Candidates and Religion
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:19:55 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  Candidates and Religion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Candidates and Religion  (Read 21603 times)
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: December 31, 2003, 04:21:53 PM »

Is soulty supposed to mean "soul" instead of "salt"?  Just wondering.

Maybe I should make a thread for everyone explaining te logic behind their usernames, because it gets mighty annoying after a while.......
Logged
PD
pd
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 633


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: January 01, 2004, 11:46:07 PM »

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:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

Quote
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.
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: January 02, 2004, 02:23:49 AM »

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:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

Quote
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?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: January 02, 2004, 08:46:09 AM »

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:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

Quote
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.
Logged
PD
pd
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 633


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: January 07, 2004, 02:50:19 PM »

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:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

Quote
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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: January 07, 2004, 03:25:39 PM »

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:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

Quote
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.
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: January 07, 2004, 05:32:07 PM »

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:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

Quote
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.
It certainly could be?  Geez, if he said the Green Party candidates were actually a veiled reference to being space invaders bent on intergalactic domination would you consider that as possibly being true?!?!

Pat Robertson is nuts!  Not for his religious beliefs ... but because he makes ridiculous statements like "feminism = witchcraft".
Logged
PD
pd
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 633


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: January 07, 2004, 06:37:37 PM »

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:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

Quote
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.
Logged
PD
pd
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 633


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: January 07, 2004, 06:38:44 PM »

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:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

Quote
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.
It certainly could be?  Geez, if he said the Green Party candidates were actually a veiled reference to being space invaders bent on intergalactic domination would you consider that as possibly being true?!?!

Pat Robertson is nuts!  Not for his religious beliefs ... but because he makes ridiculous statements like "feminism = witchcraft".
No, I wouldn't. I don't believe in aliens.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: January 08, 2004, 09:59:57 AM »

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:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or...

Quote
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.
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: January 08, 2004, 12:25:42 PM »

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.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: January 08, 2004, 01:46:47 PM »

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... Sad

Now you look like the smart one... Sad

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... Wink
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: January 08, 2004, 03:02:24 PM »

Robertson is the nutter that says that God is a Republican isn't he?

BTW Pat... Orlando is still standing...
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: January 08, 2004, 05:00:38 PM »

Robertson is about as Christian as Creed, actually less so.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 14 queries.