This morning my grandmother was complaining about the state of our world ("What is this world coming to?"). She mentioned that after the Chris Brown and Rihanna (or however you spell her name) incident, a poll was conducted in England showing that the majority of young males (below age 30) think that it is appropriate to beat their wives "when they deserve it." I politely told my grandmother that I do not believe that poll for a second and that many statistics are just made up. She responded with, "[some name - I can't remember who] wouldn't lie in statistics; he's a good Christian man; he's strong in his faith." I just laughed... I thought that was one of the stupidest statements that I've heard in a while.
So here's my question: Should someone be trusted just because they're a Christian? Will Christians not lie to further their political agendas? Is there anyone who thinks that the statement even remotely has any merit?
Edited for syntax errors...
Last edited by Afaceinthematrix on Wed Mar 11, 2009 11:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
One name;
Kent Hovind
I thinkt that sums it up I think.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
One name;
Kent Hovind
I thinkt that sums it up I think. |
Yep that pretty much sums it up for me as well. No other names needed... hehe.Here's an amusing link I came across which may be pertinent;
http://www.jesus21.com/portal/index.php?s=criminals I believe that a person can only be judged by their actions.
Affiliation with a certain group may be nothing more than an attempt to appear a certain way - such as a dull middle aged man wanting to appear important so he joins the Masons, or a politician wanting to appear trustworthy (or wanting to make himself appealing to a certain demographic) joining a church and being vocal about his religion.
I've known many Christian liars, but the I've also known Jewish liars and Neo-pagan con-men. I knew a lady who did charity work - not because she cared about helping people, but because she was trying to impress a guy she liked with her non-existent sense of compassion.
I've also known people from those same groups who walked the walk - they are truly good people who live what they believe. And I've known some atheists who where honest to a fault.
You can't judge a person by his or her affiliations or claims, only by his or her actions.
Indeed Jinx, I was not suggesting differently, since I completely agree.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
One name;
Kent Hovind
I thinkt that sums it up I think. |
Yup... That pretty much sums it up. That's the first name that came to my head this morning... Although I didn't mention it in my original post because I didn't want to express my opinion or anything quite yet... I wanted to see what people would say first... It doesn't look like many people here are willing to accept that Christians "don't lie..."
Sure many Christians don't lie... but many do... Jinx was right on the money when he/she said that it's on an individual bases and that affiliation with a group doesn't mean jack...
P.S. I know that there are some people here from the U.K... I would like to know, am I correct (which I really hope that I am) in my assumption that the poll was bullshit and that most people do NOT think it is acceptable to beat their wives "when they deserve it?"To answer your question, I don't know how to say this more accurately:
NO.
Natural trust for affiliates is understandable however.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| So here's my question: Should someone be trusted just because they're a Christian? Will Christians not lie to further their political agendas? Is there anyone who thinks that the statement even remotely has any merit? |
Ought, or is? ^_^;
How should it be? Well i agree with pretty much everyone here (which, by the way, i note is almost exclusively atheists ^_^): it shouldn't be so.
But how is it? Well... unfortunately. According to a Swedish survey (this is just the relevant data to this discussion):
| Code: |
POPULATIONS SAMPLED:
Group Sample n
-------------------------------
A All 700
B Christian believers 96
C Convinced atheists 59
WHICH GROUP IS MORE TRUSTWORTHY?:
Comparison group 1 Comparison group 2
----------------------------------------
Christian believers Convinced atheists
RAW ANSWERS:
Group 1 much more 1 a bit more Equally much 2 a bit more 2 much more
(-2) (-1) (0) (1) (2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 5.9% 17.0% 63.9% 9.7% 3.6%
B 21.9% 28.1% 49.0% 1.0% 0.0%
C 0.0% 1.7% 50.8% 28.8% 18.6%
BALANCE MEASURE:
Group Balance measure
-----------------------
A -0.12
B -0.71
C +0.64
|
From this, you can see that the general population was slightly more likely to trust Christians than strong atheists (and by the way, Sweden is anywhere from ~50% to ~85% atheist, but here they are talking about strong atheists, not atheists in general). And Christians were actually more likely to trust Christians than strong atheists, by any measure (-0.71 on average, and more than half by number).
However. ^_^ Note that strong atheists are, on average, more likely to trust strong atheists rather than Christians (+0.64)... but not as much as Christians trust Christians (slightly more than half of atheists trusted Christians at least as much as strong atheists).
