|
Handicapping Iowa...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 08:50:32 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
"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 m... 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. Not to mention one of the best General Managers in baseball. |
Handicapping Iowa...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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. Jesus...some of the stuff you're posting reads just like the lunatic-fringe absolutism I see on the gun boards. Mellow out, Tom. Doug's comments didn't seem that binary to me. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"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." |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:06:52 -0500, HK wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. Jesus...some of the stuff you're posting reads just like the lunatic-fringe absolutism I see on the gun boards. Mellow out, Tom. Doug's comments didn't seem that binary to me. How would a religious bigot know when someone is religiously bigotted, Harry? Wouldn't they think it was 'not very binary'? -- John H |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:16:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "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." Let's see, 42 posts later he defines himself out of his corner. Sounds like weaseling to me. -- John H |
Handicapping Iowa...
"John H." wrote in message
... On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:16:51 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "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." Let's see, 42 posts later he defines himself out of his corner. Sounds like weaseling to me. -- John H No, you moron. I provided that definition YESTERDAY. You missed it, in the same way you miss 98% of most discussions here. It frustrates you, so 198 messages later, you attempt to end these discussions by whining about them being off topic. |
Handicapping Iowa...
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. |
Handicapping Iowa...
JG2U wrote:
And he's a proven liar. Ever seen the speech he gave at that Alabama church picked apart? Obama stood in church and lied repeatedly about his father's and his own life's events, timelines, etc. All just to fit in with the occasion and to pander to the congregation. Ahhh. Obama upsets Jackoff. Delicious. |
Handicapping Iowa...
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. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"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". |
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...
|
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 |
Handicapping Iowa...
"HK" wrote in message ... 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 didn't see that show. I hoped Keith explained the evil in having an evangelical in office. Isn't Bill Clinton also a southern Baptist, just like Huckabee? Being a Baptist doesn't necessarily mean your are a follower of the evangelical "movement". My original point was that those in the media who tend to the left like to automatically tie the two together. Of course Olberman, in his pursuit of an ego driven desire to rank up there with other journalist greats, isn't exactly "tending". He swung the helm hard to port (boating content) when he realized that current events would really be good for his career to do so. Eisboch |
Handicapping Iowa...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... Not good. He's on TV, not in rec.boats. --Vic That line is funny. LOL. Eisboch |
Handicapping Iowa...
JG2U wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:57:56 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:47:49 -0500, JG2U wrote: Now turn your "filter" back on, Harry. :-) He was using the 'puter on the parker. That explains it. It's a "Low Transom Filter". You heard it here first. I expect royalties. ~snerk~ :-) I would like to trademark LTF. |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:47:24 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: Not good. He's on TV, not in rec.boats. ROTFL!! |
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. That's sort of the way of it. The distinction between a Lutheran Church and Evangelical Lutheran church is this - a Lutheran Church is more responsive to a central authority (like one of the major Synods) and an Evangelical Lutheran church is one that relies on the gospel as the ultimate reference rather than a central authority. It would be the same with Congretionalists, Presbyterians and, oddly, Anglican. There is even an evangelical group within Catholicism - which is sometimes called High Church Lutheranism. That's a simple way of explaning it - there are details, details, details. :) |
Handicapping Iowa...
Vic Smith wrote:
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. Snoop Dog usually has some interesting women following him. |
Handicapping Iowa...
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... 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 didn't see that show. I hoped Keith explained the evil in having an evangelical in office. Isn't Bill Clinton also a southern Baptist, just like Huckabee? Being a Baptist doesn't necessarily mean your are a follower of the evangelical "movement". My original point was that those in the media who tend to the left like to automatically tie the two together. Of course Olberman, in his pursuit of an ego driven desire to rank up there with other journalist greats, isn't exactly "tending". He swung the helm hard to port (boating content) when he realized that current events would really be good for his career to do so. I'll wager that there is a concensus in the country that leaders ground by a strong faith in religion will actually lead rather than follow the latest polls. |
Handicapping Iowa...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
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. :) There is rumor that Hoover like to hire Mormons. They could keep their mouths shut when asked. |
Handicapping Iowa...
Jim wrote:
"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) A photo of a young girl you'd recognize if you knew her back then? (snerk) -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
Handicapping Iowa...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... 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. Huckabee says he's never had a beer. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"JG2U" wrote in message
... Huckabee isn't big-business, is a moral conservative, and is moderately liberal on some issues. It's possible that some of the liberal base could see him as a real alternative to the things they don't like about the dems. Some of us have a problem with the other Huckabee. |
Handicapping Iowa...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"JG2U" wrote in message ... Huckabee isn't big-business, is a moral conservative, and is moderately liberal on some issues. It's possible that some of the liberal base could see him as a real alternative to the things they don't like about the dems. Some of us have a problem with the other Huckabee. Why would "the liberal base" be interested in a simple-minded, uninformed right-wing Christian rube as president? |
Handicapping Iowa...
