It's official, Huckabee is a crackpot.

[Pudding Time]

Why is that any different from having no religion influence your political judgements? How can you make judements at all if religion is not behind it?

How can you make judgments without religion? Political Judgments should be made without any influence what so ever. You represent a vast society with so many differences, you couldn't count them. I'm sick to death of this partisan bullshit, and only have canidates that bring too much of their personal life into the most public job on earth.

 

[Pudding Time]

I never said that...please feel free to quote me correctly. I said he was in a subsect of the Baptists. Southern Baptist. There's Evangelical's also along with the Missionary Baptists. I'm sure there are a few other's as well.

What the difference here?

You said he was apart of a subsect of the SBC.

I said he was in a subsect of the Baptists. Southern Baptist.

Forgive me if I'm ignorant here, but I just don't know what different about these comments?


All I want to do I find out exactly what beliefs he adhears to, so I'll be less ignorant in this discusion about him and his religion.

 

[IntruderLS1]

How can you make judgments without religion? Political Judgments should be made without any influence what so ever. You represent a vast society with so many differences, you couldn't count them. I'm sick to death of this partisan bullshit, and only have canidates that bring too much of their personal life into the most public job on earth.

Pudding, I like a lot of what you say, but the above isn't making any sense to me. Politics and governance is about people. People have to vote for other people. If we wanted robots running the place, we would build them.

It is litterally not possible for "judgments to be made without any infuence what so ever." Religious or otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with identifying the "why" we make particular judgments. It just gives the electorate a better understanding of the candidate.

 

[GraceAbounds]

I don't know either...but I think it's based on percentages of votes since the actual delegate votes don't get counted until the Conventions...I'm not sure. If you go to the site, maybe they have a better explanation.

That would make sense to me.

 

[hubersrj]

How can you make judgments without religion? Political Judgments should be made without any influence what so ever. You represent a vast society with so many differences, you couldn't count them. I'm sick to death of this partisan bullshit, and only have canidates that bring too much of their personal life into the most public job on earth.

So, putting a super computer in the oval office is your choice? I mean, when reality sets in, every president has been and will be human, therefore, they're incapable of not letting their own religious, moral and political views influence their day-to-day decisions.

I can whole-heartedly guarantee that any candidate that runs his campaign on the premise that he will only make decisions based on the constitution solely, will either not get elected, or when he does, he'll get impeached within months do to running a campaign of lies.

Seeing as we're all human, we're all capable of being influenced by our religious or non-religious beliefs. Those beliefs may or may not concur with the law of the land, so therefore it comes down to personal convictions and those personal convictions of the people we keep around us.

Getting upset that a candidate says that his religious beliefs WILL influence his day-to-day choices isn't going to help you. Just don't vote for him. Endorse your candidate...if your candidate is strong enough to win, he win. Who knows, the more you play up your choice's political agenda, the more chance you have of getting him elected. Negativity only casts a shadow upon those who are projecting said negativity.

 

[Pudding Time]

Pudding, I like a lot of what you say, but the above isn't making any sense to me. Politics and governance is about people. People have to vote for other people. If we wanted robots running the place, we would build them.

It is litterally not possible for "judgments to be made without any infuence what so ever." Religious or otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with identifying the "why" we make particular judgments. It just gives the electorate a better understanding of the candidate.

I believe it is possible to make judgments without any influence what so ever. It may not be easy. I try to do it with each judgment I make in my everyday life.

Maybe not ever judgment can be made without appeasing a religion or group. If you take any non-neutral stance on abortion, then you will appease either pro-lifers or pro-choice.

Mainly what I'm trying to get at here it that you should make judgments on what's best for all, and not just what the majority want.

 

[hubersrj]

What the difference here?





Forgive me if I'm ignorant here, but I just don't know what different about these comments?


All I want to do I find out exactly what beliefs he adhears to, so I'll be less ignorant in this discusion about him and his religion.

If you don't understand, then google it or something. Your intolerance of religion in general is only outweighed by your ignorance. That wasn't intended to be an insult, just a fact.

I'm ignorant about many things myself, including your way of thinking.

 

[dt3]

If you don't understand, then google it or something. Your intolerance of religion in general is only outweighed by your ignorance. That wasn't intended to be an insult, just a fact.

I'm ignorant about many things myself, including your way of thinking.

Whether or not it was intended as an insult, I don't like it. He asked a clarifying question and you call him ignorant? Seems unnecessary to me.

 

[GraceAbounds]

the US was very much founded on Christian morals and beliefs with the understanding that the two do need to stay in their corners. That was done to protect freedom of religion as much as keeping religion out of politics.

:homo:

This I've never understood. Why do hundreds of Christians interpret Christianity differently? If you guys can't agree on it, how do you expect credibility?

All Christians are at different stages in 'their walk' with the Lord. Metaphorically speaking it is like a baby growing into an adult. A baby Christian is not going to understand or say the wisest of things the majority time (unless they have been gifted with Godly wisdom and discernment) due to the fact that they have not 'grown' in understanding yet. As they mature in Christ they mature in their walk and outwardly that is visible. In the beginning toward the middle of their journey it is not always so visible.