So whether or not it should happen... it does happen... and it goes both ways (especially if you assume atheists in general follow the same trend as strong atheists). | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
So here's my question: Should someone be trusted just because they're a Christian? Will Christians not lie to further their political agendas? Is there anyone who thinks that the statement even remotely has any merit?
Edited for syntax errors... |
ZERO merit! Especially if Christian is "quoted" as part of the argument. That would be a red flag to me. Has always been. I don't like sweeping statements like that anyway. Even if the study was by a trusted source there are just too many variables along the who, where, what, how lines with statements like these.
Indi's stats are interesting. I wonder however when they do these surveys, whether the percentages for Christian could be distorted by non-believers who just don't feel comfortable with any other category. I.e. people who feel uncomfortable with being grouped with Atheism, yet do not have real Christian beliefs.Now the story goes further...
Does being a Christian automatically make you qualified in politics?
My mother and I were having a discussion about politics today. She's an open Obama hater. I said that I didn't like Obama too much, but that I didn't like the most likely alternative too much, either. I said that while I like many of McCain's ideas, I have a strong dislike towards Palin, her ideas, and her politics. I said that McCain lost my vote because of Palin. She was shocked that I didn't like Palin.
She said that Palin is a good woman with strong Christian values. So now she's implying that all strong Christians must be strong politicians. Does anyone think that this statement has any merit (I have a strong feeling towards what the answers will be; I'm just asking because this will lead up to a much bigger and deeper question later. I'm just going for some build up questions and answers).
I'm sorry, but that "A christian would never lie" crap is pretty bogus. I'm a Christian and I'll admit that I lie. If the worst thing in life I've done was lie, then I'd be an angel compared to what I have done.
People want to believe that strong Christians are good people. Although we all know that whenever we see someone speeding on the road there is always some kind of Jesus sticker on their car...hehe. It really comes down to two things: People are more likely to trust those like them, and the wrong, but prevailing belief that non-Christians have no morals and are all evil people.
also... what are these Christian values supposed to be anyways? The bible tells us to keep many values and judgments that many today would find wrong.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Indi's stats are interesting. I wonder however when they do these surveys, whether the percentages for Christian could be distorted by non-believers who just don't feel comfortable with any other category. I.e. people who feel uncomfortable with being grouped with Atheism, yet do not have real Christian beliefs. |
That's not how those surveys work. The people listed under Christian believers are the ones who explicitly identified themselves as committed Christians, and the ones listed as convinced atheists are the ones who said that's what they were. Those who were vague or who opted not to answer were not counted in either group. (Note that of 700 people surveyed, 100 were Christian believers and 60 were convinced atheists. That leaves 540 unaccounted for. Since this is Sweden, it is highly unlikely that all 540 of these were of other religions like Buddhist or Muslim. If i were to guess what they are, i'd say ~400 are atheist and virtually all the rest Christian. Maybe a half dozen or so from other religions.)Here in Britain Tony Blair kept silent about his religion whilst in office, but once out, he visited the Pope, became Catholic, and attends church regularly.
He helped start the Iraq War.
| Indi wrote: |
| That's not how those surveys work. The people listed under Christian believers are the ones who explicitly identified themselves as committed Christians, and the ones listed as convinced atheists are the ones who said that's what they were. Those who were vague or who opted not to answer were not counted in either group. (Note that of 700 people surveyed, 100 were Christian believers and 60 were convinced atheists. That leaves 540 unaccounted for. Since this is Sweden, it is highly unlikely that all 540 of these were of other religions like Buddhist or Muslim. If i were to guess what they are, i'd say ~400 are atheist and virtually all the rest Christian. Maybe a half dozen or so from other religions.) |
Thanks for the explanation Indi, one could probably also add that the Swedish generally are not fearful of stating their religion and also very precise in their views (they would have been unhappy with my point of view for sure). Some may have been uncertain, and the methodology of the questionnaire as explained by you covered the uncertainties expertly. Swedish are renowned for their survey expertise.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
Now the story goes further...
Does being a Christian automatically make you qualified in politics?
My mother and I were having a discussion about politics today. She's an open Obama hater. I said that I didn't like Obama too much, but that I didn't like the most likely alternative too much, either. I said that while I like many of McCain's ideas, I have a strong dislike towards Palin, her ideas, and her politics. I said that McCain lost my vote because of Palin. She was shocked that I didn't like Palin.
