Did Obama jump the shark??

DILYSI Dave wrote: OK - I never connected Creationism = Literal reading of Genesis. That's a new definition to me.

I dunno, it could be me. That's my understanding of Creationism. I'm not trying to argue semantics. Sorry for the confusion. I clearly didn't exlpain my ideas well or present myself in a very good light.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

z31maniac wrote: That's indicative of his "bull in a china shop" approach to debate. I think he makes some good points, but could pare back the aggresiveness just a touch.

No doubt you are correct and my sincere apologies for coming on too strong. Believe it or not, I'm actually a lot better about it than I used to be and even in this thread have self edited a lot. But you are right. A lot of this was posted from a defensive postion and said in response to or anticipation of attacks, many of which never came. I am sorry for that. Please try to see the intent of my posts and look past the agressive language.

Perfectly OK, I'm guilty of it myself from time to time.

No harm, no foul.

But now you have piqued my interest, if you don't mind, I'm now curious as to your position on the God vs Creation idea.

I, and presumably wrongly, always assumed people who believe in God believed in Creationism.

Would you mind attempting to show me how you've reconciled your belief in God vs "how did we get here" debate?

I'm genuinely interested.

z31maniac wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

z31maniac wrote: That's indicative of his "bull in a china shop" approach to debate. I think he makes some good points, but could pare back the aggresiveness just a touch.

No doubt you are correct and my sincere apologies for coming on too strong. Believe it or not, I'm actually a lot better about it than I used to be and even in this thread have self edited a lot. But you are right. A lot of this was posted from a defensive postion and said in response to or anticipation of attacks, many of which never came. I am sorry for that. Please try to see the intent of my posts and look past the agressive language.

Perfectly OK, I'm guilty of it myself from time to time. No harm, no foul.

+1. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd

Datsun1500 wrote: After 14 pages have we answered the question of if Obama letting Clinton speak was a good thing or not?

Of course not. Duh. :)

z31maniac wrote: Would you mind attempting to show me how you've reconciled your belief in God vs "how did we get here" debate?

Oh boy. That could get tough. I'll try to say a couple of short things that will give you some idea.

First off, it looks like I did a very poor job saying what I intended to say. When I say Creationism, I'm talking about the belief that the Universe was created just as the Genesis story says. That's what I don't belive. I think it's an easy step to say "I know Genesis is a story intended to teach me something, but I don't belive it is a literal account of the first six days of the Universe." You can still believe in God in a very taditional sense and believe that Genesis isn't literally true.

And that's a step I took along the way to where I am now. It would really be hard to explain where I am now though. Let's say my understanding of what God is has changed. See, this is really getting out threre. But my God is not something unknowable and unseeable. I see God all around when I'm still enough to look. Quite the opposite of what I've been doing in this thread.

Here's how I sometimes like to put it- I belive my purpose is to be a healthy cell in the body of Christ.

Finally, two book recomendations. This one is really easy, but really profound.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Does-Look-Expanding-Universe/dp/0615130798

This one changed the way I see, well, everything.

http://www.amazon.com/Power-Now-Guide-Spiritual-Enlightenment/dp/1577314808/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292616873&sr=1-1

And just talking about all this makes me feel really bad about how I approached this whole thread.

Take care,

Ed

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: After 14 pages have we answered the question of if Obama letting Clinton speak was a good thing or not?

Of course not. Duh. :)

I'll take a quick stab at this one.

It wasn't that bad of an idea.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Here's how I sometimes like to put it- I believe my purpose is to be a healthy cell in the body of Christ.

Whoa. I like that. That might get stolen.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Here's how I sometimes like to put it- I believe my purpose is to be a healthy cell in the body of Christ.

Whoa. I like that. That might get stolen.

I certainly didn't make it up. No idea where I got it.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

DILYSI Dave wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: After 14 pages have we answered the question of if Obama letting Clinton speak was a good thing or not?

Of course not. Duh. :)

I'll take a quick stab at this one. It wasn't that bad of an idea.

Hey, we're back on-topic!

It may not have been a bad idea in the long run. Temporarily, it did little to appease those Democrats who never wanted to concede anything and it provided ammunition to those who question how seriously the President approaches his office. Now, the Democrats have faced a political reality and are even saying that tax hikes are bad in a down-economy.

But if that's the current position, it would have been just as valid anytime in the last two years. The current rates could have been extended with bipartisan support. Instead, we got a bunch of spoiled brats throwing a tantrum - which has contributed to Congress' 87% DISapproval rating.

The real test for Mr. Obama begins when the new Congress convenes. Time will tell.............