Who is living the more moral lifestyle, a celibate homosexual or a shacked up heterosexual? A hard working, family loving Mormon or a wife beating evangelical? An aetheist that performs great works of charity or a Catholic that runs around on his wife? We should all take the personal characteristics of candidates into consideration. The question was about qualified candidates. Eliminating someone because they fall into a group, without considering their personal characteristics or qualifications is wrong.

WHERE in this thread did anyone say that all heterosexuals are good people? Where in this thread did anyone say that all evangelicals are right on with their lifestyle? Where in this thread did anyone say that we would vote blindly for a heterosexual or an evangelical?

 

And why does all of your examples shine a negative light on those areas that you are attacking while shining a bright light on the others?

 

Do you believe that there are homosexuals that sleep around as the heterosexual that you list. Do you believe there are aetheist that does not do works of charity? Do you believe there are Mormons that beat their wife?

 

I get tired of people telling me I have to water down my Christian faith and I cannot live as a Christian like Jesus asks us to.

 

And before you go off on attacking me there, I ABSOLUTELY AND 100% believe that we should love each and every one of those groups that I have listed. I believe if they are in need, we should be there immediately to help them. BUT DON'T tell me I have to ask them to be the leader of this country and I shouldn't disqualify someone that's lifestyle (whether they are an evangelical wifebeater or a homosexual or an athesist that gives to charity or a Jewish businessman who takes advantage of his position) stands in great contrast of the lifestyle and mindset that I try to live by.

 

I need to take a break out of here for the rest of the weekend.:lol:

WHERE in this thread did anyone say that all heterosexuals are good people? Where in this thread did anyone say that all evangelicals are right on with their lifestyle? Where in this thread did anyone say that we would vote blindly for a heterosexual or an evangelical?

 

And why does all of your examples shine a negative light on those areas that you are attacking while shining a bright light on the others?

 

Do you believe that there are homosexuals that sleep around as the heterosexual that you list. Do you believe there are aetheist that does not do works of charity? Do you believe there are Mormons that beat their wife?

 

I get tired of people telling me I have to water down my Christian faith and I cannot live as a Christian like Jesus asks us to.

 

And before you go off on attacking me there, I ABSOLUTELY AND 100% believe that we should love each and every one of those groups that I have listed. I believe if they are in need, we should be there immediately to help them. BUT DON'T tell me I have to ask them to be the leader of this country and I shouldn't disqualify someone that's lifestyle (whether they are an evangelical wifebeater or a homosexual or an athesist that gives to charity or a Jewish businessman who takes advantage of his position) stands in great contrast of the lifestyle and mindset that I try to live by.

 

I need to take a break out of here for the rest of the weekend.:lol:

 

OK...

 

Let me ask you this:

 

If the election came down to electing a wife-beating, athiest, heterosexual who supported abortion, or a homosexual, anti-abortion, athiest, what choice would you make? :lol:

 

It's just a joke. You don't really have to answer, because I think you'd probably move to Canada or somewhere before voting for either!

OK...

 

Let me ask you this:

 

If the election came down to electing a wife-beating, athiest, heterosexual who supported abortion, or a homosexual, anti-abortion, athiest, what choice would you make? :lol:

 

It's just a joke. You don't really have to answer, because I think you'd probably move to Canada or somewhere before voting for either!

I am having a similar problem this year as I am afraid the Republican candidate is going to be Rudy G and I will not vote for him. I know of no Democrat candidate that is pro-life. As you all know, I would support Huckabee in a heartbeat.

 

I might write in Fastbreak's name.:sssh:

Who is living the more moral lifestyle, a celibate homosexual or a shacked up heterosexual? A hard working, family loving Mormon or a wife beating evangelical? An aetheist that performs great works of charity or a Catholic that runs around on his wife? We should all take the personal characteristics of candidates into consideration. The question was about qualified candidates. Eliminating someone because they fall into a group, without considering their personal characteristics or qualifications is wrong.

