Florida Congressman sends dirty email to teens

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

2 words for you...

Catholic Democrats.

Huge demographic and 'all catholics' believe in the rapture.

Two words for you Dis. Bull and ****. I was raised Catholic and I do not know a single Catholic that believes in the Rapture. In fact, it was ridiculed in all the religious studies classes I attended, and I was forced to take the damn stuff for 11 long years. The only people I know that believe in the Rapture are born-agains. I have a brother that is born-again, and his friends believe in that crap, but hehas the brains to question such a ridiculous concept.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

what do you think the administration has done right?

So not the point that its almost funny.

The point is that the democratic leaders in Congress, (Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Clinton, Daschle during the first term) go out of their way to make sure that anything that is done is publicly lampooned.

If you are suggesting that they haven't done a single thing right for anyone but those in their base then it is vary obvious that you have no objectivity in the matter.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Two words for you Dis. Bull and ****. I was raised Catholic and I do not know a single Catholic that believes in the Rapture. In fact, it was ridiculed in all the religious studies classes I attended, and I was forced to take the damn stuff for 11 long years. The only people I know that believe in the Rapture are born-agains. I have a brother that is born-again, and his friends believe in that crap, but hehas the brains to question such a ridiculous concept.

I'm confused.

Catholics don't believe in the return of Jesus Christ to earth?

Or do I not know what the hell Daradon was talking about in the first place?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Or do I not know what the hell Daradon was talking about in the first place?

It would be hard to blame you.

[Displaced Flames fan]

According to this link they do believe in the rapture Lanny, but they do not use that term.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Rapture.asp

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'm confused.

Catholics don't believe in the return of Jesus Christ to earth?

Or do I not know what the hell Daradon was talking about in the first place?

The Second Coming or Judgment Day and the Rapture are two completely different stories. The Rapture has the "chosen few" disappearing into thin air before Jesus Christ comes and wipes out the planet at the end of his sword (my, what a loving God don't you think). The Second Coming or Judgment Day is a story that finds commonality in most religions, primarily because man has such a pea-size intellect and can't deal with the concept of something having no end (and no control point). There are very few similarities between the two stories other than the end and the return of Jesus Christ. It would be like saying Edmonton and Calgary are the same city because they are both in Canada. Not accurate at all. Born Again Christianity is a radicalized version of Christianity IMO, and they are no different than the Islamists they get so outraged about. They hold their religion to a level of superiority that no other religion can supposedly match. THEY are the chosen, and they WILL be saved. The rest of us will die through the vengence of THEIR God. Sound at all familiar? They're whackos just as much as any other group that takes their religion so seriously. Someone should explain to them the concept of interpretive writings.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The Second Coming or Judgment Day and the Rapture are two completely different stories. The Rapture has the "chosen few" disappearing into thin air before Jesus Christ comes and wipes out the planet at the end of his sword (my, what a loving God don't you think). The Second Coming or Judgment Day is a story that finds commonality in most religions, primarily because man has such a pea-size intellect and can't deal with the concept of something having no end (and no control point). There are very few similarities between the two stories other than the end and the return of Jesus Christ. It would be like saying Edmonton and Calgary are the same city because they are both in Canada. Not accurate at all. Born Again Christianity is a radicalized version of Christianity IMO, and they are no different than the Islamists they get so outraged about. They hold their religion to a level of superiority that no other religion can supposedly match. THEY are the chosen, and they WILL be saved. The rest of us will die through the vengence of THEIR God. Sound at all familiar? They're whackos just as much as any other group that takes their religion so seriously. Someone should explain to them the concept of interpretive writings.

Well, I think for the purposes of this thread Daradon better define what he means.

I think the common man view of the rapture is the latter of your descriptions.

Frankly, I've never heard of the first one and I've been to a few protestant churches in my day.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Well, I think for the purposes of this thread Daradon better define what he means.

I think the common man view of the rapture is the latter of your descriptions.

Frankly, I've never heard of the first one and I've been to a few protestant churches in my day.