She said that Palin is a good woman with strong Christian values. So now she's implying that all strong Christians must be strong politicians. Does anyone think that this statement has any merit (I have a strong feeling towards what the answers will be; I'm just asking because this will lead up to a much bigger and deeper question later. I'm just going for some build up questions and answers). |
First your Grandmom, now your Mom .... Question for me would be has Palin really got strong Christian values, or more the perception of Christian values? How do we know she is a "strong" Christian? Politicans are good at selling anything that can buy them votes. I believe that strong politicians could be Christian, but not all Christians are strong politicians. In Palin's case I would be worried about her ability with spending public money. She has been caught out with mistakes in statements about American history and current economy, so obviously has very little substance as a politician. I agree that Obama was the best choice, and that does not necessarily make him the ideal candidate, but McCain very much the weak candidate. There was not much of an offering by the Republican or Democratic Parties. Obama is not a bad choice, but there has to be better candidates in the United States. Ocalhoun in a recent posting showed that this could be due to the two-party antiquated system of electing candidates.
Last edited by deanhills on Sat Mar 14, 2009 5:22 pm; edited 1 time in totalAfter reading this whole post, I believe that most everyone here is correct in some form or fashion.
-People that are like each other like to be grouped together.
-Christians lie too
-People that do not have religion are not all bad people that hate the world
| deanhills wrote: |
| First your Grandmom, now your Mom .... Question for me would be has Palin really got strong Christian values, or more the perception of Christian values? How do we know she is a "strong" Christian? Politicans are good at selling anything that can buy them votes. I believe that strong politicians could be Christian, but not all Christians are strong politicians. In Palin's case I would be worried about her ability with spending public money. She has been caught out with mistakes in statements about American history and current economy, so obviously has very little substance as a politician. I agree that Obama was the best choice, and that does not necessarily make him the ideal candidate, but McCain very much the weak candidate. There was not much of an offering by the Republican or Democratic Parties. Obama is not a bad choice, but there has to be better candidates in the United States. Ocalhoun in a recent posting showed that this could be due to the two-party antiquated system of electing candidates. |
Slight mistake: I meant to say my grandmother (again), but accidentally cut it short and said "mother."
I do not agree with you about Obama being a good candidate. I don't think much of Obama. I think higher of McCain, but my thoughts about Palin are so low that McCain lost my vote by association. I didn't want to vote for Obama either (and it was painfully obvious that he was going to win the election and win California - which is where my vote would have been coming from), so I didn't vote this election. Thinking back, I actually think that Ron Paul would have been a good choice. Many of the third party candidates had a lot of good ideas. Someone, I can't remember who, had the idea of the "silent tax."
| coreymanshack wrote: |
After reading this whole post, I believe that most everyone here is correct in some form or fashion.
-People that are like each other like to be grouped together.
-Christians lie too
-People that do not have religion are not all bad people that hate the world |
But what about my other question? I realize that some people will tend to trust people of their own group (although that's not always the case based on the statistics that Indi provided us with), but what about Christians automatically being good politicians? Deanhills had the best (and slightly cynical) response to that. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| so I didn't vote this election. |
I've done exactly the same on occasion, arguing that a "no vote" is also a vote. 
I think I answered that in my last post indirectly. Christians are just like everyone else when it comes to being a politician.
Some people think the exact opposite as your grandma does.
| Arnie wrote: |
| Some people think the exact opposite as your grandma does. |
Yes there are people who think the opposite as her... I call those people reasonable, rational, human-beings.So you're calling prejudice bad when it favours Christians, but reasonable when it's against them?
| Arnie wrote: |
| So you're calling prejudice bad when it favours Christians, but reasonable when it's against them? |
No. Absolutely not. I have no idea where you got that crazy idea and I am actually offended that you're accusing me of thinking something like that. To assume that someone is automatically trustworthy and an amazing politician just because of their religion is unreasonable. Thinking the opposite (someone is not automatically trustworthy and an amazing politician just because of their religion) is reasonable.It appears you did not understand what I mean with "opposite".
| Code: |
| [one extreme] [unprejudiced] [other extreme] |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
P.S. I know that there are some people here from the U.K... I would like to know, am I correct (which I really hope that I am) in my assumption that the poll was bullshit and that most people do NOT think it is acceptable to beat their wives "when they deserve it?" |
I don't know where your gran heard this,as its definitely not true,i am not saying wife beating doesn't happen because it does,but to imply "most" which means more than 50% of men think its ok to beat their wives.
And how would they survey something like this,even if over 50% thought it,i doubt even 1% of that 50% would admit to it.
