The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Archives => Politics => Election 2008 => Topic started by: The Night Owl on May 22, 2008, 05:03:48 PM
-
McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement and "Crazy" Comments on Holocaust
May 22, 2008 4:48 PM
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this afternoon rejected the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee after a sermon was publicized in which Hagen suggested Adolph Hitler and the Holocaust were caused by God so as to bring about the creation of the state of Israel.
A source close to McCain told ABC News the Arizona senator thinks these sentiments are crazy, and that back in February when the campaign accepted Hagee's endorsement, no one on the campaign, and certainly not McCain, had any idea that Hagee believed these types of things.
“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them," McCain said in a statement. "I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well."
...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/mccain-rejects.html
-
Hagee isn't a "radical cleric". He's a Reverend or Pastor. Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please.
-
Hagee isn't a "radical cleric". He's a Reverend or Pastor. Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please.
What is the problem here? John Hagee is both a radical and a cleric. Don't make me cart out dictionary definitions.
-
Hagee isn't a "radical cleric". He's a Reverend or Pastor. Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please.
Yeah, one wonders how many women this "radical cleric" has suppressed, or how many heads this "radical cleric" has chopped off, or how many holy wars, jihads, this "radical cleric" has called for.
The nocturnally foul one's doing that old trick again, equating a minor irritant, this "radical cleric" with an authentic threat, as if they're equal.
-
Yeah, one wonders how many women this "radical cleric" has suppressed, or how many heads this "radical cleric" has chopped off, or how many holy wars, jihads, this "radical cleric" has called for.
The nocturnally foul one's doing that old trick again, equating a minor irritant, this "radical cleric" with an authentic threat, as if they're equal.
LOL! One does not need to chop off heads to be a radical. At least not in my book.
-
LOL! One does not need to chop off heads to be a radical. At least not in my book.
You need a new book.
-
You need a new book.
Standard dictionaries definitions are not good enough for you?
-
Yeah, one wonders how many women this "radical cleric" has suppressed, or how many heads this "radical cleric" has chopped off, or how many holy wars, jihads, this "radical cleric" has called for.
The nocturnally foul one's doing that old trick again, equating a minor irritant, this "radical cleric" with an authentic threat, as if they're equal.
LOL! One does not need to chop off heads to be a radical. At least not in my book.
Still reading Marvel comics?
-
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary...
Main Entry: 1rad·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ˈra-di-kəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root — more at root
Date: 14th century
1: of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1): of or growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers> (2): growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground <radical leaves> b: of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c: of or relating to a mathematical root d: designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue <radical surgery> <radical mastectomy>
2: of or relating to the origin : fundamental
3 a: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
4slang : excellent, cool
I think we can safely say that John Hagee's views are a considerable departure from the usual or traditional. I mean, how many Christians believe that God sent Adolf Hitler to Earth to hunt the Jews? Not any I know. And, how many Christians believe that the Holocaust was a divinely mandated action? Not any I know.
John Hagee is not just a radical cleric. He is a swine.
-
Hagee isn't a "radical cleric". He's a Reverend or Pastor. Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please.
Indeed. A "radical cleric" would be one who calls for the death of a cartoonist, or maybe condones hanging homosexuals from construction cranes, or perhaps insists on death to the "great satan". That's radical.
-
I think we can safely say that John Hagee's views are a considerable departure from the usual or traditional. I mean, how many Christians believe that God sent Hitler to Earth to hunt the Jews? Not any I know. And, how many Christians believe that the Holocaust was a divinely mandated action? Not any I know.
John Hagee is not just a radical cleric. He is a swine.
We can perhaps agree that he's not first-class material.
But he hasn't called for the chopping-off of heads.
-
We can perhaps agree that he's not first-class material.
But he hasn't called for the chopping-off of heads.
Why use a euphemism to describe John Hagee? The guy is scum and no one should have any qualms about saying so.
-
Why use a euphemism to describe John Hagee? The guy is scum and no one should be afraid to say so.
Well now, I happen to remember my good breeding.
Unlike some.
I never even called the Ayatollah Khomeini "swine;" just that he didn't seem like the type of guy who liked people different from him, and the sooner he went on to his Eternal Life, the better for the world, giving both him there, and us here, peace and quiet.
"Swine" is a pretty harsh word to describe any human being, other than, of course, those human swine who endorse infanticide. And primitives on some occasions.
-
Hagee isn't a "radical cleric". He's a Reverend or Pastor. Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please.
What is the problem here? John Hagee is both a radical and a cleric. Don't make me cart out dictionary definitions.
The problem here is your reading compherension skills. I said: "Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please."
Don't make me cart out the moderator stick. Seriously. Drop the snark. I was being fair and polite in my first post. You will not find me so accomodating in the future if you continue in this manner.
