Obama resigns his church membership...

Well zig it looks like this is one of the times we disagree.

You cant make up for one injustice by perpetrating another. imo.

Who is perpetuating another injustice here, other than the same guys who have always perpetuated injustices- the guys who keep working people like you and me fighting among ourselves while they grin and reap the rewards of our labors?

And those are the same set of folks who have guys like Bush & Cheney fomenting international strife and wars spawned from that strife- but which working people are expected to fight for them. And it is crap like that which Jeremiah Wright is talking aboiut when he says, "God damn America". And if folks would focus on his whole talk that day instead of just on the spoon fed sound bites the media feeds us daily, more of us would understand.

Again Sherm, look at the big picture here. The Clintons are with the bosses- with the guys who profit from having us fight over race and religion while the bigger issues of economic justice are glossed over. And they are once again focusing the blame on the victims of the economic bosses who bankroll their campaigns. But because we are down in the ditches arguing about who is more racist than who and who is more religious than who, we are letting them once again divide us over petty crap while they continue to rob us blind. Look at the big picture, Sherm.

Obama is the guy who wouldl bring the real reformers on board. The biggest threat to the Green Party today is that Obama will get the nomination and that the progressive reformers will ditch the Green Party and even guys like Nader to support Obama. "What difference would that make?", someone might ask. Ask Al Gore.

Look at the big picture, Sherm.

Stephanie wrote:Oh my.......

Ziggy, do you think OJ Simpson is innocent of murdering Nicole and Ron Goldman?

No. But I think that the LA police department and the prosecution team and Judge Ito so screwed up the evidence and corrupted the judicial precedures that they deserved to lose. That is not to suggest that OJ deserved to get off free. He didn't. But the police and the prosecution did not deserve to win. They corrupted the evidence and the procedures, and so they got a corrupted jury verdict. What did they expect, anyway? Corruption breeds corruption- from the police right down to the jury. Why is that surprising?

If you're saying that the proscution DESERVED to lose, then you're saying the defense DESERVED to win, hence you have no problem with a man getting away with murder.

Seems you don't have a problem with people getting what they deserve, huh Frank. Just like all the guys that didn't go to Canada???

ziggy wrote:I agree with Jeremiah Wright that no way was the God of the slave owner the same God as that of slave. Why? Simply because "it does not compute".

And Ziggy, just why do you think that "it does not compute"?

If people would quit looking at it with "racially biased eyeballs", ........ then yes, ...... it does compute.

The slave owners did no more wrong ..... than did the slave traders who purchased or traded for the slaves they sold to the slave owners. And the slave traders done even less wrong ......... than the tribal chiefs/village leaders who sold or traded their own people, ..... or people from other tribes/villages, ..... to said slave traders.

If the slave owners in the Americas, slave traders of the Alantic and the tribal chiefs/village leaders in Africa ....... were all wheelers n' dealers in the act of slavery, ....... then that was of their "religion" .......... and thus the slaves that were traded were also of that "religion" because of their membership and/or association with the tribe or village that were selling slaves to the slave traders.

.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Oh my.......

Ziggy, do you think OJ Simpson is innocent of murdering Nicole and Ron Goldman?

No. But I think that the LA police department and the prosecution team and Judge Ito so screwed up the evidence and corrupted the judicial precedures that they deserved to lose. That is not to suggest that OJ deserved to get off free. He didn't. But the police and the prosecution did not deserve to win. They corrupted the evidence and the procedures, and so they got a corrupted jury verdict. What did they expect, anyway? Corruption breeds corruption- from the police right down to the jury. Why is that surprising?

Now Zigster, I was just about to commend you on your up above post about "looking at the big picture", ....... but I guess I will cancel that idea because it appears you reverted back to "tunnel vision" with your above statement.

Zig, a question for you, ......... just why was Judge Ito appointed to preside over the OJ trial?

Da ya think ya can answer that correctly?

.

Well Zigster, after your revertal to "tunnel-visioning" I came back and re-scrutenizzzed your "big picture" post ...... and don't like the looks of what I overlooked previously, to wit:

ziggy wrote:Who is perpetuating another injustice here, other than the same guys who have always perpetuated injustices- the guys who keep working people like you and me fighting among ourselves while they grin and reap the rewards of our labors?

