The Great Faith Debate

[SeVeR]

I guess that goes back to trying decide if it is logical to believe in god, or not to believe in god. To you, because you can't prove that there is a god, it's illogical to believe in god. While others believe that all of the unexplained phenomenon are enough to show evidence of god.

"In God we trust. We, as Americans, have the resolve to prevail in this conflict of wills. Our freedom will not be threatened in this way again. We shall fight them on their ground and not ours. Nazis were bad. We fight for liberty and freedom. These folks are evil men who live in evil countries run by evil dictators. Yet we pray, in God's time, that we will prevail"

 

Sound like GWB?

 

Well almost. It's an example of the sorts of things the President says in his speeches. America/Freedom/Liberty/God/Prevail/Evil/Terrorist etc etc etc. Patriots and Christians, they lap it up.

 

That just proves that you can stereotype Christians as Republicans, not Republicans as Christians.

 

"Sixty-six percent of Republicans report that religion is very important compared to 57 percent of Democrats."

 

9% isn't a huge gap.

I don't see your point, it works both ways or not at all, since most of America (~%) is Christian. 9% in a country where the republican/democrat divide is pretty even represents a massive proportion of Christians.

[Bak]

If you can't afford to give your children health care, then maybe you need to rethink where you are living.

 

and in the mean time we punish the children for having parents that make bad decisions? It's one thing to risk your own health by going without insurance, but children have the decision made for them by their parents.

 

if a kid gets sick the parents do nothing and the child dies it's child abuse, but if the kid gets sick and they go to a hospital where they can't afford the treatment (because they didn't have the foresight to get health care) and the child dies that's ok?

[NBVegita]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1025/p15s02-uspo.html

 

"A Gallup poll earlier this month found white religious voters "equally as likely to say they will vote Democratic as Republican." And a Pew Research poll last week found just 57 percent of white Evangelicals planning to vote Republican, a drop from 68 percent in 2002 and 74 percent in 2004. Among white Catholics, the decline was even greater."

 

So statistically...

 

We have approximately 300,000,000 people in the United states. There are approximately 169,000,000 registered voters in the big 3 (democratic, republican and independent) parties. That means of the 300mil people in the US, only 56% of them are voters. We'll still assume for you that % of these voters are Christian. So that means 135,200,000 voters are Christians. Now 57% of them plan to vote for republicans, so that means we'll assume they're republicans, because that is what you have been implying. So that means 77,064,000 christians are republicans, yet that doesn't quite add up. Now if we go back to 2004 that would be 100,048,000 people would be republicans and or voting for republicans.

 

Approximately 72,000,000 voters are democrats, and 42,000,000 are independent. So ironically, you're saying that statistically 77,064,000 christians are republicans, when there are only 52,000,000 republicans in the united states. At the 2004 rate, that means that even if the entire republican party, every last member, which of course it is not, was a christian, that there would still be 50,000,000 christian voters left over.

 

Now using:

 

"Sixty-six percent of Republicans report that religion is very important compared to 57 percent of Democrats."

 

That would show that 66% of republicans, 34,320,000 republicans are christians. Now 57% of democrats, 41,040,000. Which means even with 42,000,000 independent all being christians, we fall short of our %.

 

See how you can't use numbers and statistics for something like this?

 

Ultimately I guess what I'm trying to point out, is even if you adjust that 9%, because of the pure volume of democrats, you will most likely have a larger majority of christian democrats than you will christian republicans. And that also shows that more democrats, in sheer volume, care about religion than do republicans.

[NBVegita]

We are not a socialist economy, suposedly, and quite frankly I'm tired of paying for other peoples mistakes.

 

You can only use the "poor kids" argument for so long. There are tons of problems with our children. I support expanded funding on a limited level, to allow families who NEED the aid to recieve it. Not for families who decided to live above their means and put their way of life above their childrens health. I don't support people who are on private health care switching to the government aid just because they can.

 

!@#$%^&* why don't we just have the government pay for everything? This way we can lose even more work ethic than we've already lost, and become an even larger international laughing stock.

 

In my opinion, socialism promotes lethargy. When did work become one of the four letter words that is forbidden to say?

[ThunderJam]

That just proves that you can stereotype Christians as Republicans, not Republicans as Christians.

 

"Sixty-six percent of Republicans report that religion is very important compared to 57 percent of Democrats."