Thread titles are supposed to be accurate. Especially when quoting something another person has written. Obviously, you're free to start thread topics with your own titles when it's an original piece. You are also free to add commentary within your post under the quoted article. It would have been acceptable for you to use the correct article title "McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement and "Crazy" Comments on Holocaust" followed by something along the lines of: "I think Hagee is a radical cleric because...."
DO NOT post your opinions as facts and do not take liberties with someone else's article. I'm serious.
-
Don't make me cart out the moderator stick. Seriously. Drop the snark. I was being fair and polite in my first post. You will not find me so accomodating in the future if you continue in this manner.
Thread titles are supposed to be accurate. Especially when quoting something another person has written. Obviously, you're free to start thread topics with your own titles when it's an original piece. You are also free to add commentary within your post under the quoted article. It would have been acceptable for you to use the correct article title "McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement and "Crazy" Comments on Holocaust" followed by something along the lines of: "I think Hagee is a radical cleric because...."
DO NOT post your opinions as facts and do not take liberties with someone else's article. I'm serious.
Are you making up the rules as you go along? I don't see anything in the rules prohibiting the editorializing of thread titles posted in the Election 2008 forum. Moreover, I see plenty of thread titles which include commentary by posters.
And, considering that John Hagee easily fits the definition of a radical as defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary, your claim that the title of this thread is an attempt to editorialize is just plain wrong.
If you want to make a rule that threads about articles should have the same titles as the articles they're about, then make it.
-
Well, if Hagee is a radical, Wright is a monster!
-
Well, if Hagee is a radical, Wright is a monster!
John Hagee and Jeremiah Wright are both radicals... and both monsters.
-
Well, if Hagee is a radical, Wright is a monster!
John Hagee and Jeremiah Wright are both radicals... and both monsters.
Yes, and Obamalama sat in the presence of a radical and a monster for 20 years and drank from his wisdom. McCain? not so much!
-
Well, if Hagee is a radical, Wright is a monster!
John Hagee and Jeremiah Wright are both radicals... and both monsters.
Yes, and Obamalama sat in the presence of a radical and a monster for 20 years and drank from his wisdom. McCain? not so much!
Ouch! :-)
-
Yes, and Obamalama sat in the presence of a radical and a monster for 20 years and drank from his wisdom. McCain? not so much!
Exactly.
-
Ya know, I think Hagee is a bit extreme in some of his statements. I heard about something he said today about the Jews and Hitler, and if he said that, he's nuckin' futs. I'll try to find the exact quote later.
-
Don't make me cart out the moderator stick. Seriously. Drop the snark. I was being fair and polite in my first post. You will not find me so accomodating in the future if you continue in this manner.
Thread titles are supposed to be accurate. Especially when quoting something another person has written. Obviously, you're free to start thread topics with your own titles when it's an original piece. You are also free to add commentary within your post under the quoted article. It would have been acceptable for you to use the correct article title "McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement and "Crazy" Comments on Holocaust" followed by something along the lines of: "I think Hagee is a radical cleric because...."
DO NOT post your opinions as facts and do not take liberties with someone else's article. I'm serious.
Are you making up the rules as you go along? I don't see anything in the rules prohibiting the editorializing of thread titles posted in the Election 2008 forum. Moreover, I see plenty of thread titles which include commentary by posters.
And, considering that John Hagee easily fits the definition of a radical as defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary, your claim that the title of this thread is an attempt to editorialize is just plain wrong.
If you want to make a rule that threads about articles should have the same titles as the articles they're about, then make it.
It's always been an understood rule. Especially in certain forums. I was fair and polite in my first response. I do not appreciate your tone at all. You will note that I did not edit your post title. I was being kind and asked you nicely to refrain from editorializing in your titles. I gave you a solid reason why. Your thread has stood unedited along with your comments. Your right to share your opinions about this subject matter have not been restricted.
And you still don't get it. You are free to editorialize all you want. But I've asked you nicely to refrain from doing so in the thread title. Titles should be accurate when cross-posting someone else's work. If need be, I will clarify this for the entire board. It makes no difference that you are correct about Hagee.
-
Ya know, I think Hagee is a bit extreme in some of his statements. I heard about something he said today about the Jews and Hitler, and if he said that, he's nuckin' futs. I'll try to find the exact quote later.
A nut is someone who expresses their stupid opinion about an event that took place over 60 years ago. A radical is someone who implores God to damn the United States of America in the here and now.
-
Ya know, I think Hagee is a bit extreme in some of his statements. I heard about something he said today about the Jews and Hitler, and if he said that, he's nuckin' futs. I'll try to find the exact quote later.
Here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErC1IJeHnyc
You are correct. John Hagee is nuts... or perhaps just plain evil.
-
Nice try, too bad:
1. Hagee is and has never been Juan's minister, he's just another Baptist preacher.
2. Hagee's rhetoric STILL pales in comparison to Barack Hussein Obama's mentor of 20 + years.
3. Juan responded like an electable POTUS candidate would, Barack Hussein Obama didn't.
-
Nice try, too bad:
1. Hagee is and has never been Juan's minister, he's just another Baptist preacher.
I agree.