"HK" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: "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) A photo of a young girl you'd recognize if you knew her back then? (snerk) My secret decoder ring is broken. I don't know what the f you're talking about. I'd get rid of that photo before your wife finds it. It's going to be hard enough explaining the old GB condum you've been saving for that special moment. Hey! Thanks for lifting the lid of your bozo bin. It's pretty cramped in here with pretty near all the regulars in residence. You really need a larger facility. |
Handicapping Iowa...
Jim wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... Jim wrote: "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) A photo of a young girl you'd recognize if you knew her back then? (snerk) My secret decoder ring is broken. I don't know what the f you're talking about. I'd get rid of that photo before your wife finds it. It's going to be hard enough explaining the old GB condum you've been saving for that special moment. Hey! Thanks for lifting the lid of your bozo bin. It's pretty cramped in here with pretty near all the regulars in residence. You really need a larger facility. Just the a**holes are in residence. I don't know why you've fallen out, but I'm sure I can remedy the problem. As for the girl reference, if you were brighter, you might stumble across her identity. Perhaps she is your _________________. Have a nice night. |
Handicapping Iowa...
HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message ... Huckabee isn't big-business, is a moral conservative, and is moderately liberal on some issues. It's possible that some of the liberal base could see him as a real alternative to the things they don't like about the dems. Some of us have a problem with the other Huckabee. Why would "the liberal base" be interested in a simple-minded, uninformed right-wing Christian rube as president? Silly Harry, they wouldn't want him as president but as a nominee for president. I think you, the liberal side of the asile, are in fear of a candidate with a strong faith in God. |
Handicapping Iowa...
BAR wrote:
HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message ... Huckabee isn't big-business, is a moral conservative, and is moderately liberal on some issues. It's possible that some of the liberal base could see him as a real alternative to the things they don't like about the dems. Some of us have a problem with the other Huckabee. Why would "the liberal base" be interested in a simple-minded, uninformed right-wing Christian rube as president? Silly Harry, they wouldn't want him as president but as a nominee for president. I think you, the liberal side of the asile, are in fear of a candidate with a strong faith in God. I care no more for American ayatollahs than I do for Iranian ayatollahs. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"HK" wrote in message
... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... 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. Huckabee says he's never had a beer. He's never had sex, either. BTW, I've never seen an entire Chuck Norris movie, either. I've seen bits and pieces of several while channel flipping, and what I saw was a pretty bad actor in pretty bad movies. Chuck's movies are intended as comedy. Thug: You don't belong here. Chuck: If I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you. For martial arts, I prefer Bruce Lee, and any number of Japanese or Chinese movies. You're spending too much time with old people. Tony Jaa is now the reigning king. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M__9ZmCFNeU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsJ5s...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aZaE...eature=related |
Handicapping Iowa...
"BAR" wrote in message
. .. HK wrote: JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "JG2U" wrote in message ... Huckabee isn't big-business, is a moral conservative, and is moderately liberal on some issues. It's possible that some of the liberal base could see him as a real alternative to the things they don't like about the dems. Some of us have a problem with the other Huckabee. Why would "the liberal base" be interested in a simple-minded, uninformed right-wing Christian rube as president? Silly Harry, they wouldn't want him as president but as a nominee for president. I think you, the liberal side of the asile, are in fear of a candidate with a strong faith in God. We've already seen what happens when a president uses faith instead of reason to formulate policy. You are not aware of this defect, but other people are. |
Handicapping Iowa...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... 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. Huckabee says he's never had a beer. He's never had sex, either. BTW, I've never seen an entire Chuck Norris movie, either. I've seen bits and pieces of several while channel flipping, and what I saw was a pretty bad actor in pretty bad movies. Chuck's movies are intended as comedy. Thug: You don't belong here. Chuck: If I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you. For martial arts, I prefer Bruce Lee, and any number of Japanese or Chinese movies. You're spending too much time with old people. Tony Jaa is now the reigning king. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M__9ZmCFNeU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsJ5s...eature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aZaE...eature=related I've only seen a couple in the last few years. I prefer the "mystical" martial arts movies...Crouching Tiger or one whose name escapes me at the moment. I did like Fist of Legend (Jet Li) and of course Fist of Legend, with the master, Bruce Lee. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com