 

9% isn't a huge gap.

I don't see your point, it works both ways or not at all, since most of America (~%) is Christian. 9% in a country where the republican/democrat divide is pretty even represents a massive proportion of Christians.

It doesn't have to work both ways, are you crazy? Every Golden Retriever is a dog. Not every dog is a Golden Retriever. Say in a group of a thousand people, 500 are republicans. Of those 500, 200 are christians. You could by this data stereotype the christians as republicans, but stereotyping the 500 republicans as christians is BS because in reality 40% of them are.

[SeVeR]

TJ: No i'm not crazy...

 

Your analogy isn't sound because you've gone and changed the majority of Republicans to none-Christians. You can't just change the facts to make the point you want to make.

 

My source shows that a majority of Christians are Republican, and a majority of Republicans are Christian. It does work both ways. Making up some analogy, where one of those statements is not the case, makes it a really poor analogy!

 

NBV: The survey is about people who allow religion to influence their political choices.

 

Inevitably some Christians will not allow religion to be a factor in their decision making process. Of those who do allow religion to be part of their decision making process 14% (67/58) more of them are republicans. Thus it proves my point that Christians are swayed more towards Republicanism.

 

You are right to point out that not all Christians are accounted for in this survey. I guess i should have stated the !@#$%^&*umption that when you do a survey of a majority of Christians, you tend to get a fairly good representation of the whole group.

Edited October 16, 2007 by SeVeR

[AstroProdigy]

"A Gallup poll earlier this month found white religious voters "equally as likely to say they will vote Democratic as Republican." And a Pew Research poll last week found just 57 percent of white Evangelicals planning to vote Republican, a drop from 68 percent in 2002 and 74 percent in 2004. Among white Catholics, the decline was even greater."

PLANNING to vote Republican. That doesn't mean this is actually how it's going to happen. Keep in mind Evangelicals are very disillusioned by the corruption they see in Republicans. Also keep in mind a remainder of that could just not vote at all. Guliani is the frontrunner and his main opponent is a Mormon, so it doesn't seem to them like their interests will be served, but if a conservative Christian who talks about opposing gay marriage and abortion comes along they will come in quite a large percentage to vote for Republicans over Democrats.

Edited October 16, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[NBVegita]

Every Golden Retriever is a dog. Not every dog is a Golden Retriever.

 

That is actually a perfect analogy, no matter what the numbers are.

 

Your statements have looked like (broadly)

 

Most Republicans are Christians, Most Christians are Republicans (which by the way is not true), so Republicans are the party of Jesus.

 

No matter how you cut the pie the statistics are:

 

169 mil - voters, And !@#$%^&*uming that going along with our % Christian statistic: 135.2 mil are Christian voters.

 

55 mil - Republican 33% - 44.161 mil Christians

72 mil - Democrats 43% - 58.136 mil Christians

42 mil - Independent 24% - 32.448 mil Christians

 

Most Democrats are Christians (57% roughly), and Most Christians are actually Democrats, so shouldn't we say that Democrats are the party of Jesus?

 

but if a conservative Christian who talks about opposing gay marriage and abortion comes along they will come in quite a large percentage to vote for Republicans over Democrats.

 

You are so disillusioned to believe that just because they're religious that they're so disillusioned and naive.

[SeVeR]

Yes NBV, it's a perfectly good analogy that isn't relevent in this case. In this case an analogy would be something like "Most cars have steering wheels, and most steering wheels are in cars" even though a smaller percentage of cars don't have steering wheels , and some steering wheels would have been 'dismembered' from cars.

 

So yea, if fewer Christians were republicans than democrats then we couldn't stereotype Christians as being republicans, but this isn't the case (see rest of post).

 

You don't seem to understand. If you take a political party with 100 million members - 40% of which are Christian, and compare this to a party of 50 million members - 100% of which are Christian, then the second party is the Christian party because the Christians hold all the power in this party. On a slightly less exagerated (but still relevent) scale, the second party is the republicans.

 

Secondly, on my point that "most Christians are republican" (which i think is what you're contesting), i have a few bones to pick with you:

 

Approximately 72,000,000 voters are democrats, and 42,000,000 are independent. So ironically, you're saying that statistically 77,064,000 christians are republicans, when there are only 52,000,000 republicans in the united states.