And those are the same set of folks who have guys like Bush & Cheney fomenting international strife and wars spawned from that strife- but which working people are expected to fight for them. And it is crap like that which Jeremiah Wright is talking aboiut when he says, "God damn America". And if folks would focus on his whole talk that day instead of just on the spoon fed sound bites the media feeds us daily, more of us would understand.

After one reads that closely ..... they just might be asking themself ........ "Is dat one of them fellows Bob Byrd was referring to?"

Zigster, depending on what "color" glasses one is looking through ......... there is not much difference in what Jeremiah Wright "preaches" .......... and what you are "preaching" in your above.

Of course, you already stated that in your last sentence of the above.

cheers

Aaron wrote:If you're saying that the proscution DESERVED to lose, then you're saying the defense DESERVED to win, hence you have no problem with a man getting away with murder.

No, again you want to talk about words you chose instead of the words I used. The defense did not win anything. The police and the prosecutors lost that case- they flat out lost it due to their own lies and incompetence.

Do you believe that the LA P.D. and the prosecution in that case conducted themselves in a way that they deserved to win? They forget that they represented the state of California- and so they put on their own show for their own purposes.

Seems you don't have a problem with people getting what they deserve, huh Frank. Just like all the guys that didn't go to Canada??

If you are talking about the draft resistors who stayed in the U.S. and went to prison rather than become fodder for LBJ's insane war machine, they knew the consequences of disobeying the law, willingly paid the price, and they hold their heads high today. As to those who went to Canada during the Johnson and Nixon years, they got a pardon- but not until several years after Johnson died and Nixon got his own full pardon.

SamCogar wrote:Zig, a question for you, ......... just why was Judge Ito appointed to preside over the OJ trial?

Da ya think ya can answer that correctly?

No. I do not know the answer to that question.

SamCogar wrote:Zigster, depending on what "color" glasses one is looking through ......... there is not much difference in what Jeremiah Wright "preaches" .......... and what you are "preaching" in your above.

Of course, you already stated that in your last sentence of the above. cheers

And it's not much different than what I've preached here often these past several years- that we are often our own worst enemy.

SamCogar wrote:The slave owners did no more wrong ..... than did the slave traders who purchased or traded for the slaves they sold to the slave owners. And the slave traders done even less wrong ......... than the tribal chiefs/village leaders who sold or traded their own people, ..... or people from other tribes/villages, ..... to said slave traders.

If the slave owners in the Americas, slave traders of the Alantic and the tribal chiefs/village leaders in Africa ....... were all wheelers n' dealers in the act of slavery, ....... then that was of their "religion" .......... and thus the slaves that were traded were also of that "religion" because of their membership and/or association with the tribe or village that were selling slaves to the slave traders.

.

That's about like saying that embezzlement of bank funds is OK as long as the bank president and board of directors are in on it with their own fingers in the pot- and that the bank stockholders and depositors who are victimized are a part of that "religion" because of their association with the bank.

The depositors who lost bundles beyond what FDIC insured at the 1st National Bank of Keystone will be comforted by your thought that they deserved to be treated as black slaves in America were treated.

ziggy wrote:
No, again you want to talk about words you chose instead of the words I used. The defense did not win anything. The police and the prosecutors lost that case- they flat out lost it due to their own lies and incompetence.

HORSEPUCKY, .......

The police and the prosecutors WON as much in that case ...... as they wanted to WIN.

No more, ..... no less, ....... including witness testimonies, evidence presentation, Jury deliberation, the Verdict and the most critical of all, ..... the publics reaction to said Verdict.

A "WIN" don't get any better than that.

.

ziggy wrote:Well, Sherm and Sheik seem to be of one mind about that "one" God philosophy- though were we to examine their respective Gods we would likely see that they are not at all the same Gods.

But either way that makes for a giant religious / social chasm among us.

I agree with Jeremiah Wright that no way was the God of the slave owner the same God as that of slave. Why? Simply because "it does not compute". And from those diverse as diverse can be 200 year old gods descend the gods we alternately curse and praise today- depending on our moods, which are usually brought about by our current plights. And our respective plights are not wholly unrelated to the circumstances of our ancestors and of their gods of two centuries ago.

So go figure.

Ziggy,

Do both the slave and the slave owner believe in the same God? In many cases, yes. Do both the slave and the slave owner have incomplete and at times contradictory beliefs about this God? Sure. Either God favored the African slave trade or He did not. One side is right and the other is wrong. However, differing opinions on the same Person does not mean that the Person is multiple or fails to exist.

