randomJACKASS
Banned
I don't see how they could have missed that fact?!?
There's the guy I voted against...
- Thread starter chcr
- Start date
chcr
Too cute for words
Seen his house?
randomJACKASS
Banned
Hell I am not gonna say the guy doesn't have money, but the story reported that he gives 90% of his income to charity. Do you know any other "Evangelist" that even gives half? 25%? 10%?
chcr
Too cute for words
Fine. Where does he get it from?
Sorry, but of course he's charismatic, he's a preacher. Don't let that blind you to his agenda or what he really is.
randomJACKASS
Banned
San Diego Union Tribune said:
Belief.net said:
Yeah he seems like a real greedy guy....
Pure evil through and through, not a decent god fearing man like Jimmy Swaggart!
As I said I am not religious, but when I see a guy like this I see someone who is far closer to walking the walk than most of the so called "Christians" I have ever met, and a whole lot more decent than most preachers.
randomJACKASS
Banned
I don't know about anyone else here, but personally I don't have to 100% agree with someone's "agenda" to respect what they are trying to do. I think if you looked more into the man you would see he is definitely not the standard cookie cutter evangelist.
Oh and by the way, "A Purpose Driven Life" has sold more copies than any book in history save for the bible, so there just might be something to it. I have not read it so I certainly can't condemn it until I have....
chcr
Too cute for words
So then you agree that we're a "christian nation" and the separation of church and state is a bad thing? Do you think that humans and dinosaurs coexisted? Are you a young earth creationist? Do you believe biblical creation should be taught as an equally viable theory with evolution? etc., etc., etc...
Of course, I think religion in general is a bad thing so that will certainly color my opinions. OTOH, I don't "condemn" him and I'm reasonably certain he's a perfectly nice guy. I just don't think he should have any influence on our government and I very much feel that he does and wants more and that is a very bad thing.
Oh, and what in the world is a "standard cookie cutter evangelist?"
randomJACKASS
Banned
No I do not agree with those things, but I also don't see what the big deal about him being chosen for this is. I don't think he has any real influence, but I disagree with you on one point. Religion and divisiveness over religion are bad things, but the spiritual side of it and the side of it that is about loving your fellow man is not a bad thing. I think Christians are condemned a lot because of a very loud minority of assholes. The majority of them are just decent people trying to make their way in this world. I wish I had the link but I have read before that despite what things seem, the majority of people who define them self as Christian actually usually vote Democrat.
The religious right is seldom either, but not all Christians are right wing nutjobs, not by a longshot!
The religious right is seldom either, but not all Christians are right wing nutjobs, not by a longshot!
chcr
Too cute for words
As are atheists. I find, however that most christians are "condemned" by their fellow christians.
If Mr. Warren has so little influence, perhaps you could explain how one of the first major political discussions of this past presidential election was moderated by him and took place in his church?
If, as you contend, the majority of self-professed christians in an overwhelmingly predominately christian populace vote democrat, how do you really suppose republicans ever get elected?
Re the whole fellowship of man business, I notice that that shit tends to thin out really fast when others disagree. I hear it a lot when I identify myself as an atheist. It sounds pretty. To bad such a vanishingly small minority (regardless of religious belief or lack thereof) actually practice it, huh?
No, all christians are certainly not right-wing nutjobs. I don't know how you got that from what I posted. Rick Warren isn't one, particularly but there are far too many things that he supports that I oppose for me to find him in any way laudable. Re the invocation at the inauguration, I don't mind him doing it. I mind the idea of it at all. I'd prefer, in the interest of separating government and religion, that the invocation were a private affair and not part of the official proceedings. I recognize that this is unrealistic on my part but it's still how I think it should be. As regards who officiates, I really couldn't care less. It doesn't mean anything to me.
H2O boy
New Member
I really couldn't care less. It doesn't mean anything to me.
then why whine?
chcr
Too cute for words
What was I whining about?
randomJACKASS
Banned
I never said "most" but the survey I read did indicate a simple majority (it was close). Not all republicans are Christians. Some are just filthy rich, and some are poor but agnostics or atheists themselves. I imagine some of that simply majority are Catholics, and I know a lot of so called Christians disagree with Catholicism. The simple fact of the matter there is that Catholics are Christians practicing one of the oldest forms of Christianity there is. I thing the Pope and all the problems with Priests are definitely detractors, but I know one thing. Catholic Community services probably does more real charitable work than any other religious group in this country and while I am not Catholic I certainly must commend a lot of the work they do.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
No such thing as Seperation of Church and State in the Constitution...That came from a letter Thomas Jefferson sent to the Danbury baptists...
chcr said:
I don't see religion as a bad thing. I see people clamoring for power as a bad thing. Religion has never been the core problem. Interpretation of religion has and is what causes strife.