Really? Because that is the common belief amongst "Christians". I think you should also learn what "Christians" are in today's context. "Christians" have become a euphemism for the "Born Again" set and their *******ized version of Christianity. I agree, I think some clarity is required.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Really? Because that is the common belief amongst "Christians". I think you should also learn what "Christians" are in today's context. "Christians" have become a euphemism for the "Born Again" set and their *******ized version of Christianity. I agree, I think some clarity is required.

I'm not sure I can take your word for that. Where are you getting your information?

My best friend in high school was a preacher's son. His dad was/is and American Baptist preacher. I went to many services during that time and never heard stories like the one you are telling.

I believe there are groups that absolutely believe this stuff of yours, but mainstream protestant denominations? I don't buy it...especially to the level that Daradon claims....20% of all Americans.

I think he definition of rapture must've been closer to what I thought it meant. And if not, I'd like to know if the numbers he used were gathered from a poll that defined the word before asking the question.

Back to my friend, he ran for state senate two years ago..and is probably running again this year. He has kind of drifted back to the church (he was a bit of a wild kid, true to the famous saying) and ran on a platform that many evangelicals run on. It was interesting that when I found him after nearly 15 years with no contact he had no interest in communicating with me beyond the initial "what have you been up to email" except to solicit for his campaign and church.

That experience kind of strengthened my anti-evangelical stance in politics.

[Calgaryborn]

Lanny MacDonald and Daradon you two are the most ignorant people in regards to religion. You pretend you have knowledge but all you both have is prejudice and hate. Like most narrow minded bigots you fear the unknown and that fear is manifest as hatred.

Daradon Judaism, Christianity and certainly Islam has never been inclusive. You obviously never have read a honest history book or their sacred texts to come up with such notion. In the Mosaic covenant an Israelite wasn't even allowed to marry outside of their religion. When God called them to take land He ordered them kill all the inhabitants so they wouldn't be influenced by their false gods. The first commandment demonstrates God's intolerance for false religions.
Jesus said: "I am the way the truth and the life; No man cometh unto the Father but by me" His Apostles who wrote the New Testament seemed to agree. Acts 4:12 says: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." The New covenant doesn't call for bloodshed against non-believers but, it does call for separation from what the book defines as sin and also a contending for the faith. Islam is obviously intolerant. Their founder turned to the sword after he was frustrated with a lack of coverts to his newly minted religion. It would be accurate to argue that the radical fundamentalists are more representative of their historical roots then the moderates.

The concept of religious freedom first had its roots in the colony of Rhode Island. They were the first place in the modern world to protect their citizens right to believe and practice what their conscience dictated. Freedom of religion is so intertwined with freedom of speech that one could not exist without the other. The colony of Rhode Island was Englands only baptist colony. When the colonies chose to break away from England the Rhode Island model was the only one which could unite 13 colonies(with different State churches) into one entity. Over time much of the Christian world adopted both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. My point of this history lesson was that these concepts{freedom of religion/speech) were first practiced by these scary fundamentalist christians who believed that Christ would return and establish his kingdom.

That particular belief doesn't compel them to make war or censure other religions. Speaking out against atheism, Islam or any other false religion should be tolerated within our society. One should be free to do so without fear of harm. Speaking out against Christianity should be allowed within our society and is. It's just a pity you atheist can't do it with more intelligence.

A belief that Christ will soon return has not historically been the cause of war. Why try to paint it as the cause of everything evil today.

Also, to suggest that fundamental Christians are blind to immorality within the republican party is unfounded. They tend to vote for people who appear to best represent their viewpoint just like the atheists. The reason why so few vote Democrat is because the party seems to minimalize fundamental Christians. Like you two they are arrogant enough to assume that any viewpoint that doesn't align with theirs is based on ignorance.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

So not the point that its almost funny.

The point is that the democratic leaders in Congress, (Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, Clinton, Daschle during the first term) go out of their way to make sure that anything that is done is publicly lampooned.

If you are suggesting that they haven't done a single thing right for anyone but those in their base then it is vary obvious that you have no objectivity in the matter.