Women do get beaten by men in the uk,but its not a socially acceptable thing,its a behind closed doors thing,its not something you would admit to in a survey. | Arnie wrote: |
It appears you did not understand what I mean with "opposite".
| Code: | | [one extreme] [unprejudiced] [other extreme] |
|
Well it appears that you do not understand that "not believing that all Christians are great politicians who never tell lies isn't an "other extreme." My grandmother is at one extreme (all Christians are great politicians who always tell the truth - which is unreasonable) while I was clearly (as I mentioned already) referring to the opposite (people who simply believe that some Christians are truthful - while other aren't and some who are good politicians - while other aren't). That's not being prejudiced at all. That's being rational. The "other extreme" would be that all Christians are automatically liars and bad politicians - end of story.
P.S. The opposite extreme is not necessarily prejudice. If I look at the other extreme (all Christians are liars and bad politicians), it doesn't necessarily have to be prejudice. It's a matter of opinion and what you consider to be a lie and what you consider to be a good politician. I started a post like this a while ago... What exactly makes up a lie? Many people felt that if you're wrong you're a liar... it's as simple as that. I tended to go with a lie require the intent to deceive... Now based on all scientific evidence, God most likely does not exist... So if you're a Christian, then you're automatically a liar. Many people also do not want politicians do have a belief in God (unless it's a deist view) because they don't want their decisions affected by a delusional belief in God. Therefore, according to many people, a Christian is automatically a liar and bad politician. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| it doesn't necessarily have to be prejudice. It's a matter of opinion and what you consider to be a lie and what you consider to be a good politician. |
The line between 'opinion' and 'prejudice' is extremely thin.^^Yes it's relatively thin but not thin enough to be unable to make a clear distinction here. Being prejudice is making a prejudged decision (a decision without knowing all of the facts). Here I do know all the facts. I know that what Christians believe is most likely wrong. If you're preaching something that's wrong, you're a liar (according to most people - although, as I mentioned, I'm under the impression that a lie has to have an intent to deceive*). I also know that most Christians make choices because of their religious beliefs. If I do not want a politician to have to consult their god (because that god will most likely never get back to them meaning that nothing ever gets done), then I obviously do not want a Christian politician. This isn't a prejudged decision because I know the facts before I make my decision.
Now I don't think like this. I was just pointing out that thinking like that is at an extreme but doesn't necessarily have to be prejudice.
* http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-101077.html | ocalhoun wrote: |
| The line between 'opinion' and 'prejudice' is extremely thin. |
How about the line between opinion and judgment? I think they may even be thinner than opinion and prejudice?
Back to the topic - I missed this part of it: | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Will Christians not lie to further their political agendas? |
Since atheists regard Christians as being deluded in broad terms, what would atheists perceive as being lies? Think we have a double whammy here. Politicians seem to be easily deluded about how they see the truth, which would have the appearance of a lie to people who look on without any blinkers on. So now take a Christian Politician and you may have a double delusion here. And yes, possibly the politician who happens to be a christian may cash in on religious beliefs to advocate his/her cause. So I guess there is truth in your statement that Christians will lie to further their political agendas, but they will obviously not regard it as lies, but as the truth (on the basis of delusion lines). Christians who are not politicians and are looking from the outside in at politicians who are Christians may also be offended by "lies". They may recognize the "further political agendas" part of Christians who are politicians and take a position on it. | Quote: |
[long story]
The "other extreme" would be that all Christians are automatically liars and bad politicians - end of story. |
That's what I meant with "the opposite", and a little misunderstanding need not cause such a long and angry story. 
You'd be quite vulnerable to trolling.
However: | Quote: |
| P.S. The opposite extreme is not necessarily prejudice. If I look at the other extreme (all Christians are liars and bad politicians), it doesn't necessarily have to be prejudice. It's a matter of opinion and what you consider to be a lie and what you consider to be a good politician. |
You have to be consistent. The bolded text is equally true for your grandmother's point of view.
| Quote: |
| I started a post like this a while ago... What exactly makes up a lie? Many people felt that if you're wrong you're a liar... it's as simple as that. I tended to go with a lie require the intent to deceive... |
Assuming that God factually does not exist, would all Christians saying the contrary be willful deceivers? Have you considered the possibility that they might be deceived themselves and are not meaning any harm? I know many such people and have been one myself.
