Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:47:49 -0500, JG2U wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:33:49 -0500, HK wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:01:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:


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."

Not quite... there are no quotes around evangelical in the article. So
it didn't come out of his mouth, but probably went something like
this:
"Do you evangelize as part of your faith?"
"Yes."
"So would you consider yourself an evangelical Christian?"
"I suppose."

My whole point continues to be that it is the *media* who seems to
find the labels "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" (which *you*
improperly used) important, not Christians themselves.

And also that there are Christians who do not have a problem with the
Mormon faith. Sure some do, but there are groups who are opposed to
Romney for other reasons as well. So? Weird people everywhere.

twisted logic deleted



Huckabee is a perfect match for the GOP base.

He's a good and decent guy, and as you've pointed out, too decent to
win the presidency. That's too bad, as he's at least in the middle
somewhere between Bush on the right and Billary/Obama on the far left.

Now turn your "filter" back on, Harry. :-)

He was using the 'puter on the parker.
--
John H

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
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.


Sorry. I thought you were reading **ALL** the messages in this thread,
not just the response to your messages. You missed something which
would've prevented you from saying "broad brush". It was a response to
Del Cecchi.

Here it is.

Kristian: Someone who uses their religion to defeat humanitarian
programs in
countries they really don't care about.
Christian: Someone who doesn't.

That's not painting with a broad brush. That's perfectly true and
accurate. However, I'll add 3 words to the definition of Kristian. Now,
the definition reads "....don't care about, including THIS country."
But you never answered the part of my question about the pet names you
use for members of other groups that you find fault with. Or is it only
American Christians you don't like?

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:40:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...

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.


Sorry. I thought you were reading **ALL** the messages in this thread,
not just the response to your messages. You missed something which
would've prevented you from saying "broad brush". It was a response to
Del Cecchi.

Here it is.

Kristian: Someone who uses their religion to defeat humanitarian programs
in
countries they really don't care about.
Christian: Someone who doesn't.

That's not painting with a broad brush. That's perfectly true and
accurate. However, I'll add 3 words to the definition of Kristian. Now,
the definition reads "....don't care about, including THIS country."

But you never answered the part of my question about the pet names you use
for members of other groups that you find fault with. Or is it only
American Christians you don't like?


They're the extremists I'm most familiar with. I really never took the time
to think about other kinds of extremists. You probably wanted me to say
"ragheads", didn't you?

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:06:31 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:40:30 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
om...

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.


Sorry. I thought you were reading **ALL** the messages in this thread,
not just the response to your messages. You missed something which
would've prevented you from saying "broad brush". It was a response to
Del Cecchi.

Here it is.

Kristian: Someone who uses their religion to defeat humanitarian programs
in
countries they really don't care about.
Christian: Someone who doesn't.

That's not painting with a broad brush. That's perfectly true and
accurate. However, I'll add 3 words to the definition of Kristian. Now,
the definition reads "....don't care about, including THIS country."

But you never answered the part of my question about the pet names you use
for members of other groups that you find fault with. Or is it only
American Christians you don't like?


They're the extremists I'm most familiar with. I really never took the time
to think about other kinds of extremists. You probably wanted me to say
"ragheads", didn't you?


Thinking about Muslim extremists takes considerable concerted effort. You
just never hear anything about them.
--
John H

Handicapping Iowa...
 

JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:53:00 -0500, HK wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:33:49 -0500, HK wrote:

JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:01:10 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:


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."
Not quite... there are no quotes around evangelical in the article. So
it didn't come out of his mouth, but probably went something like
this:
"Do you evangelize as part of your faith?"
"Yes."
"So would you consider yourself an evangelical Christian?"
"I suppose."

My whole point continues to be that it is the *media* who seems to
find the labels "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" (which *you*
improperly used) important, not Christians themselves.

And also that there are Christians who do not have a problem with the
Mormon faith. Sure some do, but there are groups who are opposed to
Romney for other reasons as well. So? Weird people everywhere.

twisted logic deleted

Huckabee is a perfect match for the GOP base.
He's a good and decent guy, and as you've pointed out, too decent to
win the presidency. That's too bad, as he's at least in the middle
somewhere between Bush on the right and Billary/Obama on the far left.

Now turn your "filter" back on, Harry. :-)

Huckabee is a simple-minded, overly religious fool.

Heh.. he scares Harry. Delicious. :-)


Why would he scare me? He isn't going to be elected president. He's just
another overly religious simpleton. Your type.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Jan 5, 7:54�am, "Del Cecchi" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

...





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.

Most "evangelicals" don't consider the United Methodists to be
"evangelicals".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'll accept that, for lack of any evidence to the contrary. But how
does one become an "evangelical"? It isn't something into which a
person can be baptized. A couple of blocks from my house is an
"Evangelical Lutheran Church", does everybody who attends that church
become an evangelical because there is a sign on the lawn? I sure hope
the evangelicals don't waste the time that some sects do; fuming and
fussing about who is the "real" or "greater" believer.

Many people will accept a self-description of faith or belief at face
value, and perhaps that's what the media counts on. And like JG2U
suggests, it's possible that the media conspired to trap people into
proclaiming themselves to be "evangelical"

My personal understanding of evangelism includes any Christian who
feels compelled to "spread the word" and recruit new members or "save"
their non-Christian neighbors. "Angel" is the root word, and an
evangelist, like a biblical angel, feels that he or she is carrying a
message from God. I may be entirely wrong, but that's my understanding
anyway and it's probably shared by a walloping number of folks who
also are not evangelical.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:31:18 -0500, wrote:

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

Olberman or the Brookings dude uttered the words
"Huckabee" and "evangelical" about 39 times.

We get the point, Keith.

He is every bit as obnoxious and biased as Rush

I might have seen the show Eisboch is talking about.
Bunch of them sitting around, including Matthews, actually bragging
they never saw a Chuck Norris movie. They are either lying or live in
caves. Not that Norris ever made a decent movie, but to have not
ever been exposed to one shows a certain insularity.
Matthews and Olbermann interviewed Huckabee, who acquitted himself
very well, then made some snide remarks when he was gone.
Howard Fineman took them to task for their stupidity.
Olbermann is more and more the hypocrite, criticizing others for
shallowness, but always devoting part of his show to Paris Hilton or
Britteney, or similar trash talk.
Not good. He's on TV, not in rec.boats.

--Vic

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 09:32:35 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:



My personal understanding of evangelism includes any Christian who
feels compelled to "spread the word" and recruit new members or "save"
their non-Christian neighbors. "Angel" is the root word, and an
evangelist, like a biblical angel, feels that he or she is carrying a
message from God. I may be entirely wrong, but that's my understanding
anyway and it's probably shared by a walloping number of folks who
also are not evangelical.

I'm far from an expert on it, but in the current lexicon all
"Evangelical" really means is whatever Carl Rove or Keith
Olbermann says it is.
It's just another way to polarize people.

--Vic

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"JG2U" wrote in message
...
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

Unfortunately, the unwashed masses thinks he's a serious, believeable,
truthful reporter. He's a clown.



I don't know about being a clown, but I liked him a lot better when he did
sports.

Eisboch