You mean he *wasn’t * talking about Aesculapius? 
That seems unfair, Liberal. That accusation seems premature.
But we can ask for a cite.
[…shrug…] He said it was written down long before he got here. What else could he mean but that someone else wrote it before he did? He couldn’t have meant scripture, because he didn’t reference any.
I like you, you big nut ball. 
To reference another rock song, shine on you crazy diamond.
Of course, you are jumping in to try to apply my response to Mr. Moto regarding the nature of god (and whether I’m a better person than god is) to a completely separate post. Your post (asking if I plagiarized) really makes no sense.
You could see it as applicable to the third item of my list in post #264 - whether god is a subhuman psychopath, but that has nothing to do with plagiarism.
Perhaps you are confusing your charges of plagiarism against Dio with our interactions here. As a check for you, this is a completely different thread and I am a completely different poster.
No, by saying I didn’t write it down, I am countering Mr. Moto’s charge that I built an unflattering portrait of god. I didn’t write down god’s ordering of genocide in Jericho, or telling a father to kill his son and so on. Those things were written of god long before I came along. I think they describe pretty extreme and outrageous behavior (not to mention all the pettiness of the biblical all-mighty).
Chapter and verse please?
I’m Catholic, so we generally let the priest read the Bible for us.
I feel the love.
I believe you when you say you see pettiness. “The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.” — Henri Bergson
Yes, all I understand is pettiness and psychopathy. You on the other hand see only infinite love, wisdom, compassion and understanding, right? You are so lucky, man!
At last, after all these years, we agree.
That’s a beautiful sentiment. On the other hand, we have, “denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.” – My Mother
You also forgot that I’m ugly and nobody likes me.
(Hell, even elucidator is barely tolerant of me, and that’s only cause his mama raised him right. Other people, even those with whom I’m always in agreement, like Diogenes can’t stand me.)
I wish I was you, or at least a mini you. Maybe I should change my name to Mini Liberal.
God loves you. 
::: d&r :::
The dinner and a show minimum applies to Him, too. Hey, I ain’t cheap. Easy, but not cheap.
First of all, that’s a very interesting question, and I’m surprised (and disappointed) that everyone else ignored it, as I think it deserves a response.
And the response is, (assuming I think this person is sincere), then I would vote for him or her in a heartbeat.
But I have to disagree with another part of your post:
The problem with Huckabee (to me, at least) isn’t really that he’s hateful. Not believing in evolution isn’t HATEful, it’s just misguided and dangerous. Overall, the poblem is that his motivations are mysterious and alien to me. With any candidate, if what motivates them is deep and abiding faith in something that I don’t believe in or understand, well, that’s a bit troubling… because how can I predict what that belief will tell them next? Now, your hypothetical candidate ends up coming up with beliefs that align incredibly closely with my own in a number of ways, so (assuming there’s a larger pattern which confirms that one speech) I would be fairly confident that this candidate wouldn’t get elected and then suddenly say “oh, yeah, and god spoke to me and told me to slaughter all left-handed people” or something bizarre like that. Whereas with Huckabee, he has already espoused a bunch of positions I don’t agree with, and he seems likely to espouse more different ones, AND it seems likely that, if he comes up with a position I disagree with, he will be unalterably convinced of the correctness of it… because, after all, it came from prayer and faith, how can it be wrong?
Going back to your hypothetical candidate, let’s assume there’s a candidate who:
(1) Is Christian and very sincere about it
(2) Thus takes very seriously, and truly and deeply believes (as evidenced by the actions he or she takes) in charity, mercy, loving one’s neighbor, and the other generic-good-moral-Christian-values
(3) Interprets Christianity in such a way that his or her positions on lots of other issues (such as gay rights, separation of church and state, etc.) end up aligning very closely with mine
I would happily vote for such a candidate. Would it be BECAUSE of his Christianity or DESPITE it? Well, a bit of both. It’s a bit worrisome to think that even though this person arrived at many of the same conclusions I arrived at as far as positions and policy are concerned, his or her reasons for doing so are potentially very alien to me. I mean, if I say “hey, let’s discuss the death penalty” and he says “ok, let me go read 10 chapters in the Bible first”, that would be somewhat off-putting for me. On the other hand, a fair bit of the central message of Christianity (the love-thy-neighbor part, not the believe-in-me-or-burn-in-hell part) is something that the world could use a lot more of, and someone who truly tried to live their life with that guiding principle would be a Good Person. (In fairness, the Golden Rule is hardly unique to Christianity).
OK, enough rambling.
As much as I’m pretty much with you and Liberal more than Hentor on this, this particular point doesn’t work. You’ve already made it clear that the being Hentor refers to as god is not your God. Thus Hentor is not claiming to be better than “Him”; he’s claiming to be better than a being you agree is a different one. It is no arrogance to put yourself above a small and petty being.