| Quote: |
| Now based on all scientific evidence, God most likely does not exist... So if you're a Christian, then you're automatically a liar. |
You have to be consistent. Atheists saying that they're sure there is no God are also liars, by your reasoning. Also: believe it or not, but in the Netherlands there are Christian ministers who publicly express doubt in the existence of God. This causes major agitation in the more orthodox regions of Christianity that I'm familiar with. | Arnie wrote: |
| Quote: | [long story]
The "other extreme" would be that all Christians are automatically liars and bad politicians - end of story. |
That's what I meant with "the opposite", and a little misunderstanding need not cause such a long and angry story. ;) You'd be quite vulnerable to trolling. |
But an opposite does not have to be an extreme...
| Quote: |
However: | Quote: | | P.S. The opposite extreme is not necessarily prejudice. If I look at the other extreme (all Christians are liars and bad politicians), it doesn't necessarily have to be prejudice. It's a matter of opinion and what you consider to be a lie and what you consider to be a good politician. |
You have to be consistent. The bolded text is equally true for your grandmother's point of view.
|
Well then if you're going to say that (which I completely disagree with), then from my grandmother's point-of-view, I can deliberately lie and say I didn't steal the cookies when I did and then, because I'm a Christian (I'm actually not - this is all hypothetical) not be a liar? It's one thing to say that all Christians are liar because they're telling people that some god who probably doesn't exist definitely exists, but to go on the other extreme and say that no matter what someone says, they're not lying if they're a Christian seems silly to me....
| Quote: |
| Assuming that God factually does not exist, would all Christians saying the contrary be willful deceivers? Have you considered the possibility that they might be deceived themselves and are not meaning any harm? I know many such people and have been one myself. |
They're definitely deceived.... But in the day and age of the internet, it does not take very much to simply go online and do a little research to insure that what they're saying is actually true... But most Christians will not do that because they tend to try and ignore everything that doesn't fit their viewpoint...
| Quote: |
| You have to be consistent. Atheists saying that they're sure there is no God are also liars, by your reasoning. Also: believe it or not, but in the Netherlands there are Christian ministers who publicly express doubt in the existence of God. This causes major agitation in the more orthodox regions of Christianity that I'm familiar with. |
Well that's why most atheists don't say that there is definitely no god. I tend to say that there is probably not a god and stronger atheists like Dawkins tend to say "there is almost certainly no god."So now I pointed out those things it's suddenly "most Christians", "most atheists". Are you a liar for leaving that out in your earlier posts?
Note that I'm not saying that you are.
This is a very interesting topic.
I don't think anybody should gain any trust because of their title. Whether a christian or an atheist, I don't think their title gives the person any credibility. It's a terrible assumption, and an aweful argument, to say "this is this, so it must be this." or "Kent Hovind wouldn't lie in statistics; he's a good Christian man; he's strong in his faith." If you put rationality into it, it simply does not make sense.
I read in one of your posts that you think that some christians don't lie, but what I think, is that ALL christians lie. If you really think about it though, I don't think there is one person in the world that has not lied in their lifetime.
| Arnie wrote: |
So now I pointed out those things it's suddenly "most Christians", "most atheists". Are you a liar for leaving that out in your earlier posts?
Note that I'm not saying that you are. |
No... Where did I leave it out at? So far this has been our conversation:
You brought up that there are people the opposite of my grandmother.
I said that those people are rational.
You then said that that's prejudicism the other way around.
I said that it wasn't because those people aren't making prejudged situations.
We're now here...
That is, of course, an extremely summed up version of what actually went on... I didn't bother going into more detail because you can always just look back to what we said... so where would "most Christians" or "most atheists" have been brought up in my posts?
Actually, I don't even think that I even brought up atheists or atheism until after you brought it up... By the opposite of people like my grandmother, I was referring to people who do not automatically assume that politicians are great because they're Christians or that people are automatically truthful because they're a Christian... Hell, I know many Christians who won't trust anyone - including Christians and who are quite into politics and don't even consider religion when they're casting their vote... Those are what I consider to be rational and logical people (although I do believe that their belief in Christianity is an irrational aspect of their life, but that they can be overall rational people). | Quote: |
| I tended to go with a lie require the intent to deceive... Now based on all scientific evidence, God most likely does not exist... So if you're a Christian, then you're automatically a liar. |
Jesus Christ, Arnie! Quit quote mining and look at the entire quote.