This is surely rubbish, since the republicans won the election and therefore probably have more supporters and more "voters". In which case the divide that i'm proposing would be even greater. If there are 38% more democrats in the USA, then they would never lose an election.

 

If some of these democrats are "less democratic than others" and happened to vote republican, then that makes them republican. The only gauge is which way people vote.

Edited October 16, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

If some of these democrats are "less democratic than others" and happened to vote republican, then that makes them republican. The only gauge is which way people vote.

 

I'd expect something much more intelligent out of you sever. The statistics shown are based off of which party you are registered. And simply voting for say a republican president, does not make you republican. In the last local election, I voted for one republican. Yet I am a registered republican. Does that mean I'm secretly a democrat? No. It means during this election I agreed with the ideals of the democratic candidates.

 

What some of you fail to realize is not everything, nor does everyone believe that things are black and white. Its this kind of extremeism: "If some of these democrats are "less democratic than others" and happened to vote republican, then that makes them republican." that is tearing our country apart.

 

And just some background information on why if you have moderate views you will choose one party. If you are a registered independent, you don't get to vote in the primaries. So in the case of presidency, you get no say into who the candidates will be. Many people, including myself, would like to be registered independent, but are forced to pick a party so we can vote in primaries.

 

You don't seem to understand. If you take a political party with 100 million members - 40% of which are Christian, and compare this to a party of 50 million members - 100% of which are Christian, then the second party is the Christian party because the Christians hold all the power in this party. On a slightly less exagerated (but still relevent) scale, the second party is the republicans.

 

First your entire scale is "exaggerated" and not slightly. If we even double the margin you posted previously, that 18%, your margin here was 60%. But none the less, minus voting in primaries, having a large population of a certain religion in a particular party does not help you on a large scale.

 

Honestly, except the ability to vote in the primaries, what "power" do Christians hold over the republican party?

 

http://www.galluppoll.com/

 

"Republicans are more enthusiastic about the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani to be their party's presidential nominee in 2008 than they are about any of the other leading Republican contenders. Giuliani continues to lead the pack when Republicans are asked whom they support for the nomination. He is also the candidate Republicans are most likely to say they would vote for enthusiastically in the general election should he win the nomination."

 

A non religious moderate, who is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights, anti gun, is the candidate that the republicans support the most.

 

And you were looking for that Christian, well Fred Thompson is a religious Christian, pro life, pro gun, and he wants each state to decide on gay marriage. He is for keeping soldiers in Iraq, doesn't believe the humnitarian aspect of global warming and has a strong stand on immigration. Except for not voting to ban gay rights, you'd be hard pressed to find a more conservative Christian.

 

But !@#$%^&* whatever helps you sleep at night.

Edited October 16, 2007 by NBVegita
edited for grammar

[AstroProdigy]

Fred Thomspon is also a boring candidate who just entered recently and has nothing of the funding Guliani has. He also gets his support from more conservatives and I've read articles talking about how Conservatives support Guliani as a pragmatic move hoping for the win in the long term. Are we really going to debate whether Republicans prefer a Conservative over a moderate? Remember how Bush won in 2000? He ran as a compassionate Conservative and lapped up the support. I'm sure the old line fiscal conservatives and moderate Republicans might want their own types, respectively, but the dominating powers in the GOP are the marriage of the conservative right and neo cons. Whether this will change is a matter of opinion, but it hardly seems to be able to change this quickly. Romney is a very conservative so people's worries are about his religion and not his stances whereas Guliani is perfect as a neo con. In the end Guliani would appoint conservative justices who would uphold conservative values and that's what will really matter for these issues anyway hence the pragmatic approach.

[ThunderJam]

Yes NBV, it's a perfectly good analogy that isn't relevent in this case. In this case an analogy would be something like "Most cars have steering wheels, and most steering wheels are in cars" even though a smaller percentage of cars don't have steering wheels , and some steering wheels would have been 'dismembered' from cars.

The trick is your saying MOST. If you've ever taken a logic class it's one the the initial things you learn that these relationships do not inherently go two ways.

 

Anyway, you saying Most christians are republicans also hinges on another factor. Sever, your definition of Christians includes problem twice as many as I would consider real Christians (you said % of the country is christian). If only looking at the people I would consider genuine christians, you may be correct saying the majority is republican, but with the people you're considering christian you're definitely not.