Well, either the dems are polarizing people by overlooking the good that the Bush Administration is doing, or they are just calling it like it is.

I just asked because obviously you feel the dems are ignoring the good things the administration has done to 'lampoon' them at every opportunity.

If I lack so much objectivity, why don't you enlighten me.

[Flame On]

Also, to suggest that fundamental Christians are blind to immorality within the republican party is unfounded. They tend to vote for people who appear to best represent their viewpoint just like the atheists. The reason why so few vote Democrat is because the party seems to minimalize fundamental Christians. Like you two they are arrogant enough to assume that any viewpoint that doesn't align with theirs is based on ignorance.

I think the republicans could be cought with 10 of these cases and many would still vote for the right purely because of the same sex marriage issue. IMO. Talk about minimalizing people and arrogance.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, either the dems are polarizing people by overlooking the good that the Bush Administration is doing, or they are just calling it like it is.

I just asked because obviously you feel the dems are ignoring the good things the administration has done to 'lampoon' them at every opportunity.

If I lack so much objectivity, why don't you enlighten me.

Well, no it's not just one way of the other Flash. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

The Dems don't have to give Bush an ounce of credit for anything. They should be patting themselves on the back for things they get accomplished. But this group goes out of its way to criticize the administration on everything. EVERYTHING.

They are obsessed with it.

So yeah, if you think it's possible that every single thing they do is wrong then you lack objectivity.

Enlightened?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Well, no it's not just one way of the other Flash. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

The Dems don't have to give Bush an ounce of credit for anything. They should be patting themselves on the back for things they get accomplished. But this group goes out of its way to criticize the administration on everything. EVERYTHING.

They are obsessed with it.

So yeah, if you think it's possible that every single thing they do is wrong then you lack objectivity.

Enlightened?

So, again, what has the administration done that doesn't warrant criticism?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

So, again, what has the administration done that doesn't warrant criticism?

I'll tell you what, since you're having a really difficult time grasping the point here, if you tell the truth and admit that you believe that the Bush administration has done absolutely nothing positive in the last 6 years then I will refute that ridiculous statement with something that says otherwise.

Until then, I think I've made my point about the Democrats being as guilty of polarizing as the Republicans.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'll tell you what, since you're having a really difficult time grasping the point here, if you tell the truth and admit that you believe that the Bush administration has done absolutely nothing positive in the last 6 years then I will refute that ridiculous statement with something that says otherwise.

Until then, I think I've made my point about the Democrats being as guilty of polarizing as the Republicans.

I'm not saying anything at all about the bush administration, nor am I trying to pick a fight with you.

You obviously believe the bush administration is being unfairly raked over the coals on atleast one issue, I'm just curious as to what that is. So far you've just said the dems are just as polarizing, as if it's self-evident, I just want to know what issues you feel they are being unfairly critical.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Flame On

I think the republicans could be cought with 10 of these cases and many would still vote for the right purely because of the same sex marriage issue. IMO. Talk about minimalizing people and arrogance.

I would guess that abortion is the bigger issue. I would think that as a group the Family is its main interest group. Policies that allow the killing of what we perceive to be children or diminishes the special status of what is a family is repugnant to fundamental Christians. Most of them realize that the Republicans have done little to change the status-quo. But most of them believe that the Democrats(because of their position on these issues) would continue to further these agendas.

I would not be surprised to find that many fundamental Christians who have traditionally aligned themselves with the Democrats have determined to stay away from the polls rather than support the party's platform.

Flame On is it ignorance or arrogance to assume that a Democratic President would appoint judges and enact laws that would enhance or at least protect the killing of unborn children and the redefining of the family to include any combination of partners? I guess you could argue that one should not decide who you are going to vote for on one or two issues but, generally most do on either side of the political fence. Also to a fundamental Christian one is a life and death issue involving children and the other(the family) will determine the future of the country.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I'm not sure I can take your word for that. Where are you getting your information?

