Handicapping Iowa...
 

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:49:03 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
. ..

What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it
contains?

I'm shocked.

And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind.
--
John H


Q: If I could prove the existence of god, would you then have faith?

A: If you could prove the existence of god, I wouldn't need faith.


Better stick with Harry, Doug. You guys go well together.
--
John H


I'm sorry if that little riddle entailed heavy lifting for you, John. Go put
some Ben-Gay on your skull.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...

What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains?

I'm shocked.
And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind.
--
John H


Q: If I could prove the existence of god, would you then have faith?

A: If you could prove the existence of god, I wouldn't need faith.




It's not even the detail of the existence or non-existence of a creator.
I don't have any problems with the idea of a creator. Why not a creator?
It is as good an explanation as any.

It's the absolute stupidity involved in actually believing that the
bible, with all its books and all its conflicts and all its translations
and interpretations and all the different ways ordinary people decided
what went in and what was kept out, and the utter silliness over popes
that could get married and did and popes that could not and did or
didn't, and the never-ending fights between these Christians and those
Christians and my Christians versus your Christians and so forth and so
on, ad nauseum, that makes me say "a pox on all your houses," and "keep
your crap far away from me."

And that's one of the reasons I am so god-damned offended when religious
simpies try to shovel their beliefs onto and over society.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

HK wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:12:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:


Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are.


I have no problem with such people so long as they don't try to shove
their "limited and literal view of the world and their faith" on the
rest of us.

Harry, you really need to re-read the above sentence and see how it
applies to you. No, it is a reflection of you.

When they do - and they do - then I think I have an obligation to push
back, and to push back hard.

Two eyes for an eye?

When the idiot who currently occupies the White House promulgated "Jesus
Day" in Texas while he was governor there, I would have hauled his ass
into federal court had I been a Texan. The fact that he and his
administration use their simple-minded, limited and literal view of the
world to deny access to condoms to Africans who are suffering through an
AIDs epidemic makes me believe that there is something really and truly
wrong with their belief system.

Seems to me that the 10th amendment comes into play here with the State
of Texas and every other state for that matter. And, you don't live in
Texas because you would have would have wound up shot dead by a Texan
carrying a sidearm.

You and your buddies can buy condoms and send them to Africa, you don't
the President's permission to do so.

But, hey, I'm a pessimist. I fully expect that if Barack Obama is the
Democrat nominee, one of those geniuses with their limited and literal
view of the world and their faith will try to assassinate him.

You really do need to get a does of sunshine and some warmth in your heart.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...


You really do need to get a does of sunshine and some warmth in your
heart.


I'm absolutely positive you would not say the same thing to a Kristian
extremist who wanted to prevent condoms from being shipped to Africa as part
of a government program.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...

What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it
contains?

I'm shocked.
And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind.
--
John H


Q: If I could prove the existence of god, would you then have faith?

A: If you could prove the existence of god, I wouldn't need faith.



It's not even the detail of the existence or non-existence of a creator.
I don't have any problems with the idea of a creator. Why not a creator?
It is as good an explanation as any.

It's the absolute stupidity involved in actually believing that the
bible, with all its books and all its conflicts and all its translations
and interpretations and all the different ways ordinary people decided
what went in and what was kept out, and the utter silliness over popes
that could get married and did and popes that could not and did or
didn't, and the never-ending fights between these Christians and those
Christians and my Christians versus your Christians and so forth and so
on, ad nauseum, that makes me say "a pox on all your houses," and "keep
your crap far away from me."

And that's one of the reasons I am so god-damned offended when religious
simpies try to shovel their beliefs onto and over society.


Do us and yourself a favor and go to the other side and let us know
what's there, if you can actually come back.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
...


You really do need to get a does of sunshine and some warmth in your
heart.


I'm absolutely positive you would not say the same thing to a Kristian
extremist who wanted to prevent condoms from being shipped to Africa as
part of a government program.


Seems to be more to this than meets the eye.

http://tinyurl.com/2wkmqt

Eisboch

Handicapping Iowa...
 

HK wrote:

What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains?

I'm shocked.