My wife and I left Evanston February 1st, a town that is widely praised around these parts as beautiful and intellectually stimulating. We hated it. Now, does Evanston fail to exist because many people have one opinion of it and my wife and I have another? Or, are there two Evanstons? Of course not.

Similarly, there is no reason to believe in a multiplicity of gods or a lack of gods just because people have different opinions on who He is and what He is like. No doubt some are closer to the Truth than others; that does not mean that Truth does not exist.

ziggy wrote:
That's about like saying that embezzlement of bank funds is OK as long as the bank president and board of directors are in on it with their own fingers in the pot- and that the bank stockholders and depositors who are victimized are a part of that "religion" because of their association with the bank.

NO, ...... NO, ...... NO, ...... NO, ...... NO, ...... NO, ......

That's about like saying that the extortion of taxpayer dollars is OK as long as the School Board, School Administration, school employees and Legislators are in on it with their own fingers in the pot- and that the taxpayers and students and their families who are victimized are a part of that "religion" because of their association with the Educational System in West Virginia.



.

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:Zig, a question for you, ......... just why was Judge Ito appointed to preside over the OJ trial?

Da ya think ya can answer that correctly?

No. I do not know the answer to that question.

Zig, I''ll give ya a clue.

What nationality, .... aka "race" ........ was/is Judge Ito?



.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:If you're saying that the proscution DESERVED to lose, then you're saying the defense DESERVED to win, hence you have no problem with a man getting away with murder.

No, again you want to talk about words you chose instead of the words I used. The defense did not win anything. The police and the prosecutors lost that case- they flat out lost it due to their own lies and incompetence.

Do you believe that the LA P.D. and the prosecution in that case conducted themselves in a way that they deserved to win? They forget that they represented the state of California- and so they put on their own show for their own purposes.

Seems you don't have a problem with people getting what they deserve, huh Frank. Just like all the guys that didn't go to Canada??

If you are talking about the draft resistors who stayed in the U.S. and went to prison rather than become fodder for LBJ's insane war machine, they knew the consequences of disobeying the law, willingly paid the price, and they hold their heads high today. As to those who went to Canada during the Johnson and Nixon years, they got a pardon- but not until several years after Johnson died and Nixon got his own full pardon.

The defense WON OJ Simpson's freedom when DNA evidence proved he killed two people. So you have NO problem with a man getting away with murder becasue the prosecution screwed it up.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Do both the slave and the slave owner believe in the same God? In many cases, yes. Do both the slave and the slave owner have incomplete and at times contradictory beliefs about this God? Sure. Either God favored the African slave trade or He did not. One side is right and the other is wrong. However, differing opinions on the same Person does not mean that the Person is multiple or fails to exist.

So did God first favor the 15th-16th century new world slave trade, and then changed his mind by the 19th century?

My wife and I left Evanston February 1st, a town that is widely praised around these parts as beautiful and intellectually stimulating. We hated it. Now, does Evanston fail to exist because many people have one opinion of it and my wife and I have another? Or, are there two Evanstons? Of course not.

My wife and I left Evanston February 1st, a town that is widely praised around these parts as beautiful and intellectually stimulating. We hated it. Now, does Evanston fail to exist because many people have one opinion of it and my wife and I have another? Or, are there two Evanstons? Of course not.

Evanston exists outside of and independently of the people who happen to like or not like Evanston- or who even know nothing about Evanston. The Mayor of Evanston could show me Evanston though I have never been there. Other evidence convinces me that you are truthful when you tell us about Evanston- that it is a real place- you or your spouse's like or dislike of Evanston notwithstanding. Conversally, I would have no reason to believe it if someone told me that there were two towns in Illinois called Evanston. That would not mean that there weren't two such towns- only that I am without evidence to believe that there are two.

Similarly, there is no reason to believe in a multiplicity of gods or a lack of gods just because people have different opinions on who He is and what He is like.

Using your Evanston example, there are many creeks and more than one mountain in West Virginia called "Laurel Creek" or "Laurel Mountain". I have been to several of them- but not all. So if someone tries to tell me that there is only one Laurel Creek or Laurel Run or Laurel Mountain, I likely will not believe that because I have seen more than one of each.

Similarly, there is no reason to believe in a multiplicity of gods or a lack of gods just because people have different opinions on who He is and what He is like.