2. Hagee's rhetoric STILL pales in comparison to Barack Hussein Obama's mentor of 20 + years.
I strongly disagree. John Hagee's rants are easily just as bad as Jeremiah Wright's rants. If you like, we can compare the worst of what Jeremiah Wright has said to the worst of what John Hagee has said. I'm sure that comparing Hagee's words to Wright's words will demonstrate that both men are equally stupid and/or nuts.
3. Juan responded like an electable POTUS candidate would, Barack Hussein Obama didn't.
I agree.
-
I strongly disagree. John Hagee's rants are easily just as bad as Jeremiah Wright's rants.
What, in your opinion, is "just as bad" in the anti-America department? What has Hagee said that I as an American should consider radical towards this nation? I am curious. I haven't heard his rants against this nation. I have heard Wright's.
-
I strongly disagree. John Hagee's rants are easily just as bad as Jeremiah Wright's rants. If you like, we can compare the worst of what Jeremiah Wright has said to the worst of what John Hagee has said.
Well, Hagee doesn't preach poverty but live in luxury - Wright had THAT + to the hypocrisy race. I doubt Juan has even heard a Hagee sermon before, he has a great r/l minister at the church he attends in AZ.
Hagee thinks the RCC is the beast referred to in the Book of Revelations - that IS weird, but that's almost a mainstream viewpoint for fundamentalist Protestants. And he thinks God sent Hitler to help the Jews - now THAT's twisted and psychotic, and it's "new".
Wright thinks the government deliberately infected black with AIDS, that Jesus Christ was a black separatist, and thinks the United States of Amerikkka is a racist curse on the world. Twisted and psychotic. But these are really staple stump sermons for Wright, not so for Hagee.
-
I strongly disagree. John Hagee's rants are easily just as bad as Jeremiah Wright's rants.
What, in your opinion, is "just as bad" in the anti-America department? What has Hagee said that I as an American should consider radical towards this nation? I am curious. I haven't heard his rants against this nation. I have heard Wright's.
I also haven't seen Hagee hump the podium while screaming how Bill Clinton "was riding dirty" either. :p
-
Hagee thinks the RCC is the beast referred to in the Book of Revelations - that IS weird, but that's almost a mainstream viewpoint for fundamentalist Protestants. And he thinks God sent Hitler to help the Jews - now THAT's twisted and psychotic, and it's "new".
John Hagee argues that Hurricane Katrina was a righteous act of God...
"All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." - John Hagee
John Hagee argues that Jews are responsible for antisemitism and persecution the have faced and that they continue to face...
"It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day... Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of antisemitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people." - John Hagee
But these are really staple stump sermons for Wright, not so for Hagee.
Are you kidding? John Hagee's sermons are routinely hateful and stupid.
John Hagee argues that terrorists are agents of God who will be unleashed on the US...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWMmVIAtHAU
John Hagee and associates praying for armageddon...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig
John Hagee talking crazy talk about end times while being interviewed by professional charlatan Benny Hinn...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1810563684001309912&q=Hagee+&ei=oTsrSIDTNIqcrwK02I2YCg&hl=en
Yeah... Pastor Hagee is not even nearly as crazy as Pastor Wright.
:whatever:
-
No, he's not TheNightOwl, Rev. Wright's HAMAS ties, the TUCC's Trumpet magazine isssues with Calypso Louie on the cover....all that makes him much more uhhhhhhh....crazier......than Hagee. This:
Hagee had quoted the book of Jeremiah saying, "Behold I will bring them the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers. Behold I will send for many fishers and after will I send for many hunters. And they the hunters shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks."
isn't nearly as bad nor dangerous, and what you're talking about is divine intervention, the OT is full of instances of the wrath of God coming down upon sinners, Wright says the same, they all do.
I don't know about Wright, but Hagee is a pre-trib post-mil who belives in the Rapture - he'd support Israel just to fufill Biblical prophecies.
-
No, he's not TheNightOwl, Rev. Wright's HAMAS ties, the TUCC's Trumpet magazine isssues with Calypso Louie on the cover....all that makes him much more uhhhhhhh....crazier......than Hagee.
Louis Farrakhan has called Judiasm a gutter religion and John Hagee has called Catholicism the Great Whore. And yet you see a difference between Farrakhan and Hagee? I don't. Both Farrakhan and Hagee have suggested that Jews deserved the Holocaust. And yet you see a difference between Farrakhan and Hagee? I don't.
I don't know about Wright, but Hagee is a pre-trib post-mil who belives in the Rapture - he'd support Israel just to fufill Biblical prophecies.
Correct. Pastor Hagee supports Israel only because he believes that supporting Israel will hasten the coming of End Times. If Hagee were to believe that murdering every Jew on the planet were the way to hasten the coming of End Times, he would be for that.