 

As of 2004 election data, only 23% of voters considered themselves "born-again" or "evangelical" christians. Obviously we could add or subtract as much as 10% because of this being a loose definition, but the point will be the same. Of those 23%, 78% of them voted for bush. 78% of that 23% means that 17% of the country, are people that I would consider christians and voted for bush.

 

I don't know abotu you, but growing up in my area at least, if you were asked what religion you were of, and you were not jewish (area around washington dc has a lot of jews, I'm 30 mins from DC) you probably considered yourself a christian. Those people would celebrate christmas, and the majority of them had and STILL HAVE no friggin care as to what they are celebrating. These are people that consider themselves Christians in your % stat. They figure "sure theres a god, Ive been to church before, and I think ill go to heaven cuz im a good person, so im a christian." However they don't agree with things presented in the Bible, because they hardly ever read it and hardly know what the bible says. They're lives aren't characterized by a struggle against sin, etc etc etc.

Edited October 16, 2007 by ThunderJam

[SeVeR]

TJ:

The trick is your saying MOST. If you've ever taken a logic class it's one the the initial things you learn that these relationships do not inherently go two ways.

I agree, these relationships don't always go two ways. In this case they do. It's not a trick, since from the start i never claimed totality. The survey i quoted said 68% of republicans are influenced by religious belief; that's 2/3 or "most". I never said otherwise, so please don't start accusing me of "word-play" like you did with Astro.

 

I don't know about 'real' Christians (evangelical), my survey gives some data and i'm basing my claims of what that data means, rather than speculating on what it could mean. Evangelicals would be included and so would less extreme Christians, so i'm referring to Christians as a group.

 

NBV:

I'd expect something much more intelligent out of you sever. The statistics shown are based off of which party you are registered. And simply voting for say a republican president, does not make you republican. In the last local election, I voted for one republican. Yet I am a registered republican. Does that mean I'm secretly a democrat? No. It means during this election I agreed with the ideals of the democratic candidates.

We could mess around all day talking about grey-areas, but i personally think it's very sneaky, deceptive and possibly ignorant to say there are 38% more democrats in the USA than republicans, based solely on party registration, don't you? Especially seeing as it conveniently makes your point for you.

 

Democrats may be more inclined to register for their party than republicans. Based on who won the last two elections i'd suggest you look at this point with an open mind, since those numbers definately do not count for the whole voting population.

 

What some of you fail to realize is not everything, nor does everyone believe that things are black and white. Its this kind of extremeism: "If some of these democrats are "less democratic than others" and happened to vote republican, then that makes them republican." that is tearing our country apart.

Calling me an extremist because i recognise the best way to judge the right/left divide of the population to be a democratic vote... is a tad ironic. It would make me an extremist if i didn't recognise the grey areas in between, but the people in those grey areas have to vote one way or the other and that helps to identify them as slightly right or slightly left. There aren't two ways to live, but there are two ways to vote (usually).

 

This applies to independents aswell, who usually end up voting for either democrat or republican, identifying which side of the political spectrum they identfiy with most.

Edited October 17, 2007 by SeVeR

[ThunderJam]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html

 

59% of protestants voted for bush.

52% of catholics voted for bush.

 

Theres also one part that says "Most important quality" of the candidates.

8% of people said religion, which fell lower than Cares about people (9%), Honest/Trustworthy (11%), Strong leader (17%), Clear Stand on issues (17%), and Will Bring Change (24%). One category had less percentage than religion: Intelligence (7%) by one percent.

[NBVegita]

Remember how Bush won in 2000?

 

Notice how almost every republican is distancing themselves from Bush.

 

You Judge your entire concept of the republican party off of the strong conservative president, and administration we've had over the last 7 years. You judge the entire party poorly because of a few high ranking members. But of course if you don't try to denounce all republicans as being as bad as Bush, one might just make it into office, and no matter what their policies are, you can't have that now can you?

 

Guliani is perfect as a neo con

 

Guiliani who was once a democrat, is known for having a strong liberal standing would make a perfect neo con? Weren't you just relating neo cons with strong conservatives? I guess I'm confused on how he would even be considered conservative, let alone your definition of a neo con.

 

In the end Guliani would appoint conservative justices who would uphold conservative values and that's what will really matter for these issues anyway hence the pragmatic approach.

