Appocolypse or atheist?

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:13 am

I do not intend for this to be a debate about to our current administration.
Here is the scenario:
There are 2 candidates:
One is an atheist who has promised strong action in regards to pollution and global warming. He favors gay marriage, abortion rights and keeping prayer out of public schools. He does not attend church and has promised to block any attempt to teach the creationism in public schools. He is single and comes from Oregon.
The other candidate is a Christian. He has always gone to church, has a beautiful wife and children. He is from North Dakota. He also believes that Pastor John Hagee and other major fundamentalist Christian leaders are correct: The apocalypse is upon us and the 2nd coming of Jesus is eminent so we must prepare at all costs.

Who gets your vote?

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:55 pm

I would pick the guy from Oregon because I think he would provide more responsible leadership. He would be more likely to be able to understand and take into account other viewpoints. He is on average more in line with my particular views on the issues.

OK Micatala - got it.
Thank you.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:01 pm

The issue I was getting at here was the concept of the apocalypse as publicly stated policy. Candidate #2 might stand for all the nifty Christian values you hold true....but there is one part of his belief that you instinctively know could lead to serious damage of the world your children would inherit.
I think instinctively and subconsciously many Christians know that the apocalypse is self-inflicted and, if not for the fact that we are an obese nation, would act to do something about it.

Biker · Post by **Biker** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:24 am

Cmass wrote:The issue I was getting at here was the concept of the apocalypse as publicly stated policy. Candidate #2 might stand for all the nifty Christian values you hold true....but there is one part of his belief that you instinctively know could lead to serious damage of the world your children would inherit.
I think instinctively and subconsciously many Christians know that the apocalypse is self-inflicted and, if not for the fact that we are an obese nation, would act to do something about it.

I am of the camp you dispise and ridicule and belittle, happily I might add.I am interested in the world my two sons and three grandchildren will inherit.I am confused as to what you mean by"his belief that you instinctively know could lead to serious damage of the world". What do you mean?"I think Instinctively + Subconsciously many Christians know that the apocalypse is self inflicted".What do you mean?Explain. All you are doing is baiting!
Biker with a B

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:10 pm

Biker wrote:
Cmass wrote:The issue I was getting at here was the concept of the apocalypse as publicly stated policy. Candidate #2 might stand for all the nifty Christian values you hold true....but there is one part of his belief that you instinctively know could lead to serious damage of the world your children would inherit.
I think instinctively and subconsciously many Christians know that the apocalypse is self-inflicted and, if not for the fact that we are an obese nation, would act to do something about it.
I am of the camp you dispise and ridicule and belittle, happily I might add.I am interested in the world my two sons and three grandchildren will inherit.I am confused as to what you mean by"his belief that you instinctively know could lead to serious damage of the world". What do you mean?"I think Instinctively + Subconsciously many Christians know that the apocalypse is self inflicted".What do you mean?Explain. All you are doing is baiting!
Biker with a B

I don't see any baiting going on even if it is fun sometimes. Here we are wondering if we want someone running the country that gets all giddy every time war breaks out in the Middle East.
Self-inflicted is not the same as self–fulfilling. In the first case mankind is destroying himself and others in the later case Christians are trying to hurry the end so Jesus will return. The first on is a stupid tragedy the second is insane.

Biker · Post by **Biker** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:29 pm

Cathar1950 wrote:
Biker wrote:
Cmass wrote:The issue I was getting at here was the concept of the apocalypse as publicly stated policy. Candidate #2 might stand for all the nifty Christian values you hold true....but there is one part of his belief that you instinctively know could lead to serious damage of the world your children would inherit.
I think instinctively and subconsciously many Christians know that the apocalypse is self-inflicted and, if not for the fact that we are an obese nation, would act to do something about it.
I am of the camp you despise and ridicule and belittle, happily I might add.I am interested in the world my two sons and three grandchildren will inherit.I am confused as to what you mean by"his belief that you instinctively know could lead to serious damage of the world". What do you mean?"I think Instinctively + Subconsciously many Christians know that the apocalypse is self inflicted".What do you mean?Explain. All you are doing is baiting!
Biker with a B
I don't see any baiting going on even if it is fun sometimes. Here we are wondering if we want someone running the country that gets all giddy every time war breaks out in the Middle East.
Self-inflicted is not the same as self–fulfilling. In the first case mankind is destroying himself and others in the later case Christians are trying to hurry the end so Jesus will return. The first on is a stupid tragedy the second is insane.

