Evangelical Disconnect

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Who was Stalingrad?? :confused: http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/surprised/drool.gif (http://www.thesmilies.com) :D

Ok, just to be clear here, I'm not talking about hanging around Christians, or anyone else who believes in the Bible. I'm not even mentioning my own religious beliefs . . . I'm talking about the actual technical meaning of the phrase "Bible thumper", as in someone constantly beating others up about their views in a bullying manner. Public pride in your religious beliefs are totally cool imo and something different altogether . . .

More power to ya if your hand is still raised, but I just wanted to make sure that it was not perceived by anyone that my usage of the term was loosely-based and broad-brushed to mean a synonym for Christianity or personal pride in one's religious beliefs. Anything BUT the case. ;)

And, you need to make up your mind . . . do you ride a Felt or a C'dale? Either way, you're still cool in my book. :)
I knew what your were talking about. I was just bustin your chops :D

Before I accepted Christ I had people trying to convince me in that manner. I know they meant well, but it was the wrong way or perhaps the wrong time.

Both, but the C'dale six13 is my favorite

I knew what your were talking about. I was just bustin your chops :D

Before I accepted Christ I had people trying to convince me in that manner. I know they meant well, but it was the wrong way or perhaps the wrong time.

Both, but the C'dale six13 is my favorite
Well, thank goodness your screen name isn't C'dale Rider then. People might get the wrong idea around here then . . . :o

Which leads me to often wonder since visiting global forums, how history is taught in other countries as it pertains to the United States in particular.

Just as I do not buy into my own schools' history lessons of the US being heroes over and over again, I expect citizens of other countries not to buy into their schools' propaganda that the US is always the bully/bad guy. But, the more time I spend on global internet forums, the more it becomes obvious to me that many others do not recognize the fact that history courses themselves are nothing more than subjective opinion filled with the instructors' and text-writers internal biases and their nation's views . . . propaganda. Really, all history books should have a disclaimer stating "This story is based on actual events."


When I took French in high school, we had to read French textbooks. I mean, history textbooks written in French, for French kids. Very interesting. If you really want to know who saved civilization...it was... Charles de Gaulle...:rolleyes: (you know, the guy who built that airport ...http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/surprised/drool.gif (http://www.thesmilies.com)...)

Anyway...this book mentioned the United States' role in WWII in only two different sentences. Two sentences. The year we entered the war, and I believe there was a mention of an Allied invasion of France. One mention of that. The rest...all Charles de Gaulle...so that explained a lot to me about Euro attitudes and "what they teach kids in schools these days"...particularly the French.

Right now I guess all children of all Western nations are just busy learning how to recycle...

As is evident from your post... you have no clue about the motivations of the hijackers. Before you can fight an enemy... you need to understand them. That was very frustrating in the aftermath of 9/11... that the whole response/analysis of what happened on 9/11 was so deranged and also influenced by hidden Neocon agendas. And the US people, media and politicians just lapped up anything they were told. The whole effort IMO helped the cause of Islamic radicalism ("terrorism" is just a method/strategy of fighting) rather than combated it. Then the American people were faced with the paradox of being labeled traitors if they spoke up against the arguably fascist actions of the government. Free speech and liberty my ass. It was almost the return of McCarthyism. And further Americans were asked to die for a faulty cause... otherwise the others who had died would have died for nothing (and the government would have to admit they made a mistake and a black mark would be permanently etched on a President's legacy). The actions followed the President's consistent credo: a mistake is only a mistake if you admit to it. Remember Vietnam?

What about the US response to France and Germany's reluctance to endorse the Iraq invasion? What a bunch of tossers the French and Germans were to not be as gullible and irrational as the loudest American fist-pumpers.

The irony is that you will probably deduce that these views make me an "enemy" sympathizer. From my perspective... I see the militant right wing of the US as inadvertently helping the cause of militant Islamics and a major threat to world peace and stabilty. And I consider myself a believer in free enterprise, small government and the principles that the US was founded on.:confused: I did not discuss their motivations, except to say they were not dying for the establishment of liberal democracy.