 

What do you base that off of? Just because there will be a little R after his name? So as soon as he gets in office, he would have to forget all of his stances and policies, simply because he's a republican and can't be anything but conservative? !@#$%^&* out of all of the pertenant political issues, his views on the Iraq war are the only views you could label conservative. I feel he makes a pretty strong moderate.

 

Sever:

 

Those statistics are taken from our us census. They are as accurate of a number as you will ever be able to get.

 

What I find ironic is that for someone who holds such open views, the concept of voting for the best candidate, and not just voting for the party you're registered in is hard for you to grasp.

[SeVeR]

Those statistics are taken from our us census. They are as accurate of a number as you will ever be able to get.

Of course they are accurate, but that isn't the point is it. I take it your short reply means you understand what i'm talking about.

 

What I find ironic is that for someone who holds such open views, the concept of voting for the best candidate, and not just voting for the party you're registered in is hard for you to grasp.

What? You were using party-affiliation as a reason to say more Christians are democrats!

 

The "best candidate" is always affiliated with a political party! If i were American and voted for Ron Paul then i would call myself a Republican, because based on his nomination Republicanism would stand for something different.

[NBVegita]

The "best candidate" is always affiliated with a political party!

 

You still don't get my point. Simply because you agree with the views of ONE democrat, that does not make you a democrat. Just because you may agree with the views of a couple of democrats, that does not make you a democrat. If the majority of the views you agree with are upheld by a majority of democrats, that makes you a democrat. And surely voting for a president does not automatically allign you with his political party.

 

You were using party-affiliation as a reason to say more Christians are democrats!

 

Statistically there are more christian democrats than republicans. (in volume)

 

We could mess around all day talking about grey-areas, but i personally think it's very sneaky, deceptive and possibly ignorant to say there are 38% more democrats in the USA than republicans, based solely on party registration, don't you?

 

What you're saying is that even though they may be registered democrats, that if they vote republican, they're actually more republican than democrats. Well I would use that same arguement for religion. If someone is baptized christian, but they never go to church, never pray, and don't believe in the bible, then they're not really Christian.

 

Yet ironically:

 

I don't know about 'real' Christians (evangelical), my survey gives some data and i'm basing my claims of what that data means, rather than speculating on what it could mean. Evangelicals would be included and so would less extreme Christians, so i'm referring to Christians as a group.

 

You just defended your statistic the same why you're denouncing me for defending mine.

Edited October 17, 2007 by NBVegita

[Bak]

Remember how Bush won in 2000?

i remember how he lost in 2000

[ThunderJam]

What you're saying is that even though they may be registered democrats, that if they vote republican, they're actually more republican than democrats. Well I would use that same arguement for religion. If someone is baptized christian, but they never go to church, never pray, and don't believe in the bible, then they're not really Christian.

Yea some support. That's why my church doesn't baptize people as babies. They only want you to be baptized when you can knowledgable make a commitment to the faith as a adult or young adult (youngest I've seen them do is 15 years old).

[SeVeR]

You still don't get my point. Simply because you agree with the views of ONE democrat, that does not make you a democrat. Just because you may agree with the views of a couple of democrats, that does not make you a democrat. If the majority of the views you agree with are upheld by a majority of democrats, that makes you a democrat. And surely voting for a president does not automatically allign you with his political party.

Oh i get your point, i merely disagree with it. You're trying to tell me that there are 38% more democrats than republicans in the USA based on party registration. I'm making the obvious rebuttal that the last two elections (the only ones i remember) have been close fought affairs, which have actually ended in victory for the republicans. I'm then offering the argument that maybe (just maybe) democrats are more likely to register for their party than republicans. Any opinions on that? Or are you sticking with a left:right divide of 1.4:1.0 (72 milllion vs 52 million)?

 

To the second point, I very much disagree with you that democrats who vote republican remain democrats. I'll put it simply, the leader of a political party represents his party and has been selected by his party to represent them. The leader is everything the party wants the people to see and he therefore identifies the party. A democrat who votes for this party-leader (lets call him a republican in this case) is either a fool for voting for someone based on no political reasoning, or they're actually a republican. The fool is doing nothing but helping the republican party by giving away his vote and therefore showing mild-republicanism, and the closet republican agrees with enough of the republican parties ideals (chosen for their representative) to actually be a republican! There's nothing else to it.

