Outraged by Glenn Beck’s Salvo, Christians Fire Back

[fossten]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

He did the right thing in this instance. Regarding this topic... social justice 'term usage', I am no longer offended by him, since he set things straight. Without this broadcast - still offended...

Thus, since he clarified his original meaning, your reaction and assumption was wrong, as was your smear.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by fossten

Thus, since he clarified his original meaning, your reaction and assumption was wrong, as was your smear.

He had to clarify it - I stated that many, many, many, many, many, many, many times - there are more, but I think you get the point....

I was not wrong - until he clarified himself my 'smears' could have been true. That is why he spent the time with his little primer on 'social justice,' many people assumed the very same thing. He needed to set the record straight.

However, I still stand by my point that he shouldn't be telling you how to judge your church. He got in a huge mess here, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. He shouldn't mix politics and religion. He isn't good enough, and doesn't have a good grasp of various religious theologies. This example is perfect in that regard. He used a term, without knowing how that term is used by churches the world over.

I know very little about religious theologies, but I did know churches use 'social justice' differently than poly sci majors (nod to shag). However, would I ever, ever assume to tell anyone how to judge their church... absolutely not.

[fossten]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

However, I still stand by my point that he shouldn't be telling you how to judge your church. He got in a huge mess here, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. He shouldn't mix politics and religion. He isn't good enough, and doesn't have a good grasp of various religious theologies. This example is perfect in that regard. He used a term, without knowing how that term is used by churches the world over.

So as long as you're good at it, you should mix politics and religion? Because I hear idiot Democrats do that all the time.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by fossten

So as long as you're good at it, you should mix politics and religion? Because I hear idiot Democrats do that all the time.

I am not sure that I would better at it than Beck - I just knew how churches use the term differently...

I do know I am not good enough to mix them in public. Among friends over sushi and sake - sure... Trying to tell people how to judge their religion on a national TV show - where people have a tendency to 'follow' you... no way.

And I hear idiots on both sides of the fence foss - there are plenty of right leaning religious evangelists (think Pat Robertson) who do this on a regular basis.

[fossten]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

both sides of the fence

Cha ching!

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by fossten

Cha ching!

And when Bill Maher tells you how to judge your church, I won't be arguing that it is OK that he does...

[fossten]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

And when Bill Maher tells you how to judge your church, I won't be arguing that it is OK that he does...

Who?

You mean this loser?

[shagdrum]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Finally he admits that he has to define ‘social justice’.

Where did he do that?

Are you making irrational logical leaps to confirm your lies again?

He needed to do this – and I am sure this broadcast is a response to everyone’s confusion as to the usage of the terms.

More assumptions.

So, he admits that he needs to ‘define’ at about 2:30 into the program.

Again, where are you getting this?

It is almost comical how you attempt to deceive yourself. None of what Beck said in any way supports your lies yet you assume it confirms them.

It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead
-Thomas Jefferson

[shagdrum]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

And when Bill Maher tells you how to judge your church, I won't be arguing that it is OK that he does...

Unlike Beck, Maher has no credibility. His arguments are based in arrogance, hyperbole, condescension and demagogery as opposed to facts and reason.

Bill Maher can rant all he wants. Only fools give his words any credence.

[shagdrum]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

I was not wrong - until he clarified himself my 'smears' could have been true.

COULD have been true. However, if you listened to his show you would have known that they were NOT true.

So you simply ASSUMED it WAS true and would not consider any other possibility.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Where did he do that?

Are you making irrational logical leaps to confirm your lies again?

About 2-1/2 minutes in he very clearly states that he needs to 'set the record straight' and then goes on to say - 'my definition of social justice...'

He said those very words - 'my definition of social justice...'

Sorry shag - he finally set the record straight. He also made sure that people needed to understand if the use of that term either: "came from the heart" or "from a progressive"... he stated there are 2 usages of this term out there...

I know it must be very difficult to see that Beck is giving a primer so he won't be considered a 'Jesus hater' (Time Magazine's words - not mine) and that everyone will be on the same page when it comes to definitions, just as I said over and over and over again in this thread. He finally got it.

Too bad you don't.

It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead
-Thomas Jefferson

And you shag...

Wise it is to comprehend the whole.
Edward Young

[fossten]

Originally Posted by shagdrum

could have been true. However, if you listened to his show you would have known that they were not true.

So you simply assumed it was true and would not consider any other possibility.

q.f.t.