TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Pandering no longer required
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pandering no longer required - Page 2

post #31 of 50
Try googling "Obama Messiah"


Warning, I saw one little naughty word
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/o...e_messiah.html

One example.

I better go google 'Bush Messiah" now, just in the interest of fairness and all.
post #32 of 50
Nope, not much on people thinking that GWB is the Messiah, but many Bush haters think he has a Messiah complex.
post #33 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Nope, not much on people thinking that GWB is the Messiah, but many Bush haters think he has a Messiah complex.
I always thought he had a "prove Daddy wrong" complex.
post #34 of 50
Thread Starter 
There is always the chance that people claiming someone to be the "Messiah" are right.

And if not, well it wouldn't be the first time people have been wrong making that claim.
post #35 of 50
Always amusing to come in here to IMO and read through the posts!
post #36 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AddieBee View Post
Always amusing to come in here to IMO and read through the posts!
Isn't it though

That's why they keep us around; for the entertainment value
post #37 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
I always thought he had a "prove Daddy wrong" complex.
lol..I always thought he had the "I really am as dumb as I look" complex...
post #38 of 50
I think he is a handsome man.
post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I think he is a handsome man.
Obama? Yes, he is, isn't he!



*I'm kidding you, I know full well who you mean*
post #40 of 50
I'm late to this thread, but here's my $0.02 worth anyway.

First, I don't think Bush is "changing his views". You can believe in the bible and what it teaches and not believe that the world was literally created in 7, 24 hour days. I don't remember him ever saying that he took the bible word for word. What impressed me about him was he was willing to admit that he was a religious person, even though in this day and age it isn't "politically correct" to do so. I respect him for that, regardless of what his beliefs are.

As for the extreme group who "worshipped" him...that is their choice. I'm sure Bush didn't contact them and ask them to do that. Heck, there are probably extreme groups somewhere that worship Tom Cruise, Flipper or Lassie. Extremists are just that, extreme. I doubt the 1% of the population that did that really have any influence on voting or politics.
post #41 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
I'm late to this thread, but here's my $0.02 worth anyway.

First, I don't think Bush is "changing his views". You can believe in the bible and what it teaches and not believe that the world was literally created in 7, 24 hour days. I don't remember him ever saying that he took the bible word for word. What impressed me about him was he was willing to admit that he was a religious person, even though in this day and age it isn't "politically correct" to do so. I respect him for that, regardless of what his beliefs are.

As for the extreme group who "worshipped" him...that is their choice. I'm sure Bush didn't contact them and ask them to do that. Heck, there are probably extreme groups somewhere that worship Tom Cruise, Flipper or Lassie. Extremists are just that, extreme. I doubt the 1% of the population that did that really have any influence on voting or politics.
I don't think that he is changing his view either. That was the idea behind the title of the thread. I think he is merely "coming clean" about having lied by omission for years. Newspapers all over the world and hundreds of blogs identified him as an "evangelical christian", a title that he never, ever, once denied. Yet, if he feels that the bible is not literally true, and that there is more than one path to "salvation", then he hardly fits the definition of "evangelical". He merely rode that wave for the votes.

And I completely agree about the worshipers part. There are other people in the limelight that reasoning could also be applied too.
post #42 of 50
I'm kinda late in getting in on this thread, and by now it's too long to read the whole thing this time of night. Just throwing my two cents in randomly wherever it lands: I read the article -- I did NOT see the interview -- and I didn't read any quotes by Bush that I see as terribly incompatible with what Evangelicals for the most part believe about the Bible. The belief that the creation story is literally six 24-hour days and nights is held by a fairly small segment of the "conservative" Christian churches and in any case isn't central to the gospel of salvation; in fact belief in the creation story isn't necessary even according to the conservatives.

Heh -- I typed this without reading the thread, as I said, then I looked down so I could see where I was coming in, and saw that someone else had just said about the same thing.
post #43 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
I'm kinda late in getting in on this thread, and by now it's too long to read the whole thing this time of night. Just throwing my two cents in randomly wherever it lands: I read the article -- I did NOT see the interview -- and I didn't read any quotes by Bush that I see as terribly incompatible with what Evangelicals for the most part believe about the Bible. The belief that the creation story is literally six 24-hour days and nights is held by a fairly small segment of the "conservative" Christian churches and in any case isn't central to the gospel of salvation; in fact belief in the creation story isn't necessary even according to the conservatives.