 

Statistically there are more christian democrats than republicans. (in volume)

Anyone who thinks there are 38% more democrats in the USA than republicans is trying too hard to defend a point. But sure, if that really is the case then there actually are more Christian democrats than Christian republicans.........

 

If someone is baptized christian, but they never go to church, never pray, and don't believe in the bible, then they're not really Christian.

Sure why not. Doesn't hurt my point because it works for members of both parties. Except the poll was about people who feel religion is an important factor in electing a candidate, and therefore that sets the scale for religiousness.

 

You just defended your statistic the same why you're denouncing me for defending mine.

A sound logical deduction if i agreed with your previous comment. Edited October 17, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

Being you had posted stating that % of america is christian, that is what I was using the baptism argument against.

 

A democrat who votes for this party-leader (lets call him a republican in this case) is either a fool for voting for someone based on no political reasoning, or they're actually a republican.

 

I think you've got our political system all backwards. A presidential candidate does not represent all of the ideals of a particular party. Every political figure represents his or her party, that is obvious. But simply being a high ranking official does not mean you embody your party. Case in point, most republicans tend to lean towards being conservative. Guilani is not Conservative. So him being elected would mean that the republican party as a whole is no longer conservative? Of course not. One moderate, no matter the posistion, does not take a party of mostly liberal or conservative members and transform it into a moderate party.

 

Some people will elect someone if they say think they have the best chance to beat a democrat even if they don't agree with a lot of their ideals. Or in the 2004 election, the democrats who voted for Bush did so because Kerry, although the strongest democratic candidate, was not a strong candidate. I don't see how voting for a republican, because the democratic candidate is weak, cons!@#$%^&*utes you being a republican. It cons!@#$%^&*utes you as being smart. There are some people who are not blinded by party lines and realize that you can support a candidate of one party without alligning yourself to the ideals of the entire party.

 

Anyone who thinks there are 38% more democrats in the USA than republicans is trying too hard to defend a point.

 

Statistically, there are 38% more registered democrats than republicans in the united states. That is a fact. You may disagree that they're "actual democrats" but that is just speculation.

 

As to the fact that more people are likely to register democrat than republican, vs independent, I would say that is, just from looking at the statistics, a true statement. But keep in mind people don't just flip a coin trying to decide which party to register for. They register as democrats for a reason.

[Suicide_Run]

It is just me....or did the topic suddenly change from a Faith Debate to a Political Debate with Faith attached? lol...

 

As for me, im probably an atheist. I think believing in a religion just makes people's lives easier since they can always think "God" is giving them a trial and their religion will protect them.

 

What I dislike the most about religion is that those people that tries to convert you to their religion. Like saying stuff like their religion will help you, tell you the meeting of life and so on. It kinda gets annoying =/

[ThunderJam]

I think you've got our political system all backwards. A presidential candidate does not represent all of the ideals of a particular party. Every political figure represents his or her party, that is obvious. But simply being a high ranking official does not mean you embody your party. Case in point, most republicans tend to lean towards being conservative. Guilani is not Conservative. So him being elected would mean that the republican party as a whole is no longer conservative? Of course not. One moderate, no matter the posistion, does not take a party of mostly liberal or conservative members and transform it into a moderate party.

 

Some people will elect someone if they say think they have the best chance to beat a democrat even if they don't agree with a lot of their ideals. Or in the 2004 election, the democrats who voted for Bush did so because Kerry, although the strongest democratic candidate, was not a strong candidate. I don't see how voting for a republican, because the democratic candidate is weak, cons!@#$%^&*utes you being a republican. It cons!@#$%^&*utes you as being smart. There are some people who are not blinded by party lines and realize that you can support a candidate of one party without alligning yourself to the ideals of the entire party.

Very good point saying guilani being elected doesn't make the entire republican party liberal.

 

Lol @ sui, did you actually read all 9 pages of the topic? Btw ur avatar looks like it is animated at a faster pace then it used to. Im i really keen to notice that, or just stupid with an imagination playing tricks on me lol?

[JDS]

It is just me....or did the topic suddenly change from a Faith Debate to a Political Debate with Faith attached? lol...

 

 

yar thats all religion is really about in the long run

[Bak]

protestants are told, and thus believe, that catholics worship statues, think going to church alone lets them go to heaven, attend church for the sake of going, and know nothing of the bible. discuss. Edited October 31, 2007 by Bak