-
I'm still waiting to hear Hagee's anti-American political views which match or exceeds those of Jerry Wright's......tick tock....tick tock.....tick tock......
-
I'm not so certain, that his support for Israel is to hasten the coming of the End Times. As much as it's his theological views, that Christians must support Israel, as it's attacked by the 'world' ruled by the devil.
John Hagee has written that the US must attack Iran to fulfill God's plan for Israel and the West. Hagee would personally kill every Jew in Israel if he thought that doing so would bring back his precious Jesus.
-
I'm still waiting to hear Hagee's anti-American political views which match or exceeds those of Jerry Wright's......tick tock....tick tock.....tick tock......
You don't consider John Hagee's statement that God will "unleash" terrorists to punish the US to be anti-American? Wow!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWMmVIAtHAU&feature=user
-
Oh my.
I thought this party ended, and the lights turned out, a long time ago.
-
Oh my.
I thought this party ended, and the lights turned out, a long time ago.
TNO apparently has issues with Christians. I don't know, maybe molested by a priest or something?
-
TNO apparently has issues with Christians. I don't know, maybe molested by a priest or something?
The only Christians I have criticized in this thread are John Hagee, Jeremiah Wright, and Benny Hinn.
-
I'm still waiting to hear Hagee's anti-American political views which match or exceeds those of Jerry Wright's......tick tock....tick tock.....tick tock......
You don't consider John Hagee's statement that God will "unleash" terrorists to punish the US to be anti-American? Wow!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWMmVIAtHAU&feature=user
Not at all, but I am not surprised you don't see the difference? You are willfully ignorant and for some reason it is incredibly important to you that Hagee be thought of as being equally or more as despicable as that raving anti-American Wright. I don't know what's in it for you personally, but I have to tell you, it isn't working out for you.
Did you even bother to watch the video?
-
TNO apparently has issues with Christians. I don't know, maybe molested by a priest or something?
Nah.
He's just one of these people who didn't like the idea of going to church for an hour each week, nothing more than that.
That's all it is, that's the excuse for his atheism, as it is for millions of others too lazy to get up Sunday morning.
-
Not at all, but I am not surprised you don't see the difference? You are willfully ignorant and for some reason it is incredibly important to you that Hagee be thought of as being equally or more as despicable as that raving anti-American Wright. I don't know what's in it for you personally, but I have to tell you, it isn't working out for you.
Did you even bother to watch the video?
Let me lay this out for you...
The United States government, under President George W. Bush, is supportive of the two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Pastor Hagee believes that if the US government continues its policy of support for the two state-solution then God will "unleash" terrorists on the US. In other words, Hagee believes that the people of the United States deserve to be attacked for a policy which their government is currently pushing. If Hagee's belief that the people of the United States deserve terrorist attacks for their government's position on the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not an anti-American position then I don't know what is.
-
He's just one of these people who didn't like the idea of going to church for an hour each week, nothing more than that.
That's all it is, that's the excuse for his atheism, as it is for millions of others too lazy to get up Sunday morning.
Nonsense. My atheism is rooted in the fact that I'm not willing to believe in that which is not supported by evidence. That said, you are correct to point out that I do not like the idea of going to church every week. Why would an infidel like me want to go to church?
-
Not at all, but I am not surprised you don't see the difference? You are willfully ignorant and for some reason it is incredibly important to you that Hagee be thought of as being equally or more as despicable as that raving anti-American Wright. I don't know what's in it for you personally, but I have to tell you, it isn't working out for you.
Did you even bother to watch the video?
Let me lay this out for you...
The United States government, under President George W. Bush, is supportive of the two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Pastor Hagee believes that if the US government continues its policy of support for the two state-solution then God will "unleash" terrorists on the US. In other words, Hagee believes that the people of the United States deserve to be attacked for a policy which their government is currently pushing. If Hagee's belief that the people of the United States deserve terrorist attacks for their government's position on the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not an anti-American position then I don't know what is.
Let me lay it out for YOU-
No, Hagee is not saying he thinks anyone "deserves" to be attack...and you know this. Hagee states out loud what he assumes the Bible is telling him. He is warning, not hoping or calling for it. As you well know. Stop being so willfully stupid and obtuse or go find another message board to haunt. You are getting old fast.
DIRECT QUESTIONS: Why is it so incredibly important to you that Hagee be thought of as being equally or more as despicable as that raving anti-American Wright? Does it help you support your worldview? What is in it for you personally?
-
He's just one of these people who didn't like the idea of going to church for an hour each week, nothing more than that.
That's all it is, that's the excuse for his atheism, as it is for millions of others too lazy to get up Sunday morning.
Nonsense. My atheism is rooted in the fact that I'm not willing to believe in that which is not supported by evidence. That said, you are correct to point out that I do not like the idea of going to church every week. Why would an infidel like me want to go to church?
The oldest and weakest excuse for atheism. :whatever:
-
He's just one of these people who didn't like the idea of going to church for an hour each week, nothing more than that.