I dont mind baiting as long as its done with respect and not condescending.I call myself a follower of Jesus, as the term Christian evokes images in most minds that I dont care to wade thru in discussion as to how I am preconceived and labeled so that everything I say is heard thru a hearing aid muted if you will. So from a follower of Jesus point of view you are dead wrong in your opinions on both above points regarding Jesus return you are basing your opinion on wrong info even in regard to most professing ( Christians).Wrong, wrong!!!

doomguard · Post by **doomguard** » Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:46 pm

Within the given parameters, I would vote for the atheist. Not BECAUSE he is an atheist, but on the other views this hypothetical candidate expresses.

Given the fact that an espoused atheist has not run for office in my lifetime, I seriously doubt I will ever have the opportunity to vote for a candidate that shares my personal views on religions and gods in general. The best I can do is look for candidates that APPEAR to have similar views as mine on specific issues. Not all christians are working to drive humanity into the mess expressed in revelations. It is my hope that until we can see some more diversity in candidates religious views that more who fit this more liberal christian definition run for office.

I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state, but understand how ones religion, or lack their of, effects the stand one takes on the topics of the day. But voting only on this affiliation is only going to lead us into a society that simply does not accept anything but the christian viewpoint. If an atheist candidate did run on a platform I did not agree with, I would not vote in their favor simply on this topic. The platform is more important than the candidates personal views on religion.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:16 am

Good answers. I especially like Biker man's answers because they differ from mine and they are way out there.

It really comes down to this: The atheist has no view of God. It does not exist. His policy decision, whether or not you agree with them, appear to be the result of some rational debate.

Candidate 2, on the other hand is a bit nutty. He gets his messages from God and due to this 12 year old mentality is not willing to change his opinion. Some of you know instinctively this is not someone you would trust to make rational decisions. This is because his decisions are based upon a religious perspective and not a logical one. I think, based upon the number of Christians who picked # 1, their thinking automatically tuned in on some, perhaps subconscious level. Unless you are truly insane you would pick #1.

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:24 am

Cmass wrote:I do not intend for this to be a debate about to our current administration.
Here is the scenario:
There are 2 candidates:
One is an atheist who has promised strong action in regards to pollution and global warming. He favors gay marriage, abortion rights and keeping prayer out of public schools. He does not attend church and has promised to block any attempt to teach the creationism in public schools. He is single and comes from Oregon.
The other candidate is a Christian. He has always gone to church, has a beautiful wife and children. He is from North Dakota. He also believes that Pastor John Hagee and other major fundamentalist Christian leaders are correct: The apocalypse is upon us and the 2nd coming of Jesus is eminent so we must prepare at all costs.Who gets your vote?

I am afraid I would require more info to answer. Their religious affiliation wouldn't be my sole determining factor. which is best qualified? If I could only pick based on what you have given, then I am sorry atheists, I would have to go for the Christian. Not because he is Christian,but because he isn't advoacting radical change that infringes on others. He is only advocating being prepared for a disaster. That disaster to him may be the 2nd coming of Christ, but it could also be helpful if it was Katrina, or meteor shower hitting earth etc.... I know these are poor reasons, but based on the criteria, the Christian would seem to be the one to do the least harm. Then of course I would ensure the House had atheists as the majority. You know, balance of powers.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:52 am

Perhaps it would help to know a bit more about the people who are supporting this fellow including John Haggee......

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:50 pm

Cmass wrote:Perhaps it would help to know a bit more about the people who are supporting this fellow including John Haggee......

are you going to make me research this John Haggee, or can you just give me the info?

Debating Christianity and Religion

Appocolypse or atheist?

Appocolypse or atheist?

Re: Appocolypse or atheist?