I guess I might have to add to my Pop-Tart reference. Even if I get a box of blueberry Pop-Tarts, if I open them up and find a few of them spoiled or broken, I wouldn't be satisfied with them.
Hitler is what I would equate to a spoiled or broken Christian.

Anyone who mass murders innocents isn't necessarily following Christian teachings (well, unless they're more inclined toward the Old Testament; in which case they're just following the example of God).

I see what you're trying to say.

So then to you to be considered 'Christian', you must not be a 'broken Christian'? But to me at least, in this context everyone who considers themselves Christian is a 'spoiled or broken' Christian. No one can perfectly follow Christian doctrine (everyone's a sinner, etc. [and anyway, if you were to follow all the doctrine taught in the Bible to the word, you would end up contradicting yourself a few times]).

So then if everyone is a broken Christian, then what constitutes a Christian? I've always thought that it was someone who believed in the religion, and to the best of their abilities practice them. Under these circumstances, Hitler was a Christian in every way. He believed in Christianity, professed it in his speeches, and believed genuinely he was carrying out God's work.

The point is that there are people who would rather elect a (conservative) Christian rather than someone of different beliefs even if the non-Christian would be considered more qualified for the position. Thus, on face value (which is how many people vote), people such as these would elect someone like Hitler before Gandhi.

Wow, thanks Katczinsky, you pretty much summed up what I was trying to say. This is a country where people are allowed vote how ever they want. Though I don't agree that people should vote based solely on religion, he is allowed to do it. Thats the problem and the greatness of this country. Everyone is allowed to vote from the smartest to the least smart and they are all allowed to vote any way that they want. So we cannot simply criticize McCain for his views because he is allowed to have them. So though I don't agree with his opinion, I don't criticize him for having it.
(Yes I know this may seem to conflict with my previous post, I am simply stating it is not right to say he cannot have this point of view.)

And I think it he meant, that he would prefer that the leader of the country be a "Christian". And to me, that means as much as if he were to say he would prefer the leader of the country be "human" or "a man". Because I would prefer the leader of the country be against "gay marriage", and I assume Hitler would also be against gay marriage too. But I seriously doubt I would vote for him based only on that. The KKK hates "dem gays" too, but there are certain qualities of the KKK I might take issue with.

THAT'S what "I" mean.

Frustration maybe, anger no. She herself posted the full quote twice, I did once. And the she claims to say that the quote says something that it does not say, not once but twice. Furthermore telling me to play my sarcastic little game. You know, you can only write small for so long when someone fails to read what is being written. She herself quoted the same quote twice. And then to prove her point she quotes only what supports her argument. That is crap.....

You know what, thats crap. We hear how tolerant liberals are, yet here it has never been shown. One attack after another on conservatives, Christianity, and Republicans. If you attack, expect to get attacked back, for I will not back down from anyone. And when you fail to read don't blame me. Words have meanings. So don't try to throw that humility and practicing my religion crap to my face. If you wish to debate, then debate, but when you are shown to be wrong not once, not twice but on three occasions, give it up. All the whining in the world won't help.......nor saying I am right over and over, especially when the words of the quote betray you.

dmk

Hey Gary, it simple, ignore those that you can't beat. Why work hard to prove you have a point when you can simply ignore. If I ignored the people that offend, piss me off, or are just absolutely not worth my time in this forum, I would probably be debate with about 7 people.

dmk

Yes, but when you lash out on your frustration, it is anger.

Patience is a virtue, and being unable to control your frustration doesn't necessarily make you a good debater, nor will it help the other person see how you came to your conclusions.


I'm not aware of any attack I made on conservatives, Christianity, or Republicans...okay, maybe I'm just not aware of any attack on Christianity here. I think the Christian value of humility is one of it's greatest virtues. You said in the other thread that a good Christian is humble, I agree! I was just saying that you weren't (nor do most of the time in this forum) necessarily following that maxim.

But, it's interesting; I suggest that you be humble (as it is wise in debating), and you attack me.

Perhaps you could help me here, I'm not aware of me being shown wrong in this circumstance. Especially considering I wasn't even involved in what you were debating.

But I guess attacking other people and then saying that you're "right over and over" is just being a good humble, tolerant, and open-minded Christian.

I'm not ignoring anyone ever. Not a chance. Not even if they post super duper long ass posts. I have 4.5 hours to kill on dialysis where all I have to do is play on the internet. Not to mention I've been retired since 20 years old. I have too much time on my hands to have to ignore any one. It's a shame so many people have chosen to ignore me. It shows how weak they feel their argument is IMHO.

The United States was founded as a European Christian civilisation and true Christian values and European industriousness are responsible for our historical success as a society.
And, contrary to liberal propaganda and brainwashing, demographic diversity within one state is not a strength but a weakness.

Now that the world is being transformed to suit the agenda of the Godless, Orwellian multicult; and the United States has devolved into nothing more than an economic collective with dozens of ethnic and other special interests competing against each other for the biggest share of the pie - I would be at a loss to accurately describe American civilisation with any adjective.

Muslims played no significant part in laying the foundations of the United States of America, and if they are offended by John McCain's statement...I really could care less. Christians had nothing to do with building the great Pyramid of Egypt or the great wall of China -but I take no offense at people pointing that out.
When Jews stop demanding that Christians refrain from any demonstrable observance of the most sacred events on our calendar -whilst concurrently and hypocritically shoving their own culture down our throats; I'm sure I'll be more disposed towards exercising some degree of sensitivity to their feelings on this matter.

I wish people would simply tell these politically motivated, agenda driven whiners to just: "shut up."



C.