That's all it is, that's the excuse for his atheism, as it is for millions of others too lazy to get up Sunday morning.
Nonsense. My atheism is rooted in the fact that I'm not willing to believe in that which is not supported by evidence. That said, you are correct to point out that I do not like the idea of going to church every week. Why would an infidel like me want to go to church?
You have some sort of evidence that God doesn't exist?
-
John Hagee has written that the US must attack Iran to fulfill God's plan for Israel and the West. Hagee would personally kill every Jew in Israel if he thought that doing so would bring back his precious Jesus.
And so would Jeremiah Wright so I guess they are more alike than you want to admit.
The only difference is that McCain has dropped Hagee like a bad habit.
Barakstar! hasn't done that with Wright or his successor the Hip Hop Reverend.
What does all of this matter to you anyway? You despise religion and have a palpable dislike for believers so what do you care about all of this anyway?
-
John Hagee has written that the US must attack Iran to fulfill God's plan for Israel and the West. Hagee would personally kill every Jew in Israel if he thought that doing so would bring back his precious Jesus.
And so would Jeremiah Wright so I guess they are more alike than you want to admit.
The only difference is that McCain has dropped Hagee like a bad habit.
Barakstar! hasn't done that with Wright or his successor the Hip Hop Reverend.
What does all of this matter to you anyway? You despise religion and have a palpable dislike for believers so what do you care about all of this anyway?
Maybe he just comes here to get PW0N3D and then hit back like this... :gay2:
-
And so would Jeremiah Wright so I guess they are more alike than you want to admit.
See post #25.
-
You have some sort of evidence that God doesn't exist?
No. I can't prove that God doesn't exist. I also can't prove that faeries don't exist but I'm not going to start believing in faeries simply because I can't disprove their existence.
-
No. I can't prove that God doesn't exist.
Then why do you try so ardently to get us to believe as fact that He does NOT exist?
You can't prove He exists.
How can you then so factually state he does not?
-
No. I can't prove that God doesn't exist.
Then why do you try so ardently to get us to believe as fact that He does NOT exist?
You can't prove He exists.
How can you then so factually state he does not?
A while back "smart people" said there was no proof that the earth was round, therefore it was definately flat.
:whatever: :-)
-
Then why do you try so ardently to get us to believe as fact that He does NOT exist?
You can't prove He exists.
How can you then so factually state he does not?
My Sunday School teacher many decades ago would posit that he is being "convicted by the Holy Spirit"......
doc
-
Not at all, but I am not surprised you don't see the difference? You are willfully ignorant and for some reason it is incredibly important to you that Hagee be thought of as being equally or more as despicable as that raving anti-American Wright. I don't know what's in it for you personally, but I have to tell you, it isn't working out for you.
Did you even bother to watch the video?
Let me lay this out for you...
The United States government, under President George W. Bush, is supportive of the two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Pastor Hagee believes that if the US government continues its policy of support for the two state-solution then God will "unleash" terrorists on the US. In other words, Hagee believes that the people of the United States deserve to be attacked for a policy which their government is currently pushing. If Hagee's belief that the people of the United States deserve terrorist attacks for their government's position on the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not an anti-American position then I don't know what is.
Let me lay it out for YOU-
No, Hagee is not saying he thinks anyone "deserves" to be attack...and you know this. Hagee states out loud what he assumes the Bible is telling him. He is warning, not hoping or calling for it. As you well know. Stop being so willfully stupid and obtuse or go find another message board to haunt. You are getting old fast.
DIRECT QUESTIONS: Why is it so incredibly important to you that Hagee be thought of as being equally or more as despicable as that raving anti-American Wright? Does it help you support your worldview? What is in it for you personally?
(Repost. I was thinking this may have been overlooked at the bottom of the last page)
-
No, Hagee is not saying he thinks anyone "deserves" to be attack...and you know this. Hagee states out loud what he assumes the Bible is telling him. He is warning, not hoping or calling for it. As you well know. Stop being so willfully stupid and obtuse or go find another message board to haunt. You are getting old fast.
If Mr. Hagee believes that God will punish the US by unleashing terrorists on it, then he must believe that God would be justified in doing so.
You can't have it both ways... If you believe that God is righteous, then you have to believe that those who are the recipients of God's punishment deserve it. To believe that God would dole out punishment to those who don't deserve it is to believe that God is an unfair and malevolent tyrant.
DIRECT QUESTIONS: Why is it so incredibly important to you that Hagee be thought of as being equally or more as despicable as that raving anti-American Wright? Does it help you support your worldview? What is in it for you personally?
People are entitled to their delusions about Mr. Hagee. All I'm doing is pointing out my take on the guy.