It sounds like you've been saving that up for oh, about 5 years, but how do you apply that to a statment that the hijackers did not act to liberalize Saudi Arabia?

It is when you are running an empire. Most countries don't want to be empires. Yeah, like you don't want Record or Dura-Ace.

:confused: I did not discuss their motivations, except to say they were not dying for the establishment of liberal democracy.

It sounds like you've been saving that up for oh, about 5 years, but how do you apply that to a statment that the hijackers did not act to liberalize Saudi Arabia?I misunderstood your post that I used as a prompt. But it is germane to the issue being discussed at the time. Just ignore the first sentence. It is a critique of the Bush Administration's foreign policy which you seem to be defending.

Raise your internet virtual hand if you like to hang around Bible thumpers please. Anbody? Anybody? I'm going to go out on a virtual limb and guess that nobody's hand is raised atm.

The Bible thumper KNOWS they are right, that their beliefs are actually CONCRETE FACTS, and is certain it is their function in life to convert everyone else. They lack tact and social graces in their efforts to convert others, because in thumping others with their own perception of reality, they are disrespectful of others' perceptions, personal upbringing, biases, background, beliefs, etc.

Well, the non-Americans constantly bashing and thumping US citizens for their country's actions (as subjectively perceived by those non-Americans), is actually no different. It is just as rude and tactless, inconsiderate and annoying.

I especially love all of the thumping about our "ignorance." Ignorance is actually in the eye of the beholder, as explained above. And, what you all claim to be examples of our "ignorance" perhaps is actually a level of tact in not engaging in the tasteless debate.

It is common knowledge in many American circles that you never bring up religion or politics in conversation, because it is perceived to be rude, disrespectful of the vast many differences of opinion that we all know exist, and no good ever comes out of it because you're never going to sway others from their positions on such matters.

A thumper is a thumper (no pun intended with thunder since he's not been around much lately) . . . . whether you're a Bible thumper or an anti-American policy thumper, you're still a thumper and perceived no differently . . . ANNOYING.

I have a forced-upon family friend who is a Bible thumper. Always telling you what you should and shouldn't do according to the Bible and always quoting scripture. I argue the opposing view with him all the time, even if I don't BELIEVE in the opposing view, simply for sport and to piss him off, because I find him to be such an annoyance.

That brings the thread back to original topic: Dangerous bible thumpers. They don't do much harm when they corner you at a family reunion but have done untold damage as they have combined to set the foreign policy agenda of the U.S. These are people who are incapable of seeing situations from multiple points of view. Everything is always seen through the lense of religious fervor. To make matters worse there is a belief amongst a significant portion of the religious right that the U.S. is god's country, and they see everything in terms of good and evil, with the U.S. always playing the part of good. They are like sociopaths; they simply cannot feel empathy for any country or any people that sides against the U.S. That makes them capable of immense harm when they have control of the military means of the U.S.

This is totally off topic...but do you think the Clintons had anything to do with John Edwards getting busted? Just throwing that out there...

This is totally off topic...but do you think the Clintons had anything to do with John Edwards getting busted? Just throwing that out there...
Hillary's team revealed it to torpedo him as a possible vice presidential candidate? Possible. I am not sure how probable Edwards was of being chosen as VP. He was not very effective as Kerry's choice. It might not make sense for the Clintons to damage him. Then again, the Clintons have always been extremely vindictive, and Bill is angry as hell that he has been tarred with the racist brush.

McCain has to be a little worried about this. He has a long history of cheating on his wives, right up to the present.

Hillary's team revealed it to torpedo him as a possible vice presidential candidate? Possible. I am not sure how probable Edwards was of being chosen as VP. He was not very effective as Kerry's choice. It might not make sense for the Clintons to damage him. Then again, the Clintons have always been extremely vindictive, and Bill is angry as hell that he has been tarred with the racist brush.

McCain has to be a little worried about this. He has a long history of cheating on his wives, right up to the present.
Well that's what I thought, he wasn't likely to be picked anyway...but it's certainly not beneath them... :p Did you see that clip of the Daily Show with Edward's "explanation." Why does anyone consent to an interview about that kind of thing?

