Forums | MacLife

resedit wrote:

God's standards is different than legislating God.
See the reference I quoted - where they appealed to God's standards in the document that told the King of England they were rejecting him - and starting their own little club.

....so what does he want to do to our Constitution?

Some of the founders were atheists, if I recall, were they not?
But whether they believed God was real or not, appealing to God's standards is to appeal to a standard much higher than our own.

I dare say that such a 'standard' will vary wildly from person to person, especially when you consider.  Why should Constitutional changes be involved?

This is a good example of why Huckabee is not ready for prime time, in my opinion.  It might rally the base, but a lot more votes are needed to win.

resedit wrote:

Is there a full transcript to the context of the clip anywhere?
I'll look on Mike's site - it may be more revealing as to the intent behind his statement (for good or for bad).

I don't know why you need that, he states on his web site he wants the Constitution amended to make marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.
smurf that Taliban and the camel he rode in on.

btw - don't worry about that amendment if he wins.
The President can't make it happen, only congress can.

Farmerkev wrote:

resedit wrote:

Is there a full transcript to the context of the clip anywhere?
I'll look on Mike's site - it may be more revealing as to the intent behind his statement (for good or for bad).

I don't know why you need that, he states on his web site he wants the Constitution amended to make marriage between 1 man and 1 woman.

that's gonna make a lot of gays, lesbians, trios and more pissed.

matt wrote:

[snippity snip snip]
That those words were written by a man whose "God" was not *your* "God".

God is God unless it's a god.

Last edited by FutureDreamz (2008-01-15 10:23 pm)

resedit wrote:

He said nothing about a theocracy.
I think some of you would benefit from reading what many of the forefathers wrote.

Here's a document some of you might recognize -

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Note that they did not set out to create a theocracy, but they did appeal to God's standards, right from the start.

It warn't Huckabee's God.  Those guys were diests, for heaven's sake (no pun intended).  Huckabee would have had major theological issues with them.

FutureDreamz wrote:

matt wrote:

[snippity snip snip]
That those words were written by a man whose "God" was not *your* "God".

God is God unless it's a god.

Those who evangelize Christianity claim that every uttered instance of the word "God" refers to the Christian "God".

I can tell you, as someone who accepts the possiblility of "God" and yet who does not think highly of Christianity, that when I use the term "God"(and I do, sometimes) I am not referring to what those Christians call "God".

I suspect that if "God" exists, it would be very annoyed by what those Christians call "God".

matt wrote:

FutureDreamz wrote:

matt wrote:

[snippity snip snip]
That those words were written by a man whose "God" was not *your* "God".

God is God unless it's a god.

Those who evangelize Christianity claim that every uttered instance of the word "God" refers to the Christian "God".

Not entirely true, but another case of "not the most, but the loudest" say it.

Zeus is in hell? That's weird theology.

Anyhoooo, demonizing (no pun intended... again) all evangelicals is a bit silly, since, as the Goose pointed out above, the quiet majority are pretty normal folks living pretty normal lives without much of a beef to pick with anyone.

It's just the Huckabees, et al., of this world that give them a bad name.  Too bad.

It would behoove them to still act this way. Thankfully, some do.

Hank Rearden wrote:

Zeus is in hell? That's weird theology.

It was a joke response to a joke post.

Anyhoooo, demonizing (no pun intended... again) all evangelicals is a bit silly, since, as the Goose pointed out above, the quiet majority are pretty normal folks living pretty normal lives without much of a beef to pick with anyone.

It's just the Huckabees, et al., of this world that give them a bad name.  Too bad.

The prophets of old were hated by the general population as well.

I'm not saying Huckabee's position on this is correct, I think it should be a states rights issue - but you need to understand that any christian who does things (whatever they are) to be popular is doing them for the wrong reasons. The TV evangelists are a prime example of this - they get more money when they are popular, some of them started out with valid ministries and got sucked in when they couldn't resist the cash flow.

That doesn't mean that an unopular move is the right move or that a popular move is the wrong move, but peer pressure tactics like "those few give them a bad name" are kind of meaningless, because we really don't give a rats ass about that kind of thing.

Such treatment of the "religious right" only serves to fuel their cause.
Seriously.