-
Have you ever noticed that some atheists brand religious bellief as irrational and dangerous? People like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens do not make moral arguments about religion. Rather, they have created a new form of fundamentalism that attempts to permeate society with ideas about our own moral superiority and the omnipotence of human reason. There are stringent rules and rigid traditions in place as strict as those of any religious practice. Those who have placed blind faith in the morally neutral disciplines of reason and science create idols in their own image.
(that was paraphrased from a book I read called I Don't Believe in Atheists).
-
Then why do you try so ardently to get us to believe as fact that He does NOT exist?
You can't prove He exists.
How can you then so factually state he does not?
I don't claim to know for certain whether God exists or not. I don't believe that God exists but I'm not absolutely certain about it.
-
I don't claim to know for certain whether God exists or not. I don't believe that God exists but I'm not absolutely certain about it.
Ain't it gonna be a bitch when you die and find out the opposite?
-
Have you ever noticed that some atheists brand religious bellief as irrational and dangerous? People like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens do not make moral arguments about religion. Rather, they have created a new form of fundamentalism that attempts to permeate society with ideas about our own moral superiority and the omnipotence of human reason. There are stringent rules and rigid traditions in place as strict as those of any religious practice. Those who have placed blind faith in the morally neutral disciplines of reason and science create idols in their own image.
(that was paraphrased from a book I read called I Don't Believe in Atheists).
You should probably let Mr. Hitchens speak for himself. A complete audiobook of Christopher Hitchens reading his book God is not Great...
http://www.youtube.com/user/AudioBooksR4U
Listen, if you dare.
-
I don't claim to know for certain whether God exists or not. I don't believe that God exists but I'm not absolutely certain about it.
Ain't it gonna be a bitch when you die and find out the opposite?
Agnosticism is a perfectly valid perspective. Too bad TNO can't spell it much less understand it (can you feel the wind whistle past your ears as he Googles the term?)
Pascal's Wager is a bit cynical for my likes. (*whoosh* -- Google search #2).
I think we should let children like TNO off the leash from time to time -- so long as he doesn't get lost in the crowd.
-
Ain't it gonna be a bitch when you die and find out the opposite?
Maybe. Of course, if God is as benevolent and loving as it is said to be, then I'm sure it will be understanding of why I couldn't bring myself to believe.
-
If Mr. Hagee believes that God will punish the US by unleashing terrorists on it, then he must believe that God would be justified in doing so.
That's a bunch of twisted bullshit. There is no way you can honestly believe just because Hagee reports what the Bible says he believes what is reported is justified. That's just stupid.
I can read to you the warnings off a jug of bleach, and if you decide to drink it anyway, I would not be the bad guy. I merely told you what was in the warning. It also does not mean I agree the bleach should kill you.
You can't have it both ways... If you believe that God is righteous, then you have to believe that those who are the recipients of God's punishment deserve it. To believe that God would dole out punishment to those who don't deserve it is to believe that God is an unfair and malevolent tyrant.
No, once again, you are being obtuse. One does not have to agree with God. One is compelled by God to be honest about what He said. Just like the bleach jug label.
People are entitled to their delusions about Mr. Hagee. All I'm doing is pointing out my take on the guy
.
You still haven't answered the question, all you do is dance:
DIRECT QUESTIONS: Why is it so incredibly important to you that Hagee be thought of as being equally or more as despicable as that raving anti-American Wright? Does it help you support your worldview? What is in it for you personally?
-
Maybe. Of course, if God is as benevolent and loving as it is said to be, then I'm sure it will be understanding of why I couldn't bring myself to believe.
I wouldn't count on it. You've already rejected him.
-
Agnosticism is a perfectly valid perspective. Too bad TNO can't spell it much less understand it (can you feel the wind whistle past your ears as he Googles the term?)
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,6405.msg77852.html#msg77852
Pascal's Wager is a bit cynical for my likes. (*whoosh* -- Google search #2).
If you think that I am operating under Pascal's Wager, then you lack an understanding of what it is.
-
Agnosticism is a perfectly valid perspective. Too bad TNO can't spell it much less understand it (can you feel the wind whistle past your ears as he Googles the term?)
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,6405.msg77852.html#msg77852
Pascal's Wager is a bit cynical for my likes. (*whoosh* -- Google search #2).
If you think that I am operating under Pascal's Wager, then you lack an understanding of what it is.
No, I am reacting to your comment, not the fact you don't understand what PW is. Your Google-fu is weak, young child.
-
Ain't it gonna be a bitch when you die and find out the opposite?
Maybe. Of course, if God is as benevolent and loving as it is said to be, then I'm sure it will be understanding of why I couldn't bring myself to believe.
Nope. It's entirely your choice as to where you spend eternity.
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. John 3:18
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:36
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; Proverbs 3:5
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20
In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God. Psalm 10:4
-
No, I am reacting to your comment, not the fact you don't understand what PW is. Your Google-fu is weak, young child.
Oh, you can rest assured that I understand Pascal's Wager but I can't rest assured that you understand it because anyone who understands it knows that it is worse than, as you put it, "a bit" cynical... it is dishonest and cowardly.
