Sorry Tore, but I'm with Nicholas on this. This is the chatter section. If his comments offend you but do not cross the lines of the rules of the forum as dicated by the owner of this forum, then it's probably best to just avoid his messages. He has every right to share his opinions - religious beliefs and all. The hardest part of freedom of speech is having tolerance for those whose beliefs you strongly disagree with.

The discussion (and its twists and turns) are reminiscent of some of my college day discussions in classes.... I think if emotion and negativity can be kept in check, it is a healthy discussion.



>With all due respect, please do your preaching in your church, not here on UT.
>
>>>Just like the catholic child abusing priests? How naive is it possible to get?
>>
>>God-fearing and not God-fearing are both sinners. Both commit sins. Nobobdy is perfect. And so what's the difference between the two? God-fearing is aware of what he does against God's laws and the consequences thereof. Unbeliever isn't because he lives and does things based on conscience only. Conscience is different from conviction. All man have conscience but not all have spiritual convictions.
>>
>>So if a priest is God-fearing and yet committed sins, he will suffer both spiritual and physical consequences (based spiritual laws and physical laws) because of God's grace. However, there is a possible restoration if genuine repentance happened. On the other hand, the sinner can be restored spiritually but not necessarily mean restored physically until justice is served based on physical laws. It doesn't mean though that God-fearing people have the license to do all things because there is restoration anyway. Sustained sins by God-fearing people may lead to worst consequences...
>>
>>For unbelievers, both spiritual and physical consequences are applied but there is no restoration happening because there is no genuine repentance which may result to self-condemnation. Worst, suicides because of emotional distress and spiritual heaviness.
>>
>>>>My point is, aside from someone's qualification as a public servant, add to that "God-fearing" characteristic. That's why I mentioned "skills only" in some of my statements. Not just being religious, but God-fearing, he can be a Catholic, a Methodist, Baptist, etc. A God-fearing person can be easily be known by his deeds.
>>>>
>>>>>You're missing my point completely. You're picking one characteristic and let that single characteristic decide whether someone is qualified for a position or not. In other words, you're saying that one characteristic has enough value to let all the other characteristics be not important.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am so offended by your statement. Does one single and completely unrelated characteristic of a person decide whether someone is better fitted to an important position or not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I use glasses, which is one of my characteristics. So using your logic, I would be a good pope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's Sarah Palin not Tore Bleken. Of course I'll not say Tore Bleken can be a good president just because he is God-fearing. The former is already a public servant for long, a vice-presidential candidate before; has track records; etc. Tore Bleken doesn't have those...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No matter how brilliant a man, s/he can't be a good president if s/he is not God fearing. I think Sarah Palin can be a good U.S. president...