also won't do is make any attempt at thinking logically, critically or intelligently. Among other things, religion is a collection of ideas. You would like to congeal it around one idea. As long as people are free to think for themselves, you will not succeed. The worst thing that ever happened to religion is that much of it was turned into a collection of fairy tales. You won't respond to that, except maybe with another of your juvenile one-liners, because you don't know how.

I'm curious about this, maybe one of you ignorant atheists can help me out. When your new messiah BO takes the oath of office and says the words "so help

me God", will that cause you to question your own misguided views?

[WilliamK]

I'm curious about this a hateful religious bigot pretending to be clever, maybe one of you ignorant atheists can help me out. When your new messiah BO takes the oath of office and says the words "so help

me God", will that cause you to question your own misguided views?

There. Fixed that for you. You can thank me after you get over your initial anger at me and reflect on this intelligently. I expect that you will be able to muster neither the intelligence nor the quality of character required to do that, but I'd be happy to have you prove me wrong.

[Guest Guest]

I'm curious about this, maybe one of you ignorant atheists can help me out. When your new messiah BO takes the oath of office and says the words "so help

me God", will that cause you to question your own misguided views?

It's going to take a lot more than that to help you out. You shouldn't call people ignorant if you can't think or write any more coherently than that.

If we are going to discuss this, let’s get the facts right. Here is the oath the Constitution actually prescribes.

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art2.asp

It contains nothing about a god or a Bible. The fact that virtually no public official takes the oath that is actually written in the Constitution, even though the language is mandatory, tells me that people who are hell-bent on shoving their religion down everyone’s throats have succeeded in changing the U. S. Constitution by their own fiat. It tells me that they don’t care about the law or about anyone’s religious beliefs except their own.

To address your rhetorical non-question, one of two things has happened. Either Obama does believe in a god, and wishes to include those words in the oath because they reflect the source to which he believes the oath is directed; or he never truly became a theist and has been making a show of theistic belief in order to be politically viable. All it tells me is that politicians today who dared not include those words, but chose instead to recite the oath as the law actually prescribes it, would meet a firestorm of protest from the de facto tyranny of theistic zealots who control this country’s politics. This is how a nation of people who supposedly believe in liberty and justice for all regardless of race, creed or ethnic background have taken this country a few steps away from democracy and toward theocracy.

Put the shoe on the other foot. If Obama didn’t include those final four words, but instead recited the oath as the law actually prescribes it, how many protests would he face? He would never hear the end of it, which is why very few politicians dare not include words that aren’t actually in the oath.

You’re not interested in thought or reason, and you’re not curious about what we think. You just want to spew your venom onto everything you don’t understand. President-elect Obama is not our messiah, but he is an exceptionally talented, intelligent and capable leader who has come along at a time in history when we need such a person. How we think of him will depend on how he handles himself in office, beginning a little less than two months from now.

To change your sclerotic little mind he would have to part the waters of both our oceans. I don’t expect that, so, unlike you, I don’t have any illusions about it.

[Guest Guest]

It's going to take a lot more than that to help you out. You shouldn't call people ignorant if you can't think or write any more coherently than that.

If we are going to discuss this, let’s get the facts right. Here is the oath the Constitution actually prescribes.

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/art2.asp

It contains nothing about a god or a Bible. The fact that virtually no public official takes the oath that is actually written in the Constitution, even though the language is mandatory, tells me that people who are hell-bent on shoving their religion down everyone’s throats have succeeded in changing the U. S. Constitution by their own fiat. It tells me that they don’t care about the law or about anyone’s religious beliefs except their own.

To address your rhetorical non-question, one of two things has happened. Either Obama does believe in a god, and wishes to include those words in the oath because they reflect the source to which he believes the oath is directed; or he never truly became a theist and has been making a show of theistic belief in order to be politically viable. All it tells me is that politicians today who dared not include those words, but chose instead to recite the oath as the law actually prescribes it, would meet a firestorm of protest from the de facto tyranny of theistic zealots who control this country’s politics. This is how a nation of people who supposedly believe in liberty and justice for all regardless of race, creed or ethnic background have taken this country a few steps away from democracy and toward theocracy.

Put the shoe on the other foot. If Obama didn’t include those final four words, but instead recited the oath as the law actually prescribes it, how many protests would he face? He would never hear the end of it, which is why very few politicians dare not include words that aren’t actually in the oath.

You’re not interested in thought or reason, and you’re not curious about what we think. You just want to spew your venom onto everything you don’t understand. President-elect Obama is not our messiah, but he is an exceptionally talented, intelligent and capable leader who has come along at a time in history when we need such a person. How we think of him will depend on how he handles himself in office, beginning a little less than two months from now.

To change your sclerotic little mind he would have to part the waters of both our oceans. I don’t expect that, so, unlike you, I don’t have any illusions about it.

Hypocrites don't put the shoe on the other foot. They are the first people to thump the Bible and the last ones to understand it. That's why you can't have an intelligent discussion with them.