The majority of 'mature' Christians do agree.

I hope that helps you to better understand.

All I want to do I find out exactly what beliefs he adhears to, so I'll be less ignorant in this discusion about him and his religion.

Even if you find exactly what sect he belongs to, it is still better to hear from his own mouth. Spirituality is a very personal thing. Personally I've never found a 'sect' I agree whole heartily with. Just like I've never found a political candidate I agree whole heartily with. You find a sect where you can see and feel the Holy Spirit moving and working and where God's Word is taught. Personally I do not believe in 'sectional doctrine'. Bible only please. Thank you.

Pudding, I like a lot of what you say, but the above isn't making any sense to me. Politics and governance is about people. People have to vote for other people. If we wanted robots running the place, we would build them.

It is litterally not possible for "judgments to be made without any infuence what so ever." Religious or otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with identifying the "why" we make particular judgments. It just gives the electorate a better understanding of the candidate.

:homo:

Mainly what I'm trying to get at here it that you should make judgments on what's best for all, and not just what the majority want.

If we did not go by majority we wouldn't be much of a democracy. And even though I do not always agree with the majority, I would not want the system set up any other way.

 

[hubersrj]

Whether or not it was intended as an insult, I don't like it. He asked a clarifying question and you call him ignorant? Seems unnecessary to me.

Look at the definition of ignorant please before you chime in.

The word is not insulting by it's dictionary definition...that's how it was used in my post.

 

[dt3]

Look at the definition of ignorant please before you chime in.

The word is not insulting by it's dictionary definition...that's how it was used in my post.

Look. I told you I found it offensive. Regardless of what you think it means, I told you my opinion. It's not open for debate.

So, in the future, please refrain from calling someone ignorant. Typically, it is interpreted offensively. Again, this is how threads degenerate and I don't want to see that happen here.

 

[hubersrj]

Look. I told you I found it offensive. Regardless of what you think it means, I told you my opinion. It's not open for debate.

So, in the future, please refrain from calling someone ignorant. Typically, it is interpreted offensively. Again, this is how threads degenerate and I don't want to see that happen here.

That could have been handled with a PM, as could have this. But you put me on the defensive, and unfortunately, as a human with a religious background (this way I'm still sorta on topic) I reacted as such.

 

[dt3]

That could have been handled with a PM, as could have this. But you put me on the defensive, and unfortunately, as a human with a religious background (this way I'm still sorta on topic) I reacted as such.

It could've been handled via PM. But if I did it that way, people would've seen your post and assumed it was ok to call people ignorant. I don't want anyone to think that. I'm not trying to put you on the defensive, I'm simply pointing out that word causes confrontation. I don't want that.

 

[Pudding Time]

So, putting a super computer in the oval office is your choice? I mean, when reality sets in, every president has been and will be human, therefore, they're incapable of not letting their own religious, moral and political views influence their day-to-day decisions.

I believe I am capable.

I can whole-heartedly guarantee that any candidate that runs his campaign on the premise that he will only make decisions based on the constitution solely, will either not get elected, or when he does, he'll get impeached within months do to running a campaign of lies.

They all lie during their campaign..

Seeing as we're all human, we're all capable of being influenced by our religious or non-religious beliefs. Those beliefs may or may not concur with the law of the land, so therefore it comes down to personal convictions and those personal convictions of the people we keep around us.

Yeah for the average Joe, maybe. But for the leader of the "free world", they have to (IMO) be more than just an average joe. They need to meet the needs of 300,000,000 people. If they can't, then they should take the job. If no one can, then the government needs to be reformed.

Getting upset that a candidate says that his religious beliefs WILL influence his day-to-day choices isn't going to help you. Just don't vote for him. Endorse your candidate...if your candidate is strong enough to win, he win. Who knows, the more you play up your choice's political agenda, the more chance you have of getting him elected. Negativity only casts a shadow upon those who are projecting said negativity.

I can't vote. I'm not a US citizen. So i'm really not that upset. And there aren't any canidates that appeal to me. I don't like career politicians.

 

[Pudding Time]

If you don't understand, then google it or something. Your intolerance of religion in general is only outweighed by your ignorance. That wasn't intended to be an insult, just a fact.

I'm ignorant about many things myself, including your way of thinking.

It have nothing to do with religious knowledge.

I just want to know why you said "I didn't say that". And then proceeded to confirm that you did say it.

And I'm not religiously intolerant. I'm actually quite tolerant of religion. I welcome religions. All of them.

 

[Pudding Time]

All Christians are at different stages in 'their walk' with the Lord. Metaphorically speaking it is like a baby growing into an adult. A baby Christian is not going to understand or say the wisest of things the majority time (unless they have been gifted with Godly wisdom and discernment) due to the fact that they have not 'grown' in understanding yet. As they mature in Christ they mature in their walk and outwardly that is visible. In the beginning toward the middle of their journey it is not always so visible.

