Candidates and Religion

[Gustaf]

I don't care what religion you are unless it changes your views on the issues.

I would agree with that. Still, someone who can be thinking and open-minded, while having a strong faith (like Tony Blair) would get my respect and admiration.

[Gustaf]

Jmfcst,

I am not a Christian, so I would like you to clarify something for me.  If you accept homosexuals, are you a bad christian?  I would like to hear your answer.

I wouldn't say it makes one a "bad" Christian.  They've simply allowed themselves to be deceived.   Not to mention that they are contradicting their own faith....if their faith is not defined by the bible, then what defines it?  Did they invent their own religion?

Taking a purely logical point of view, contradicting one's own faith is contradicting one's self.

Do you really believe that the bible should be followed to the letter, every single word or point? Even those about different crops and stuff?

[Gustaf]

Jmfcst,

I am not a Christian, so I would like you to clarify something for me.  If you accept homosexuals, are you a bad christian?  I would like to hear your answer.

I wouldn't say it makes one a "bad" Christian.  They've simply allowed themselves to be deceived.   Not to mention that they are contradicting their own faith....if their faith is not defined by the bible, then what defines it?  Did they invent their own religion?

Taking a purely logical point of view, contradicting one's own faith is contradicting one's self.

Do you really believe that the bible should be followed to the letter, every single word or point? Even those about different crops and stuff?

It can't be... translations differ a lot...

Hah, hah. Lol.

[Gustaf]

Shouldnt the election be on the issues rather then religion

Well, that is what some of us think, anyway...

[Gustaf]

I have grown up in a country where the church is socialist, brinking on communism, but that's my world.

[Gustaf]

For me, religion only matters so far to the point of does the candidate have a religios/spiritual code that he follows.  I have to admit, I would be very uncomfortible with an athiest as president.  As long as the candidate has a religious/moral view that is somewhat compatible with my views, whether the candidate be Catholic (which I am), Protestant, Jewish or even Muslim, then I am perfectly comfortible.  If, however, the candidate is an athiest or agnostic or has no spiritual/moral compass from which to go, I would be less comfortible because I have no way of knowing where they are coming from on that particular avenue.  Just my thoughts.

A person can have a moral code without being religious.

[Gustaf]

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

He has to be joking. Even if you see certain points coming from nutcases (which is hard in this case), every sane person can tell the maniacs from those with odd views. There is a marked difference.

Btw, is their anyone else who find it hard to believe that weirdos can practice computers? It is unscientific, I know, but I can't imagine someone who is basically nuts and have a twisted view of the world being modern enough to  master the internet. Like sects and stuff.

[Gustaf]

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

You believe that feminists want to "kill their children", "become lesbians" and "destroy capitalism"? The last one is especially weird, since it is completely off topic. Do you also believe that "secular humanists" are a threat to society? That every society that has allowed homosexuality has gone down in flames is also rubbish. My country does, as many other European countries, and we're not going down in flames at all. I doubt any country has since biblical times.

[Gustaf]

In my opinion a candidate's religion isn't much of an issue, unless they're a crazy zealot like Pat Robertson.

If a zealot in your opinion is someone who holds steadfast in their Faith. Then I am proud to be one. True Faith does not change. GOD NEVER CHANGES, so a person who is diligent in their Faith and walks uprightly is a nut? You need to re-evaluate your thinking.

This is possibly the wrong time of year to have this sort of debate, but I must defend myself there. You've either misinterpreted what I said, or twisted my words around before adding some hasty personal judgement (I'm sorry but I find it quite laughable that you think you can paraphrase my value- and belief system from one sentence I've written). Either way, what you've outlined is not my definition of a "zealot". My definition applies to someone who makes statements such as:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How precisely is this guy not a nutcase?

What is wrong with statements like that? They're all true. This man is not a nutcase.

Oh ... please tell me you are joking.  Do you really believe that feminism is about practicing witchcraft?

Well, I don't know about the witchcraft part. It certainly could be true. Everyhing else he said is true, though.

You believe that feminists want to "kill their children", "become lesbians" and "destroy capitalism"? The last one is especially weird, since it is completely off topic. Do you also believe that "secular humanists" are a threat to society? That every society that has allowed homosexuality has gone down in flames is also rubbish. My country does, as many other European countries, and we're not going down in flames at all. I doubt any country has since biblical times.

Yep. I do. And he said, "has gone down in flames.", not is going down in flames. Your time will come.

Then I guess your nuts too, no offense, but believing that is just plain insane.

[Gustaf]

And on another note, Robertson is wrong regarding his "every society which has embraced homosexuality .... has gone down in flames."

First off, the ancient Greeks accepted homosexuality and I wouldn't exactly say they "went down in flames".

Secondly, most of Europe today accepts homosexuality.  Oddly enough, they haven't gone down in flames.  This leads to someone saying "but they will".  To this I make the ridiculous statement, every society which has accepted the consumption of shellfish has gone down in flames and those which haven't yet, will.

Damn! I was just about to bring up the Greeks, adn then I had to log off...

Now you look like the smart one...

Btw, the Greek, I believe, actually viewed homosexuality (or perhaps bisexuality) as more refined than heterosexuality, it was a thing for the upper class. The hero of heroes, Achilles, was homosexual, and only joined battle after his lover, Patroklos, had been killed by Hector, during the Troyan war.

Now I got something in, lol...