My brother is born again and is extremely active in the church. I also have a sister who works for one of the diocese in Alberta and a first cousin who is a deacon in the RC church (he had two audiences with Pope JP II). I also have 11 years of religious education under my belt which was more than helpful in acing world religions and theology classes in university. That's where I get my information.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Lanny MacDonald and Daradon you two are the most ignorant people in regards to religion. You pretend you have knowledge but all you both have is prejudice and hate. Like most narrow minded bigots you fear the unknown and that fear is manifest as hatred.

Yes, and you did so well defending your point and identifying where we are wrong. How about something to back yourself up?

The concept of religious freedom first had its roots in the colony of Rhode Island. They were the first place in the modern world to protect their citizens right to believe and practice what their conscience dictated. Freedom of religion is so intertwined with freedom of speech that one could not exist without the other. The colony of Rhode Island was Englands only baptist colony. When the colonies chose to break away from England the Rhode Island model was the only one which could unite 13 colonies(with different State churches) into one entity. Over time much of the Christian world adopted both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. My point of this history lesson was that these concepts{freedom of religion/speech) were first practiced by these scary fundamentalist christians who believed that Christ would return and establish his kingdom.

And what does this point support? That Christian fundamentalists are scary? Thank you!

That particular belief doesn't compel them to make war or censure other religions. Speaking out against atheism, Islam or any other false religion should be tolerated within our society. One should be free to do so without fear of harm. Speaking out against Christianity should be allowed within our society and is. It's just a pity you atheist can't do it with more intelligence.

Uh huh. Pat Robertson is such a great spokesmen for your "tolerant" religion. Gotta love it when a religion's leaders are complete chaletons and scumbags like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker and his whore Tammy Faye, Oral Roberts, Peter Popoff, Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn, and Jim Whittington.

A belief that Christ will soon return has not historically been the cause of war. Why try to paint it as the cause of everything evil today.

Better talk with Dumbya about that, Sparky. Seems he has no fear of bring about the Rapture.

Also, to suggest that fundamental Christians are blind to immorality within the republican party is unfounded. They tend to vote for people who appear to best represent their viewpoint just like the atheists. The reason why so few vote Democrat is because the party seems to minimalize fundamental Christians. Like you two they are arrogant enough to assume that any viewpoint that doesn't align with theirs is based on ignorance.

Uh huh. And who is circling the wagons to support this Cho-Mo and the Republican party? You're Born Again *******s, that's who. Say, care to comment on the following:

84% Christian Coalition support for Foley

http://ontheissues.org/FL/Mark_Foley.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/FL/Mark_Fo...+_Children.htm

Continued Republican support from the Christian media in the wake of the Foley scandal

http://news.christiansunite.com/Reli...shtml?from=rss
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/973281157.html

Republican biased and Christian based Washington Times saw one of their directors hammered for soliciting a 13 year old.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0906/364718.html

Republican Christian Coalition leader busted for sexual assault on minors.

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/Lou_Beres.htm

Republican judge busted for fondling a 10 year old!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A9629C8B63

Republican leader busted for having sex with a five year old boy!

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/Bobby_Stumbo.htm

Face it pal, you're so in over your head it isn't even funny. You continue to flog that garbage you like to call a religion like it is a shield against anything. You liike to call people arrogant and hateful, yet you don't bother to read what you write. Your posts speak of more hate and arrogance than any on the board. Keep up the good work, you're crucify yourself with each post.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm not saying anything at all about the bush administration, nor am I trying to pick a fight with you.

You obviously believe the bush administration is being unfairly raked over the coals on atleast one issue, I'm just curious as to what that is. So far you've just said the dems are just as polarizing, as if it's self-evident, I just want to know what issues you feel they are being unfairly critical.

Once again, what I feel is irrelevant. It's the perception that they have chosen to create that is relevant and is POLARIZING.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Well there is no arguing to be done then...because I will vote for a candidate's opponent if I know said candidate to be an evangelical Christian. It has no place in government.

A person being religious is fine. Most religions can provide a decent basis for morality. When religion crosses the line into radical fundamentalism then I have a problem.

So how exactly I'm supposed to debate this with you I don't know.

I agree, why are you?