The Torah of your heritage (I don't say your religion because you are
your own religion, that is, godless) was written down by man. Many, many
Rabbi's have interpreted it since, and filled it with "mistranslations
and myths and folklore tales".

I suppose that's one reason why you don't follow it, despite quoting
from it.

-- Charlie

Handicapping Iowa...
 

HK wrote:

And that's one of the reasons I am so god-damned offended when religious
simpies try to shovel their beliefs onto and over society.

No it isn't. It's because you are amoral, and you want only your
morality (or more accurately, lack of morality.)

A good example of this is your having sex with a 14 year old minor child
at 13 years old.

-- Charlie

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all
Kristians

Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said
"He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as
having the same view - which you can't with any certainty.

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability."

By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry.

OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are
happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are
proven
to be ineffective.

You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that
you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a
distinction, you are painting with a broad brush.

If you weren't biased you would have used different language to
demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view
and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As
far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind.

Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just
as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in
which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the
lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and
harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things
different.

It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that
doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic
language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment
about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting
words to create a negative impression.

It is what it is.

I get a bit extreme when a cult uses its influence to force humanitarians to
withhold what is, for all intents and purposes, medication. It's especially
annoying when the cult is based on a literal interpretation of a book
written by people who were nothing special.

And another perfect example of the ability to traduce religious
belief.

You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Would it be right if I decided to create a society based on the book "The
Handmaid's Tale"?

That would be your decision. If you felt that a monolistic theocracy
that relied on the subjugation of women to maintain social control is
a moral and ethical value system that's right for you, go for it. It's
not like there aren't those who do believe in similar systems -
certain fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, extremist LDS and neo-Nazi
polythiestic reconstructionists like Stormfront as examples.

Just don't expect to be greeted with open arms by the rest of society
if you do.

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.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

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...

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all
Kristians

Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said
"He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as
having the same view - which you can't with any certainty.

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability."

By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry.

OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are
happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are
proven
to be ineffective.

You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that
you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a
distinction, you are painting with a broad brush.

If you weren't biased you would have used different language to
demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view
and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As
far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind.

Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just
as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in
which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the
lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and
harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things
different.

It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that
doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic
language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment
about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting
words to create a negative impression.

It is what it is.

I get a bit extreme when a cult uses its influence to force humanitarians
to
withhold what is, for all intents and purposes, medication. It's
especially
annoying when the cult is based on a literal interpretation of a book
written by people who were nothing special.

And another perfect example of the ability to traduce religious
belief.

You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Would it be right if I decided to create a society based on the book "The
Handmaid's Tale"?

That would be your decision. If you felt that a monolistic theocracy
that relied on the subjugation of women to maintain social control is
a moral and ethical value system that's right for you, go for it. It's
not like there aren't those who do believe in similar systems -
certain fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, extremist LDS and neo-Nazi
polythiestic reconstructionists like Stormfront as examples.

Just don't expect to be greeted with open arms by the rest of society
if you do.

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.

Youse people are too smart for this NG. I can't keep up.

Rev. Eisboch

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:10 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all
Kristians

Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you
said
"He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's
working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as
having the same view - which you can't with any certainty.

"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability."

By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry.

OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who
are
happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are
proven
to be ineffective.

You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that
you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a
distinction, you are painting with a broad brush.

If you weren't biased you would have used different language to
demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view
and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As
far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind.

Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and
literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just
as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in
which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the
lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and
harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things
different.

It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that
doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic
language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment
about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting
words to create a negative impression.

It is what it is.

I get a bit extreme when a cult uses its influence to force humanitarians
to
withhold what is, for all intents and purposes, medication. It's
especially
annoying when the cult is based on a literal interpretation of a book
written by people who were nothing special.

And another perfect example of the ability to traduce religious
belief.

You are just digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Would it be right if I decided to create a society based on the book "The
Handmaid's Tale"?

That would be your decision. If you felt that a monolistic theocracy
that relied on the subjugation of women to maintain social control is
a moral and ethical value system that's right for you, go for it. It's
not like there aren't those who do believe in similar systems -
certain fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, extremist LDS and neo-Nazi
polythiestic reconstructionists like Stormfront as examples.