-
Nope. It's entirely your choice as to where you spend eternity.
I'm going wherever the strippers, booze, and gambling are.
-
Nope. It's entirely your choice as to where you spend eternity.
I'm going wherever the strippers, booze, and gambling are.
You won't find that in either of your two choices. :whatever:
-
You won't find that in either of your two choices. :whatever:
Dammit! Well, that sucks.
:banghead:
-
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary...
Main Entry: 1rad·i·cal
Pronunciation: \ˈra-di-kəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root — more at root
Date: 14th century
1: of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1): of or growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers> (2): growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground <radical leaves> b: of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c: of or relating to a mathematical root d: designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue <radical surgery> <radical mastectomy>
2: of or relating to the origin : fundamental
3 a: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
4slang : excellent, cool
I think we can safely say that John Hagee's views are a considerable departure from the usual or traditional. I mean, how many Christians believe that God sent Adolf Hitler to Earth to hunt the Jews? Not any I know. And, how many Christians believe that the Holocaust was a divinely mandated action? Not any I know.
John Hagee is not just a radical cleric. He is a swine.
You've never bothered to read the book of Ezekiel, have you?
-
You've never bothered to read the book of Ezekiel, have you?
No. Should I?
-
You've never bothered to read the book of Ezekiel, have you?
No. Should I?
Before you condemn another man as a "radical cleric", maybe you should educate yourself on the text from which he speaks.
The book of Ezekiel spells out very clearly that God was going to punish the Israelites by killing 1/3 of them by the sword, killing 1/3 by famine and disease, and scatter the remnant to the wind, but they would be regathered in the promised land.
-
Nope. It's entirely your choice as to where you spend eternity.
I'm going wherever the strippers, booze, and gambling are.
Yes you are.
-
Before you condemn another man as a "radical cleric", maybe you should educate yourself on the text from which he speaks.
The book of Ezekiel spells out very clearly that God was going to punish the Israelites by killing 1/3 of them by the sword, killing 1/3 by famine and disease, and scatter the remnant to the wind, but they would be regathered in the promised land.
The fact that Mr. Hagee's words might have some basis in Scripture does not make them any less radical or repugnant than they are. If some religious zealot were to proclaim, as Moses is said to have proclaimed in the Book of Leviticus, that children who disobey their parents must be killed, would you not describe that proclamation as being both radical and repugnant?
-
he wouldn't be the first idiot, or the last, to think they know the word of God.
-
written by James Toranto
Supporters of Barack Obama had pointed to Hagee in an effort to defuse the controversy over Obama's relationship with Jeremiah "God Damn America" Wright, and McCain alluded to this in renouncing Hagee's endorsement:
McCain tried Thursday to draw a distinction between the Obama-Wright connection and his own relationships with Parsley and Hagee, saying Hagee was not his pastor.
"My church I attend is North Phoenix Baptist Church; my pastor and spiritual guide is Pastor Dan Yeary," McCain said. "I've never been to Pastor Hagee's church or Pastor Parsley's church. I didn't attend their church for 20 years. I'm not a member of their church."
We would draw another distinction here. Hagee's statement about Hitler strikes us as bizarre too. Surely an omniscient and benevolent God would have come up with a better way than Hitler of helping Jews get back to Israel. But this is in the realm of theology, something that does not worry us, a religious nonbeliever, overmuch. Politically, as far as we know, Hagee is strongly pro-Israel, a position with which we are comfortable.
Wright, by contrast, has political views that we find invidious, regardless of his claimed religious justification for them. If Obama's spiritual mentor were an atheist or a Muslim who said "Death to America" instead of a Christian who says "God damn America," it would bother us just as much.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121156305470417803.html?mod=Best+of+the+Web+Today
.
-
We can perhaps agree that he's not first-class material.
But he hasn't called for the chopping-off of heads.
Why use a euphemism to describe John Hagee? The guy is scum and no one should have any qualms about saying so.
Hagee was wrong and stupid to say what he said, but I don't think you know what Hagee believes. He is staunchly pro-Israel and pro-Judaism.
-
Before you condemn another man as a "radical cleric", maybe you should educate yourself on the text from which he speaks.
The book of Ezekiel spells out very clearly that God was going to punish the Israelites by killing 1/3 of them by the sword, killing 1/3 by famine and disease, and scatter the remnant to the wind, but they would be regathered in the promised land.
The fact that Mr. Hagee's words might have some basis in Scripture does not make them any less radical or repugnant than they are.
Might have some basis in scripture? Any less "radical or repugnant"? If you can be honest with yourself, ask what was the single most influential event, and person, that played in the founding of the modern day state of Israel?
If some religious zealot were to proclaim, as Moses is said to have proclaimed in the Book of Leviticus, that children who disobey their parents must be killed, would you not describe that proclamation as being both radical and repugnant?