I agree that we must examine and evaluate the personal characteristics of the candidates we elect to office. If we did this more stringently than we have in recent years, we might have a higher level of service being performed at our expense on our behalf.

 

While I agree that it's wrong to judge someone superficially on such things as the color of their skin, national heritage, etc. that are beyond their control or judgment, I disagree that it is wrong to evaluate individuals based upon the groups with which they willingly align themselves. The ability to know the characteristics of certain groups actually tells us more about a candidate's personal beliefs than volumes of controlled public statements by that candidate.

 

A former or currently active member of the KKK would be seriously discredited in my opinion. The same for Nazis, satanists, wiccans, druids, radical Islamists, etc. I couuldn't care less what a great guy or gal someone might be one-on-one if they choose to align themselves with certain groups I find harmful or idiotic.

....Let me ask you this:

 

If the election came down to electing a wife-beating, atheist, heterosexual who supported abortion, or a homosexual, anti-abortion, atheist, what choice would you make? :lol:

I call it an early breakfast and drive past the voting polls....:lol:

Using this definition, about 99.9% of the population are bigots. Those who have zero standards would be the only ones not bigots.

Pretty much my point... :thumb:

Pretty much my point... :thumb:

And why I might be writing in your name November 2008.:thumb:

And why I might be writing in your name November 2008.:thumb:

I would be proud to serve you my friend... :thumb:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just don't go digging too deeply into my closet... :sssh:

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Thank God for mercy and grace is all I can say.

Here's a question. We have a list of options and those that are saying they would vote for most/all, would you or have you ever voted for the opposite party.

 

If not, then how is that choice, any different than choosing to not for one of the above options.

 

I have voted for both parties. It doesn't matter to me what party they are with. Like I said earlier, it's all about getting the job done and I vote for who I think will do that.

I have voted for both parties. It doesn't matter to me what party they are with. Like I said earlier, it's all about getting the job done and I vote for who I think will do that.

I do the exact same thing. Just seems my definiton of whether they can get the job done is different. As well as probably the definition of what the job is, might be different.

Not sure of the year that happened, but I'm pretty sure I was about 2 at the time....

 

 

He left office in '89. :thumb:

Personally, I have had and wrestled with being a Christian and being hogtied at my workplace with what I can and cannot do with my faith. I have considered leaving for those reasons. And decided to stay and find around the laws that prevent me from being the Christian I think Jesus asks me to be.

 

Are we not supposed to vote for candidates that represent our ideas, beliefs, values and judgement?

 

 

Don't give up LBC. Kids need someone like you who lives out the human struggle for faith in front of them. Removing yourself from their world isn't the answer. No one in a cloyster (IMHO) ever changed much in this world. Effective change happens in the trenches and it happens one person at a time. :thumb:

Don't give up LBC. Kids need someone like you who lives out the human struggle for faith in front of them. Removing yourself from their world isn't the answer. No one in a cloyster (IMHO) ever changed much in this world. Effective change happens in the trenches and it happens one person at a time. :thumb:

Funny you say that because I am reading Billy Hybels book "Just Walk across the Room" for a possible churchwide outreach campaign at our church in 2008. And he says the same thing. I think you mentioning it while I am reading and trying to help decide whether this is a good campaign or not, is not just a coincidence but a God-thing.:thumb:

1) NO....I would not work for someone who was a homosexual or atheist.

2) Would I know....not sure but if revealed to be true, I would leave.

3) Yes....on find a new job.

 

All personal choices on my part.

 

The great thing about the US, is we have the right to choose, whom we vote for and what trust/ability we place in our elected officials. We're brought up with norms and traits, that are often nurtured by our parents.

 

If raised by Baptists, often become a Baptist and those many traits. If raised a Catholic, often become a Catholic and so on.....doesn't make one a label, right or wrong but it's who we are and our belief system.

 

Would you FIRE someone or NOT hire someone if you understood that person to be gay or atheist?

Would you FIRE someone or NOT hire someone if you understood that person to be gay or atheist?

No, but only because its illegal to do such. I think an employer should have the right to not hire for any reason.