That gets back to what is God. And as I see people interact with their Gods, it is apparent to me that people's God are made to confirm our individual choices and our lots in life. We control our Gods, not vice-versa.

No doubt some are closer to the Truth than others; that does not mean that Truth does not exist.

I have never suggested that truth does not exist- only that to the extent that we, whether individually or collectively do not know truth, then we have more to learn.

Aaron wrote:The defense WON OJ Simpson's freedom when DNA evidence proved he killed two people. So you have NO problem with a man getting away with murder becasue the prosecution screwed it up.

No.

That is just B.S. Aaron-spin.

People who are guilty as hell are often found "not guilty" by juries- whether by the prosecutor screwing it up, by a bribed jury, or because the guilty defendant "looked like a decent person" to the jurors. How does that mean that someone, Ziggy or anyone else, had "NO problem" with the defendant getting by with his / her crimes?

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Do both the slave and the slave owner believe in the same God? In many cases, yes. Do both the slave and the slave owner have incomplete and at times contradictory beliefs about this God? Sure. Either God favored the African slave trade or He did not. One side is right and the other is wrong. However, differing opinions on the same Person does not mean that the Person is multiple or fails to exist.

So did God first favor the 15th-16th century new world slave trade, and then changed his mind by the 19th century?

My wife and I left Evanston February 1st, a town that is widely praised around these parts as beautiful and intellectually stimulating. We hated it. Now, does Evanston fail to exist because many people have one opinion of it and my wife and I have another? Or, are there two Evanstons? Of course not.

My wife and I left Evanston February 1st, a town that is widely praised around these parts as beautiful and intellectually stimulating. We hated it. Now, does Evanston fail to exist because many people have one opinion of it and my wife and I have another? Or, are there two Evanstons? Of course not.

Evanston exists outside of and independently of the people who happen to like or not like Evanston- or who even know nothing about Evanston. The Mayor of Evanston could show me Evanston though I have never been there. Other evidence convinces me that you are truthful when you tell us about Evanston- that it is a real place- you or your spouse's like or dislike of Evanston notwithstanding. Conversally, I would have no reason to believe it if someone told me that there were two towns in Illinois called Evanston. That would not mean that there weren't two such towns- only that I am without evidence to believe that there are two.

Similarly, there is no reason to believe in a multiplicity of gods or a lack of gods just because people have different opinions on who He is and what He is like.

Using your Evanston example, there are many creeks and more than one mountain in West Virginia called "Laurel Creek" or "Laurel Mountain". I have been to several of them- but not all. So if someone tries to tell me that there is only one Laurel Creek or Laurel Run or Laurel Mountain, I likely will not believe that because I have seen more than one of each.

Similarly, there is no reason to believe in a multiplicity of gods or a lack of gods just because people have different opinions on who He is and what He is like.

That gets back to what is God. And as I see people interact with their Gods, it is apparent to me that people's God are made to confirm our individual choices and our lots in life. We control our Gods, not vice-versa.

No doubt some are closer to the Truth than others; that does not mean that Truth does not exist.

I have never suggested that truth does not exist- only that to the extent that we, whether individually or collectively do not know truth, then we have more to learn.

If you mean to say that gods created by our minds to serve us are many and different from one another, I.

agree. I take issue with your denial of an actual God, who exists independently of our own preferences.

Of course there is more proof for Evanston (pity) than there is for God. And I can't tell you why it is that God has not decided to make His presence as obvious as the presence of Evanston's, or at least as obvious to us. But herein lies the rub, God allows us to make our own choices about what to believe. I do not know why He does this. I'd just as soon He make Himself obvious and have everybody worship Him in His splendor. For whatever reason He chooses to give us our own free will. I'd rather not have it.

If you would, Zig, I'd rather be controlled completely by God, but I am not. For whatever reason He chooses not to, even when asked.

Incidentally, Ziggy, not all slavery is the same. I am not saying that God approved of 15th and 16th century slavery, just that one situation is different from another.

Is it bad to be a slave to a kind master? No worse than to work for McDonald's (an unkind master).

SheikBen wrote:If you mean to say that gods created by our minds to serve us are many and different from one another, I agree.

Well, we are making some progress, anyway.

I take issue with your denial of an actual God, who exists independently of our own preferences.

I do not deny an actual God. What I deny is that God must be a supernatural character.