So, by your post, anyone who takes the Bible literally is a radical, is repugnant, or a religious zealot. Interesting. You haven't read the relevant scripture even though I gave you the book in which they are located and you are guessing at the laws that were given to Moses by God (not proclaimed by Moses).
After so blatant a display of ignorance, tell me, exactly why should I accept your premise?
-
Before you condemn another man as a "radical cleric", maybe you should educate yourself on the text from which he speaks.
The book of Ezekiel spells out very clearly that God was going to punish the Israelites by killing 1/3 of them by the sword, killing 1/3 by famine and disease, and scatter the remnant to the wind, but they would be regathered in the promised land.
The fact that Mr. Hagee's words might have some basis in Scripture does not make them any less radical or repugnant than they are.
Might have some basis in scripture? Any less "radical or repugnant"? If you can be honest with yourself, ask what was the single most influential event, and person, that played in the founding of the modern day state of Israel?
If some religious zealot were to proclaim, as Moses is said to have proclaimed in the Book of Leviticus, that children who disobey their parents must be killed, would you not describe that proclamation as being both radical and repugnant?
So, by your post, anyone who takes the Bible literally is a radical, is repugnant, or a religious zealot. Interesting. You haven't read the relevant scripture even though I gave you the book in which they are located and you are guessing at the laws that were given to Moses by God (not proclaimed by Moses).
After so blatant a display of ignorance, tell me, exactly why should I accept your premise?
The Nocturnal Emission does not answer direct questions. Liberalism cannot exist and answer direct questions at the same time.
-
Ezekiel was awesome...don't forget what he did to his hair to symbolize the 1/3 idea. And he had to eat gross bread. ::)
Before you condemn another man as a "radical cleric", maybe you should educate yourself on the text from which he speaks.
The book of Ezekiel spells out very clearly that God was going to punish the Israelites by killing 1/3 of them by the sword, killing 1/3 by famine and disease, and scatter the remnant to the wind, but they would be regathered in the promised land.
The fact that Mr. Hagee's words might have some basis in Scripture does not make them any less radical or repugnant than they are. If some religious zealot were to proclaim, as Moses is said to have proclaimed in the Book of Leviticus, that children who disobey their parents must be killed, would you not describe that proclamation as being both radical and repugnant?
I think I've lost track of this thread, but I get the impression from reading some of your posts that you were either brought up with no religion or one that would avoid eschatology...maybe Catholic or Mormon?
But , if some religious zealot did say that, it would be fair IMO to declare the entire religion to be "radical and repugnant" - I call that "Islam".
-
How does every thread that TNO participates in turn into a debate about the existence of God? :whatever:
We get it. You don't believe. Fine. Good luck with that. Does every debate you participate in have to go back to that?
-
Before you condemn another man as a "radical cleric", maybe you should educate yourself on the text from which he speaks.
The book of Ezekiel spells out very clearly that God was going to punish the Israelites by killing 1/3 of them by the sword, killing 1/3 by famine and disease, and scatter the remnant to the wind, but they would be regathered in the promised land.
The fact that Mr. Hagee's words might have some basis in Scripture does not make them any less radical or repugnant than they are.
Might have some basis in scripture? Any less "radical or repugnant"? If you can be honest with yourself, ask what was the single most influential event, and person, that played in the founding of the modern day state of Israel?
If some religious zealot were to proclaim, as Moses is said to have proclaimed in the Book of Leviticus, that children who disobey their parents must be killed, would you not describe that proclamation as being both radical and repugnant?
So, by your post, anyone who takes the Bible literally is a radical, is repugnant, or a religious zealot. Interesting. You haven't read the relevant scripture even though I gave you the book in which they are located and you are guessing at the laws that were given to Moses by God (not proclaimed by Moses).
After so blatant a display of ignorance, tell me, exactly why should I accept your premise?
The Nocturnal Emission does not answer direct questions. Liberalism cannot exist and answer direct questions at the same time.
Oh, I know that. But it is fun to have it put on display. :-)
-
How does every thread that TNO participates in turn into a debate about the existence of God? :whatever:
We get it. You don't believe. Fine. Good luck with that. Does every debate you participate in have to go back to that?
Yep. Limited to a single dimension.
-
How does every thread that TNO participates in turn into a debate about the existence of God? :whatever:
We get it. You don't believe. Fine. Good luck with that. Does every debate you participate in have to go back to that?
not every thread that he participates in turns into an "anti-God" thread, just every thread that he starts. we have
an operational agreement.
-
Yeah, one wonders how many women this "radical cleric" has suppressed, or how many heads this "radical cleric" has chopped off, or how many holy wars, jihads, this "radical cleric" has called for.
The nocturnally foul one's doing that old trick again, equating a minor irritant, this "radical cleric" with an authentic threat, as if they're equal.
LOL! One does not need to chop off heads to be a radical. At least not in my book.
True, just think like a liberal democrat. Rev. Wright, greaseball Al, Jessie and Obama come to mind.