Smith might be called Jimmy Carter. Not a minister, but his belief in god was hardly in doubt, and seemed to me a lot more genuine than the current crop of losers.
I’m not sure Huckabee is hateful, though. What he is doing is that when he discovered that he gained traction through appealing to Iowa evangelicals through both his Christianity and non-Mormonism, kept on playing that tune and increasing it. He could have appealed for tolerance, but instead he seems to be ratcheting up the intolerance. We had one Bush/Rove combination already, we don’t need another.
A very thoughtful reply, Max. Thanks. (FYI, the Golden Rule isn’t really Christ’s moral imperative. His moral imperative is “Be perfect.”)
Eh. I don’t know. I certainly won’t question Carter’s faith, but he has always had a bitter streak, and since 1980 this has grown more and more hateful.
He has never forgiven the American people for having the good sense to vote him out of office, and sees this as a character flaw in us.
Of the current crop, Obama seems to have faith without a lot of bitterness. It is an endearing combination, and while I don’t often agree with Obama I find myself liking him a lot.
I’d prefer the candidate with those same views that wasn’t a xian, personally.
As others have said, I don’t see Huckabee as hateful though I understand that you do.
I’m disturbed by him because I believe him to be sincere in his desire to do good.
And that’s because the motivation for his desire to do good (as he understands it) appears to come from religion.
And that disturbs me because in my experience people motivated to do good that are coming from religion tend to have blind spots for aspects of their behavior that aren’t accounted for by their religious belief and that require a secular perspective and motivation to see clearly without any obfuscating religious considerations.
He knows to talk the talk (like putting aside the question of what would jesus do in the case of the death penalty in a recent debate by separating religion from politics – which was a pretty rich thing for him to do, IMO) but frankly I don’t believe him. I think he’d (quietly) put religious beliefs first if he could.
The traits and points of view you listed in your theoretical candidate sound good, but my problem is that I believe that in practice there are gray areas, unforeseen issues and circumstances, and much wiggle room for actually implementing policies that further those notions and how that’s done. I frankly just wouldn’t trust someone who claims to put their religious belief up that high in their own values to do what I’d consider to be the right thing when it comes to sticky subjects like abortion, teaching small children in grade school about homosexuality with the ‘johnny has two mommies’ type of books, intelligent design in schools, etc. no matter what they say. All politicians lie, of course; but generally when someone lies I feel comfortable knowing what they “really mean.”
And as someone else said, while it’s true that everyone probably prays and says they do again I find that easier to translate into “a quiet moment of reflection” in terms of the actual literal-minded effect that prayer has on the person’s conduct if I’m talking about someone like Clinton vs. someone like Bush. Perhaps Clinton felt himself to be guided by a xian god as much as anyone in times of decisions but I don’t get that feeling with his all-nighter agonizing discussions about decisions to be made and his apparent penchant for really thinking things through a great deal as well as polling everyone on the planet for how the decision will play. Those traits are arguable as to whether they’re good or not, but at least – to me – they’re not spooky.
Finally, I’m of the belief that deeply religious fundamentalist-type people can be fuzzy thinkers in areas that overlap their religious beliefs because they’ve decided those are sacrosanct. So the most they’ll do is find a way to agree with you based on scripture. But they don’t have tossing scripture out the window as an option.
And I don’t want to have to wade through scripture to find some religious reason to correlate with my secular reason to support gay marriage, for example.
I understand your theoretical candidate would be in favor of everything I’m in favor of, but since not every issue can be foreseen I’d prefer someone who wasn’t a minister due to my lack of faith in their critical thinking skills, sincerity, and personality insofar as its motivated by conceptions of religious imperatives (a convict says he found the lord which contributes to him getting out of jail; I can’t believe he’d feel the same about the convict if he converted to satanism and it should probably be moot either way).
I don’t want to careen off thread too much, but although I’ve not witnessed Carter’s bitter streak or hatefulness anywhere, I would suspect you’re right that he sees it as a character flaw in terms of what he’d perceive as reasons for Reagan being elected. I happen to think he’s right about those character flaws if they’re the same ones I’m thinking of: shiny over substance, rhetoric over details, and self-interest first. But who knows what specific character flaws he asserts in the American people for voting that way, if he does at all. Cite, by any chance?
Interestingly, I find Obama crabby and thin-skinned though I like his policies.
Bitter? Not when he is president, but I can see it lately, perhaps an effect of age. I do agree he was a lousy president, in part because his solution to the country’s problems was our spiritual growth (stop having malaise) instead of doing anything. But the main reason I brought him up was that he had the attitude that his actions came from faith, but not that our actions should. I find that acceptable in principle, though his example and Bush’s seem to show it doesn’t work out too well in practice.