Just don't expect to be greeted with open arms by the rest of society
if you do.

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.

Youse people are too smart for this NG. I can't keep up.

Rev. Eisboch

And what group are you promoting, Reverend?

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...


Youse people are too smart for this NG. I can't keep up.

Rev. Eisboch

And what group are you promoting, Reverend?


SACD

Eisboch

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"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.

Eisboch

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
Youse people are too smart for this NG. I can't keep up.

Rev. Eisboch
And what group are you promoting, Reverend?


SACD

Eisboch



It is an inferior religion, you need to check out DVDA religion, it is
closer to the truth.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:42:16 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

Youse people are too smart for this NG.

You would think so, yet here we are. :)

I can't keep up.

And I have a headache.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

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.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"D.Duck" wrote in message
...
Youse people are too smart for this NG. I can't keep up.

Rev. Eisboch
And what group are you promoting, Reverend?


SACD

Eisboch

It is an inferior religion, you need to check out DVDA religion, it is
closer to the truth.

Too many fundies in DVDA. Those with faith in SACD have broader horizons.

Eisboch

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:03:58 -0500, HK wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message
...

What?

Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be
believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many
translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains?

I'm shocked.
And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind.
--
John H


Q: If I could prove the existence of god, would you then have faith?

A: If you could prove the existence of god, I wouldn't need faith.




It's not even the detail of the existence or non-existence of a creator.
I don't have any problems with the idea of a creator. Why not a creator?
It is as good an explanation as any.

It's the absolute stupidity involved in actually believing that the
bible, with all its books and all its conflicts and all its translations
and interpretations and all the different ways ordinary people decided
what went in and what was kept out, and the utter silliness over popes
that could get married and did and popes that could not and did or
didn't, and the never-ending fights between these Christians and those
Christians and my Christians versus your Christians and so forth and so
on, ad nauseum, that makes me say "a pox on all your houses," and "keep
your crap far away from me."

And that's one of the reasons I am so god-damned offended when religious
simpies try to shovel their beliefs onto and over society.

Why don't you take your whining to the forum in which these folks are
trying to shovel their beliefs onto you. No balls?
--
John H

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 17:45:04 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"BAR" wrote in message
...


You really do need to get a does of sunshine and some warmth in your
heart.


I'm absolutely positive you would not say the same thing to a Kristian
extremist who wanted to prevent condoms from being shipped to Africa as
part of a government program.


Seems to be more to this than meets the eye.

http://tinyurl.com/2wkmqt

Eisboch


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."


--
John H

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...


Youse people are too smart for this NG. I can't keep up.

Rev. Eisboch

And what group are you promoting, Reverend?


SACD

Eisboch


Where can I send a donation? That donation would be all my conventional
CDs.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"D.Duck" wrote in message
...


Youse people are too smart for this NG. I can't keep up.

Rev. Eisboch

And what group are you promoting, Reverend?


SACD

Eisboch


Where can I send a donation? That donation would be all my conventional
CDs.


No thanks. My son came over last night and we spent about 4 hours listening
to various SACD albums.
Today I decided to listen to a regular John Fogarty CD and had to stop
playing it. Normally a good album, it sounded terrible after 4 hours of
SACD.

*That* is a major downside.

Eisboch

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Jan 4, 3:49�pm, JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:59:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Jan 4, 5:18?am, JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:34:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing

wrote:

I read an account that said more than half of the Republicans
attending caucus in Iowa described themselves as "born again" or
"evangelical" Christians. Romney actually led among the Republicans
who didn't arrive in a chruch bus, so you weren't completely unfounded
in your Republican guesstimate.

That's a good point and reading through the post mortems this morning,
that one jumped out as an interesting data point. ?

Notice how the media makes sure to drive home the "evangelical
Christian" phrase, over and over. ?They've made it an issue... to give
godless liberals something to rally against. ?Look how well it's
working right here on this NG.