| Myself wrote: |
| P.S. The opposite extreme is not necessarily prejudice. If I look at the other extreme (all Christians are liars and bad politicians), it doesn't necessarily have to be prejudice. It's a matter of opinion and what you consider to be a lie and what you consider to be a good politician. I started a post like this a while ago... What exactly makes up a lie? Many people felt that if you're wrong you're a liar... it's as simple as that. I tended to go with a lie require the intent to deceive... Now based on all scientific evidence, God most likely does not exist... So if you're a Christian, then you're automatically a liar. Many people also do not want politicians do have a belief in God (unless it's a deist view) because they don't want their decisions affected by a delusional belief in God. Therefore, according to many people, a Christian is automatically a liar and bad politician. |
Did I even mention atheism? My whole point was this: some people may consider you a liar if you tell people that God exists when all of the evidence points the other way around. I, myself, said that I wouldn't consider that person a liar if they truly thought they were telling the truth and had no intent to deceive... That's it... You called me out for saying that I didn't mention "most Christians." Why would I have mentioned "most Christians?" That applies to all Christians (unless you're a secret Christian that doesn't tell anyone anything about Christianity... but I have no reason to specify that much in detail)... Furthermore, you called me out for not mentioning "most atheists." Again, where would I have put that? I didn't even mention atheism! This whole topic wasn't about atheism at all... I don't even know why it was brought up so much... This entire post was basically this: "Should I automatically trust you and assume that you're a great politician if you're a Christian?" I'd say "Hell no." I'm sure there's even Christians that would agree with that... along with Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc.! The only religion/philosophical view that I brought up was Christianity!
If an atheist says, "There is definitely, without a doubt, no God" I might perceive them as a liar. The reason being is that I believe that it is impossible to prove, without a doubt, that God doesn't exist. Hell, I think it's impossible to prove, without a doubt, that Gandolf from Lord of the Rings doesn't exist. Do I think either exists? Hell no... but I can't prove that either of them definitely do not exist.
P.S. There are many people out there that do believe that you can prove that God doesn't exist... Of course I read your entire post, but I feel it would be unfortunate to quote it all since that creates such longer pages. The quote is just the relevant highlight: if you wanted me to show the full context, I would have to quote the entire topic from beginning to end, if not more. Brevity is a virtue
Last edited by Arnie on Wed Mar 18, 2009 8:10 pm; edited 1 time in total It was still blatant quote mining because you quoted me completely out of context and said that I said something that I did not say...
I'm not trying to hide anything. The context is open to anyone to see.
What is so hard about this? If you quote someone out of context to argue your point then that is quote mining. You took one sentence that I said and put it in a completely different context to make it look like I was saying something that I obviously didn't say... I am sure that anyone who reads through this entire thread will see that...
I haven't read the whole thread,but i assume from matrix's reaction that you have taken a small part of what he said and took it out of context,and then refused to listen when he has tried to explain what he meant.
Now you said...
| Arnie wrote: |
| God factually does not exist |
How can he factually not exist? How can that be a fact? Can you prove this? Absurd statement surely?
Now you wrote this,but you didn't say it as it is wrote,i just took part of your sentence and left off a little bit,i am using an extreme example of taking what someone says out of context,and using it against them just to try to win a debate,as that is what your refusal to accept matrix's version of what he said rather than your own selective version of what he meant ,comes across as,you trying to win the debate. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Jesus Christ, Arnie! |
And here I thought you were an Atheist and now you seem to be asking for outside help? 
| deanhills wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Jesus Christ, Arnie! |
And here I thought you were an Atheist and now you seem to be asking for outside help? :shock: :lol: |
It's an expression, like "oh my God!" I tend to use it when I'm irritated. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| It's an expression, like "oh my God!" I tend to use it when I'm irritated. |
Got it the first time ... Oh, ok lol. I didn't get your joke... Now I get it.
Everyone ultimately wants what is best for them. Sometimes that comes across as being good natured to others, and those people are probably good people. But the idea that a "good Christian man" wouldn't lie, spoken by (I'm assuming) a Christian woman? Well that seems very bias indeed.
| Dean_The_Great wrote: |
| Everyone ultimately wants what is best for them. Sometimes that comes across as being good natured to others, and those people are probably good people. But the idea that a "good Christian man" wouldn't lie, spoken by (I'm assuming) a Christian woman? Well that seems very bias indeed. |
Good insight. But with reference to the sex bias, I do not believe that was intentional by the original author of this thread, think he did not mean it gender-specifically but in a much wider sense referring to all christians whether male or female who are politicians.