But herein lies the rub, God allows us to make our own choices about what to believe. I do not know why He does this. I'd just as soon He make Himself obvious and have everybody worship Him in His splendor. For whatever reason He chooses to give us our own free will. I'd rather not have it.

And I'd rather not be an unthinking robot.

If you would, Zig, I'd rather be controlled completely by God, but I am not. For whatever reason He chooses not to, even when asked.

Maybe that's because, even with God, all things are not possible.

SheikBen wrote:Incidentally, Ziggy, not all slavery is the same. I am not saying that God approved of 15th and 16th century slavery, just that one situation is different from another.

Is it bad to be a slave to a kind master? No worse than to work for McDonald's (an unkind master).

Now there, in these two short sentences, is a thought worth pondering, Sheik- and pondering often.

Incidentally, Ziggy, not all slavery is the same. I am not saying that God approved of 15th and 16th century slavery, just that one situation is different from another.

Is it bad to be a slave to a kind master? No worse than to work for McDonald's (an unkind master).

[threadjack]

Except you can leave employment at McDonald's without being chased down by men with dogs.

Slavery is slavery. Slavery in the bible is no different than how we think of it today. If you are not free to leave, you are a slave. If your life, from who you marry to whether you live and die, depends on the whim of another, you are a slave.

Of course, if a man is truly free and determined to remain so, you can't enslave him, you can only kill him.

[/threadjack]

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:If you're saying that the proscution DESERVED to lose, then you're saying the defense DESERVED to win, hence you have no problem with a man getting away with murder.

No, again you want to talk about words you chose instead of the words I used. The defense did not win anything. The police and the prosecutors lost that case- they flat out lost it due to their own lies and incompetence.

Do you believe that the LA P.D. and the prosecution in that case conducted themselves in a way that they deserved to win? They forget that they represented the state of California- and so they put on their own show for their own purposes.

Seems you don't have a problem with people getting what they deserve, huh Frank. Just like all the guys that didn't go to Canada??

If you are talking about the draft resistors who stayed in the U.S. and went to prison rather than become fodder for LBJ's insane war machine, they knew the consequences of disobeying the law, willingly paid the price, and they hold their heads high today. As to those who went to Canada during the Johnson and Nixon years, they got a pardon- but not until several years after Johnson died and Nixon got his own full pardon.

Nichole and Ron, and their family and friends, deserve justice.

That maniac killed the mother of his children and then was granted custody of them.

Situations like this sometimes make me hope I'm wrong.....there is a god and there is a hell. OJ Simpson certainly belongs there.

TerryRC wrote:Incidentally, Ziggy, not all slavery is the same. I am not saying that God approved of 15th and 16th century slavery, just that one situation is different from another.

Is it bad to be a slave to a kind master? No worse than to work for McDonald's (an unkind master).

[threadjack]

Except you can leave employment at McDonald's without being chased down by men with dogs.

Slavery is slavery. Slavery in the bible is no different than how we think of it today. If you are not free to leave, you are a slave. If your life, from who you marry to whether you live and die, depends on the whim of another, you are a slave.

Of course, if a man is truly free and determined to remain so, you can't enslave him, you can only kill him.

[/threadjack]

I am all about the threadjack. I'm not much for organization.

I don't think slaves would agree with you, Terry. In a sense, we all serve somebody or something. While it is true that we are not chased down by dogs if we dare to be free, we do live our lives (at least most of us) with a fair part devoted to things we'd rather not do, with the threat of hunger and charges of neglect if we do not comply.

So far so good at my end, as I was just emancipated from my ag-related gig. I'm back to doing only what I wish. But even in my world there are poopie diapers to change.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:If you mean to say that gods created by our minds to serve us are many and different from one another, I agree.

Well, we are making some progress, anyway.

I take issue with your denial of an actual God, who exists independently of our own preferences.

I do not deny an actual God. What I deny is that God must be a supernatural character.

But herein lies the rub, God allows us to make our own choices about what to believe. I do not know why He does this. I'd just as soon He make Himself obvious and have everybody worship Him in His splendor. For whatever reason He chooses to give us our own free will. I'd rather not have it.

And I'd rather not be an unthinking robot.

If you would, Zig, I'd rather be controlled completely by God, but I am not. For whatever reason He chooses not to, even when asked.

Maybe that's because, even with God, all things are not possible.

Very cute, Zig.

You'd rather not be an unthinking robot, and yet you demand that God (supernatural) proves His existence (thus forcing Himself on you) before you will believe in Him.