Heh -- I typed this without reading the thread, as I said, then I looked down so I could see where I was coming in, and saw that someone else had just said about the same thing.
I'm certainly glad to hear that. I was always under the impression that evangelicals were quite adamant that the only salvation was through Christianity. Bush, however, appears to make the case that isn't so. So if he's in line with the evangelical community with this, that should resolve a great many disagreements
post #44 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I'm certainly glad to hear that. I was always under the impression that evangelicals were quite adamant that the only salvation was through Christianity. ...
I've been misquoted again, as is frequently the case with Mr. Page. What I said was that belief in the creation story isn't necessary for salvation. Belief in Jesus Christ as the way, and the only way is. After all, that's his claim about himself, and if he's wrong about that claim, then pretty much everything else he said is also suspect. Christianity would be defined as following the teachings of Jesus Christ, so if Christ declared himself to be the only way, then it can be inferred by the logical progression of if A=B and B=C then A=C that Christianity teaches that it is the only way to salvation.
post #45 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
I've been misquoted again, as is frequently the case with Mr. Page. What I said was that belief in the creation story isn't necessary for salvation. Belief in Jesus Christ as the way, and the only way is. After all, that's his claim about himself, and if he's wrong about that claim, then pretty much everything else he said is also suspect. Christianity would be defined as following the teachings of Jesus Christ, so if Christ declared himself to be the only way, then it can be inferred by the logical progression of if A=B and B=C then A=C that Christianity teaches that it is the only way to salvation.
Nothing has been misquoted. What is in quotations in my post is from yours, word for word. This next line is cut from your text, but still, verbatim;

Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
I did NOT see the interview -- and I didn't read any quotes by Bush that I see as terribly incompatible with what Evangelicals for the most part believe about the Bible.
Yet, it is in the article that he had this to say;

Quote:
The president also said that he prays to the same God as those with different religious beliefs.

"I do believe there is an almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people," Bush said.
Ah, but I did just notice that the article I linked didn't have the entire quote! Here is the rest of it;

Quote:
I do believe there's an Almighty that is broad and big enough, loving enough that encompass a lot of people," he said. "I don't think God is a narrow concept. I think it's a broad concept. I just happen to believe the way to God is through Christ, and others have different avenues toward God, and I believe we pray to the same Almighty. I do.
http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?opt...3699&Itemid=53
post #46 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Nothing has been misquoted. What is in quotations in my post is from yours, word for word. This next line is cut from your text, but still, verbatim;
What quotation? I can't find it. My only specific example was in reference to belief in the creation story. I said that belief in the creation story wasn't necessary for salvation. And from that you represented that I said Evangelicals didn't believe Christianity was the only way to salvation. BUSH said HE believed that; I didn't say Evangelicals believed that. I said
Quote:
I didn't read any quotes by Bush that I see as terribly incompatible with what Evangelicals for the most part believe about the Bible.
And then I cited the 24-hour/6 day creation story as an example. Christianity as the only way would be the exception, and I cited that and the reason why in my next post. So there's no way that concludiing Evangelicals believing that Christ isn't the only way could be inferred from anything I said.
post #47 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
What quotation? I can't find it. My only specific example was in reference to belief in the creation story. I said that belief in the creation story wasn't necessary for salvation. And from that you represented that I said Evangelicals didn't believe Christianity was the only way to salvation. BUSH said HE believed that; I didn't say Evangelicals believed that. I said And then I cited the 24-hour/6 day creation story as an example. Christianity as the only way would be the exception, and I cited that and the reason why in my next post. So there's no way that concludiing Evangelicals believing that Christ isn't the only way could be inferred from anything I said.
You said any quotes, of which there were many in the article. If you meant only one, you could have said "this quote", or "the following", or qualified it in some manner. Saying "any" indicates that you felt none of the quotes were inconsistent with the beliefs of his duped supporters.
post #48 of 50
I said "terribly incompatible" and I said "for the most part" which are some pretty significant qualifiers. You quoted my entire post, saying "I'm certainly glad to hear that" followed by concluding "evangelicals...adamant...only salvation...through Christianity...Bush...isn't so...in line with...evangelical community with this." The progression of thought there infers either your conclusion as a result of my post, or my agreement with your conclusion, and I was setting the record straight.

A note about my qualifiers: the "Evangelical community" has itself been affected by some serious doctrinal errors, as represented by Bush's statements. e.g. universalism/Gnosticism/eastern "cosmic consciousness", the "prosperity gospel", and also affected by public relations and marketing as represented by the "Saddleback" type mega-churches, who preach only the warm and fuzzy side of the gospel, giving people what they think they want to hear and not what they must hear. So my original statement holds in that I don't see any statements of Bush quoted in that article as terribly inconsistent with much of what the Evangelical community preaches today. I never said they were right or that I agreed with them, so Bush's statements don't reflect my own beliefs, and I probably should have made that plain right out, so that it couldn't be inferred that they did.

But you'll get the last word on that, since I've got stuff to do and don't have the time. So, just to get back to the original topic of this thread and what I wanted to say about it: the article doesn't support the contention in the opening thread that Bush "no longer has a need to pander to the religious right" because the statements don't reflect any great departure from the religious right. Of course!! Bush was pandering to his constituency, just as much as any politician panders to his/her constituency, including Barak Obama. That's no surprise. And even given he doesn't need to pander anymore, this article doesn't support that. So what if he pandered and now he isn't pandering? It's just politics, and to get any more out of that than just politics as usual is a stretch.
post #49 of 50
Boys, boys. Play nice, please!
post #50 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Of course!! Bush was pandering to his constituency, just as much as any politician panders to his/her constituency, including Barak Obama.
Agreed! That is what the original post was about That one has been doing for years exactly the same thing that his supporters were condemning the other for.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Pandering no longer required