Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Jan 4, 6:53 pm, JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 18:13:44 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Jan 4, 3:49?pm, JG2U wrote:

That's a problem with your family... I don't know any Christians who
have a problem with the Mormon faith. ?

Here, meet some:

http://lifeandtruth.com/mormonism.htm

Here, the opposite:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-christian-iow...

Weird people everywhere, huh?

If you read all the way to the bottom of the item, you'll see that
your link actually validates my point about some Christians who
describe themselvs as "evangelical" (including the Methodist preacher
quoted)
having difficulty with Romney's Mormon faith.

From your link:

Evangelicals are hugely influential in the Iowa caucuses, making up by
some estimates some 40 percent of Republican caucus-goers. Many of
them, however, have profound reservations about Mr. Romney's Mormon
faith.
Mr. Hurd, the pastor of West Hill United Methodist Church here who
identified himself as an evangelical, said he wrestled with that issue
himself but decided in the end it should not matter in his decision.
"Although they have a theology vastly different from mine, Mormons
generally are good citizens," he said.
Mr. Hurd also offered some insight into where his fellow Alliance
board members are leaning. He said they are mainly divided between Mr.
Romney and Mr. Huckabee, with the latter probably holding the edge.
"A lot of them are troubled by his Mormon religion," he said. "That's
probably the difference."

*******

So there's a statement, by an Iowa pastor describing himself as
"evangelical", confirming that many Christians of his acquaintance are
"troubled by (Romney's) Mormon religion."

So if you have never met a Christian who has any problems with the
Mormon faith you probably are not an evangelical Christian living in
Iowa. Reports from evangelical Christians there (as evident in your
own link) confirm that Mormonism is/was an issue that many of them
considered a strike against Romney.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:01:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

So if you have never met a Christian who has any problems with the
Mormon faith you probably are not an evangelical Christian living in
Iowa. Reports from evangelical Christians there (as evident in your
own link) confirm that Mormonism is/was an issue that many of them
considered a strike against Romney

What's funny about this is that if any of these folks knew how many
Mormons are working for the US government in positions of influence
and power, their heads would explode. :)

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:50:32 -0800, -rick- wrote:

HK wrote:

I don't have any problems with the idea of a creator. Why not a creator?
It is as good an explanation as any.

I don't think so. I see it more as unnecessary complication
presented as simplification, possible but highly improbable.

The odd thing is that the closer and closer science gets to explaining
life, the universe and everything, the more they are puzzled because
of the unique nature of - well, life, the universe and everything. :)

I was reading some material last week about a physicist at MIT who is
most definetly an atheist and one of his comments just jumped out at
me. He was discussing the science behind the search for the ultimate
particle - the base building element of the universe.

I'm paraphrasing here because I can't get the exact quote at the
moment - mainly because the book is in the living room and I'm still
sore from falling on my tushie yesterday (damn ice) and don't want to
walk that far - he said: If I didn't know any better, I'd have to
believe that somebody is playing a giant cosmic joke on us because the
closer we come, the further we are from defining ourselves and our
universal environment.

Heh... :)

I don't see a distinction between faith and non-faith. They are both
different sides of the same belief coin. It's a choice you make -
either you do or you don't. Intellectually, they both require belief.

I've always enjoyed St. Thomas Aquinas's approach. He felt that the
existence of God is neither self-evident nor beyond proof essentially
saying that arguments for the existence of God typically include
metaphysical, empirical, inductive, and subjective types and arguments
against typically include empirical, deductive, and inductive.

Works for me.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 04:03:37 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JG2U" wrote in message
.. .

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 18:05:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:


According to the news sources I read, a high percentage of the
Republican voters who supported Huckabee in Iowa described
*themselves* as either evangelical or born again Christians. If
somebody claims to be a born again Christian or describes their faith
as "evangelical", I'm willing to take their word for it.

Yep. It's the news sources that are describing them as such. Just
like I already said.



I was watching that well known Bush "admirer", Keith Olberman on MSNBC
yesterday. He was interviewing some guy from the Brookings Institute,
discussing the Iowa caucus results. In the course of the approximate 2
minute interview either Olberman or the Brookings dude uttered the words
"Huckabee" and "evangelical" about 39 times.

We get the point, Keith.

Eisboch


Yes, but did Chuck and Harry get the point?
--
John H

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:45:48 -0500, JG2U wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:40:15 -0500, John H.
wrote:



Harry, you spreading lies again?

"The United States government, the world’s largest donor of condoms, has
bought more than nine billion condoms over the past two decades. Under
President Bush’s global AIDS plan, which dedicates billions of dollars to
fight the epidemic, a third of the money for prevention must go to
promoting abstinence. But that leaves two-thirds for other programs, so the
federal government’s distribution of condoms has risen, to over 400 million
a year."

The truth means nothing to harry.

....nor Doug!
--
John H

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Your point that those whose faith is based in fundamental Dominionism
is somehow anathema to rational humanist society is correct. However,
my point is that not all Christians are Reconstructionists just as all
Jews are not Orthodox and all Muslims are not Wahabists. To view all
Christians, Jews and Muslims as essentially the same is - well, no
other word for it - bigoted.


I never said all religious people were extremists. Are you going to pretend
I said that anyway, just to maintain an imaginary edge in this discussion?

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:16:51 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:45:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Seems to be more to this than meets the eye.

http://tinyurl.com/2wkmqt

Ah nuts - I was setting Doug up for just this - I was just trying to
work through his prejudices first. :)

Oh well...

Sorry 'bout that.

No problem Rev.


How do you feel about theocracies?

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:16:51 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:45:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Seems to be more to this than meets the eye.

http://tinyurl.com/2wkmqt

Ah nuts - I was setting Doug up for just this - I was just trying to
work through his prejudices first. :)

Oh well...

Sorry 'bout that.

No problem Rev.


How do you feel about theocracies?


I, for one, think he was one of the greatest philosophers ever.

Eisboch

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:40:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

Your point that those whose faith is based in fundamental Dominionism
is somehow anathema to rational humanist society is correct. However,
my point is that not all Christians are Reconstructionists just as all
Jews are not Orthodox and all Muslims are not Wahabists. To view all
Christians, Jews and Muslims as essentially the same is - well, no
other word for it - bigoted.

I never said all religious people were extremists. Are you going to pretend
I said that anyway, just to maintain an imaginary edge in this discussion?

Heh - nice try Doug.

You got caught, you tried to weasel your way out of it and you lost.

No more discussion or prolonged dissertations needed. Your whole
construct is dust and no magic potion (as in off track misdirection or
unpleasantness) will put it back together again.

Keep this lesson in mind the next time you want to paint with a broad
brush.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:41:25 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 20:16:51 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:45:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Seems to be more to this than meets the eye.

http://tinyurl.com/2wkmqt

Ah nuts - I was setting Doug up for just this - I was just trying to
work through his prejudices first. :)

Oh well...

Sorry 'bout that.

No problem Rev.

How do you feel about theocracies?

Personally, I think Theocracies are great.

Look at what Theo did for the Red Sox!!

In Theo we trust.

ALL HAIL THEO!!!