The majority of 'mature' Christians do agree.

I hope that helps you to better understand.

Thanks Grace to taking the time to try and help me here. But aren't there people who have come to the end of their road, so to speak. And are now set in knowing their exact belief? I mean, isn't this how the many different churches came to be? One Christian didn't agree with the beliefs, teachings or preachings of another Christian, and in turn creates his own church so to preach his own beliefs? Isn't this how you have Mormons, 7th day'ers, Pentecostal, and so on?

Even if you find exactly what sect he belongs to, it is still better to hear from his own mouth. Spirituality is a very personal thing. Personally I've never found a 'sect' I agree whole heartily with. Just like I've never found a political candidate I agree whole heartily with. You find a sect where you can see and feel the Holy Spirit moving and working and where God's Word is taught. Personally I do not believe in 'sectional doctrine'. Bible only please. Thank you.

Then why would he align himself with a Christian group to which he doesn't believe in everything they stand for in Christianity? Why can't he just be a Christian by himself?

If we did not go by majority we wouldn't be much of a democracy. And even though I do not always agree with the majority, I would not want the system set up any other way.

 

[hubersrj]

It have nothing to do with religious knowledge.

I just want to know why you said "I didn't say that". And then proceeded to confirm that you did say it.

And I'm not religiously intolerant. I'm actually quite tolerant of religion. I welcome religions. All of them.

Actually, it has everything to do with religious knowledge. You can't be critical of something you know nothing about. Let's take for instance when someone says "don't use that word", but then they really don't know what the word means. On what basis do they stand upon for making that statement?

The same goes for religion. If you don't know something about it, then learn about it and then form your opinion...or, rethink your current opinion. There's no need to convert or anything, but at least you'll understand why certain religous people feel the way that they do. You may stay on your path, and that's fine. God gave us all free will, and that is part of free will.

And to go back in time, no, I didn't say he was in a different sect of Southern Baptist. I think I'm being mis-read...or, once again, my brain is working far faster than my fingers can type.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Thanks Grace to taking the time to try and help me here.

No problem. I'm sure I won't have all the answers you are probably looking for, but hopefully I will be able to help with some of them.

But aren't there people who have come to the end of their road, so to speak. And are now set in knowing their exact belief?

I don't know if I understand fully what you are asking here. You might want to clarify some more if I don't address what you are speaking of in the rest of my post.

I mean, isn't this how the many different churches came to be? One Christian didn't agree with the beliefs, teachings or preachings of another Christian, and in turn creates his own church so to preach his own beliefs? Isn't this how you have Mormons, 7th day'ers, Pentecostal, and so on?

Yes, but most differences don't change the main message. (things like a Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Salvation, etc.) The Word and overall Message is the same.

Mormons and JW are not considered Christian religions even though they call themselves Christian. As their message is not the same. Catholics are Christians, but different from Protestants in that they believe that their works have something to do with their salvation. Where as Protestants do not believe there is anything we can do in and of ourselves that is worthy enough to deserve the gift/sacrifice Christ made for us. There are other differences of course, but like I said, the main message is the same. Unfortunately, man in his sin and pride, separates the 'body of Christ' (the church). We are told not to do this, but we do.

Then why would he align himself with a Christian group to which he doesn't believe in everything they stand for in Christianity? Why can't he just be a Christian by himself?

As Christians we are called to fellowship with one another to sharpen one another, to love one another, to help one another, and to be of service to the community. Nothing is perfect under the Sun, but that should not stop us from participating. Life is messy. It is inevitable.

I hope this helps some more.

 

[hubersrj]

No problem. I'm sure I won't have all the answers you are probably looking for, but hopefully I will be able to help with some of them.

I don't know if I understand fully what you are asking here. You might want to clarify some more if I don't address what you are speaking of in the rest of my post.

Yes, but most differences don't change the main message. (things like a Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Salvation, etc.) The Word and overall Message is the same.

Mormons and JW are not considered Christian religions even though they call themselves Christian. As their message is not the same. Catholics are Christians, but different from Protestants in that they believe that their works have something to do with their salvation. Where as Protestants do not believe there is anything we can do in and of ourselves that is worthy enough to deserve the gift/sacrifice Christ made for us. There are other differences of course, but like I said, the main message is the same. Unfortunately, man in his sin and pride, separates the 'body of Christ' (the church). We are told not to do this, but we do.

As Christians we are called to fellowship with one another to sharpen one another, to love one another, to help one another, and to be of service to the community. Nothing is perfect under the Sun, but that should not stop us from participating. Life is messy. It is inevitable.

I hope this helps some more.

Let's not forget that Christ did say "when two or more of you gather in my name, I am there"

 

[GraceAbounds]

Let's not forget that Christ did say "when two or more of you gather in my name, I am there"

Yes, there are many reason why we are called to fellowship. This being another reason. Thanks for adding.