I don't think the "godless liberals" are ralllying against
"evangelical Christians". Huckabee's meteoric rise in a race that 90
days ago was heavily handicapped for Guiliani or (maybe) Mitt is
certainly legitimate reality, but nobody is "rallying against"
Huckabee by noting much of his support comes from people who share his
fundamentalist values. Certainly no more than people would be
"rallying against" Obama by noting he has many supporters among racial
minorities or "rallying against" Clinton by noting she has many
supporters among politically active women.

The mere fact that you use the term "fundamentalist values" proves my
point. �Huckabee is not a fundamentalist. �While there are
fundamentalist Baptists, he was not in that fold. �He was part of the
Arkansas Baptist Church org, which is a member of the Southern Baptist
Church org. �Hell, they're nearly as liberal as the Methodists! Fundie
Baptists are a whole different thing.

Another point I was making is that "godless liberal" is of the same
ilk as "evangelical christian". �The modifier "godless" isn't
necessary, but I used it to evoke a negative response. �There
certainly shouldn't be anything wrong with "Christian", but tack on
"evangelical", and it evokes a negative response among left-leaning
folks. �That is precisely why the mainstream media uses that term to
describe anyone of faith during this whole process. �Wouldn't want
anyone in the middle jumping over to the wrong side. �Words are such
powerful things, aren't they?



My parents and siblings all vote Republican. Given a chance, some of
them would vote for anybody *except* Romney, due to his "Mormonism".
(Pretty funny, considering we are all not-so-distant cousins of Joseph
Smith - his grandmother was a Gould from our ancestral home in
Topsfield, MA.) I'd like to think in general that the evangelical vote
isn't "rallied against" another Republican- and that their support for
Huckabee is truly proactive rather than reactive.

That's a problem with your family... I don't know any Christians who
have a problem with the Mormon faith. �And there's that term
"evangelical" again. �Are you sure you know what it means?

"The news media often use the term (especially in the United States)
to describe conservative Protestant Christians. This is only partly
accurate, as the evangelical movement embraces a wide range of
expressions of faith around the four core characteristics."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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.

To most of us not well versed in the various sects, subsects, and
demoninations, the term "fundamentalist" is normally interchangeable
with "evangelical" or "born again". I certainly didn't intend to
offend you by its apparent misuse, nor would I have any way to know
you would be sensitive to that isse.

I heard a radio interview today with one of Huckabee's Iowa
organizers.
The organizer used to be a youth minister at a church. He admitted
that the churches were rallying for Huckabee, but that the stumping
usually stopped short of the preacher proclaiming from the pulpit,
"Thou shalt vote for Huckabee." He claimed that some of the churches
sent as many as 30 members to various Republican caucus meetings.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

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

Handicapping Iowa...
 

JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..

I was surprised but not displeased by Obama's win in Iowa. He's a very
appealing guy, and articulate. My fear is that despite his qualities, in
a general election, whitey isn't going to vote for "the black guy."



I think your age is showing Harry. Things have changed, and for the
better. The young crowd really don't have the remnants of racial
prejudices that many in our generation still harbor.


According to 2006 census date for the State of Iowa regarding race:

94.6% *Whitey*
2.5% Black



That were democrats voting for Obama, they are enlightened. All
RepubliNazi's, KKKristians and Independents hate black people.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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...


http://tinyurl.com/2rjlka


--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"HK" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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...


http://tinyurl.com/2rjlka


--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

Sooooo Harry. What's in your wallet? (Snerk)

Handicapping Iowa...
 

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.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:34:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:


Yep - that one surprized me that's for sure. What interests me is
that Huckabee would be the ideal Democrat candidate. What he proposes
isn't conservative Republican in any sense of the word. I think he
was selected on the strength of his faith and his pro-life stance - in
ever other aspect, he's a Democrat.

He was selected because he exudes decency and leadership.
There is no such thing as "conservative Republican." That's a term
ideologues use for different purposes, and with different motives.
Don't know what kind of Prez he would be, but I like Huckabee.
I'm not religious, but have no fear of Huckabee.
We share many values.
*Any* major candidate of either party - excepting Guiliani - will be a
vast improvement over those currently in power.
The only one that gives me pause is Obama, because he might have
Snoop Doggy Dog performing at White House events that I could stumble
upon watching television. I generally don't like rap music.

--Vic

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"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

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!!!