Ray Nagin needs to go

Alex · 01-17-2006, 01:05 PM

Now, I'm not one of them, but why is it so unreasonable for people who believe that the Old Testament approximates actual history to believe that in modern times similar calamities speak to god's state of mind?

As for whether Nagin gets reelected the thing I need to know is how his comments played in New Orleans. It doesn't much matter how they play in San Francisco, New York City, or on the cable network news.

lizziebith · 01-17-2006, 01:13 PM

It's not unreasonable for THEM to believe it...but crimeny! This is not Old Testament culture! And we are all sharing the same air here in the mighty 2006. By which I mean that some folks need to learn some things. Get up to speed. Join us in these new-fangled times. Why do I think this post will be one of those I regret...

Alex · 01-17-2006, 01:22 PM

Did not the founders of pretty much every religion claim to speak for and/or to God?

Personally, I do think they were all delusional but I think that of anybody who simply thinks god exists at all. Or is it only nuts to think that god is still talking to people in this day an age?

It's ok to think that God used to smite people through natural disasters but that somehow he has evolved into a better person? That God, perhaps, spent the years 50 BCE to 1876 CE in an anger management seminar and has emerged a much nicer person?

I'm afraid I don't see why Nagin's comment about an angry god are so ridiculous (though I, of course, think they are for more fundamental reasons).

scaeagles · 01-17-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

It's ok to think that God used to smite people through natural disasters but that somehow he has evolved into a better person?

I can't speak to what all religeons profess, but in Christian theology, I would again figure it is the difference between the old covenant and the new covenant.

01-17-2006, 01:05 PM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Now, I'm not one of them, but why is it so unreasonable for people who believe that the Old Testament approximates actual history to believe that in modern times similar calamities speak to god's state of mind? As for whether Nagin gets reelected the thing I need to know is how his comments played in New Orleans. It doesn't much matter how they play in San Francisco, New York City, or on the cable network news.
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 01:13 PM	#2
lizziebith Wishing these titles could be longe Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pearblossom CA Posts: 984	It's not unreasonable for THEM to believe it...but crimeny! This is not Old Testament culture! And we are all sharing the same air here in the mighty 2006. By which I mean that some folks need to learn some things. Get up to speed. Join us in these new-fangled times. Why do I think this post will be one of those I regret... __________________ $ DO \|\| !$ DO ; TRY TRY: COMMAND NOT FOUND
	Submit to Quotes

01-17-2006, 01:22 PM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Did not the founders of pretty much every religion claim to speak for and/or to God? Personally, I do think they were all delusional but I think that of anybody who simply thinks god exists at all. Or is it only nuts to think that god is still talking to people in this day an age? It's ok to think that God used to smite people through natural disasters but that somehow he has evolved into a better person? That God, perhaps, spent the years 50 BCE to 1876 CE in an anger management seminar and has emerged a much nicer person? I'm afraid I don't see why Nagin's comment about an angry god are so ridiculous (though I, of course, think they are for more fundamental reasons).
	Submit to Quotes