I personally don't want to know any of this stuff...

Well that's what I thought, he wasn't likely to be picked anyway...but it's certainly not beneath them... :p Did you see that clip of the Daily Show with Edward's "explanation." Why does anyone consent to an interview about that kind of thing?
He should have wagged his finger at the camera and empatically said, "I did not have sex with that woman." Or maybe he could have gone for the Jimmy Swaggart approach: Break down and cry while exclaiming, "I have sinned!"

He should have wagged his finger at the camera and empatically said, "I did not have sex with that woman." Or maybe he could have gone for the Jimmy Swaggart approach: Break down and cry while exclaiming, "I have sinned!"
LOL...that would be perfect for a politician...because after that, Jimmy Swaggart went on to say...write me the biggest check you can.... ;)

LOL...that would be perfect for a politician...because after that, Jimmy Swaggart went on to say...write me the biggest check you can.... ;)
This requires the "I have sinned" action photo.

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o74/Lustbites/swaggart_621.jpg

This is totally off topic...but do you think the Clintons had anything to do with John Edwards getting busted? Just throwing that out there...
John Edwards did this. What was he thinking? The woman is a flake. John Edwards better be careful that the money paid to her for the care of his baby was not out of his funds.

Just imagine if Edwards was the nominee?

If Edwards situatuion was revealed earlier, before Iowa, Obama would be a footnote in history now , instead of in November. Hilary knows this, and the Dems are now nervous about the upcoming weeks. Obama is slipping fast. The longer he is in the public eye, the more he slips in the polls.

Flip on Faux News sometime and watch Bush and his crusade against Islam.


It is very much different. Evangelical christians define "achieving the lifestyle they want" as restricting the rights of others to achieve the lifestyles they want.

In the latest news, conservative loons in West Virginia are attempting to ban Pat Conroy's books.I thought he was on a crusade because of oil now it's about religion? I do not remember the president ever saying one word against the religion of Islam only against those who use the religion as justification for blowing up buildings or other people.

Hillary's team revealed it to torpedo him as a possible vice presidential candidate? Possible. I am not sure how probable Edwards was of being chosen as VP. He was not very effective as Kerry's choice. It might not make sense for the Clintons to damage him. Then again, the Clintons have always been extremely vindictive, and Bill is angry as hell that he has been tarred with the racist brush.

McCain has to be a little worried about this. He has a long history of cheating on his wives, right up to the present.
I sincerely do not get why we as a people think a politician's personal affairs are our business. I'm not married to the guy, so I couldn't care less whether he's cheating on his wife. As long as he's doing his damn job to the best of his abilities . . . that's all that matters to me. Whether or not Bill Clinton is getting hummers in the Oval Office has no bearing on my life, unless it interferes with his ability to do his job. Heck, if it cleared his mind so he could think more clearly regarding some big decision . . . have more Bill.

Instead, we made it a collosal affair so that the entire "scandal" SURELY weighed on his mind and interfered with his abilities to do the job we actually paid him to do.

I thought he was on a crusade because of oil now it's about religion? I do not remember the president ever saying one word against the religion of Islam only against those who use the religion as justification for blowing up buildings or other people.It's about oil when it"s convenient, and religion when it's convenient.I never remember a government policy of the Bush adm based on religion.But then I never hang around coffee shops drinking latte and following the gospel of a frustrated university professor. *I am too busy enjoying the benefits of a capitolist society that America provides.
Benefits such as this lunch yesterday............
Texas............Black Angus............Brown eyed Latino women......... A guy just has to love this country.


* Of course, I occasionlly have to explain to my two 20 something daughters that restraint is called for when enjoying the capitolist system.

I sincerely do not get why we as a people think a politician's personal affairs are our business..... Unwillingness to keep a contract says a lot about one's character.

Unwillingness to keep a contract says a lot about one's character.Then McCain's in trouble. How many affairs in wedlock has he had?