2% rule
 

He only says 2% of what he thinks he claims.

Must be why he was so selective with his view on homosexuality, least we can now rule him out as a genuine person cause he is keeping 98% back.

Do the math...s

Agree 100%

I think he was right. It's not always best to blurt out everything that's on your mind. Sometimes it's better to engage the clutch of tact.

I think 'clutch of tact ' is more a case of fudge the facts in his case.

Especially when your views might be homophobic "init".

I'd rather know peoples beliefs and opinions in that enviroment when 100k is up for grabs.

Sam won't win because he says what he is thinking and admitted tonight himself he should have rephrased what he said but at least you can all vote him out cause you know what he thinks.

I don't agree with Dave's views on homosexuality, and those of most religious people, but he has only spoken about them when people have asked him directly. He hasn't offered his opinion because it was on his mind and he felt everyone must be endlessly fascinated to hear what he thought. "Init".

...'Innit' .. lol, you have a point on the subject (in my opinion) but it does make me wonder what else he is being coy about. The reason I feel that way is because I have found some of what he says/his behaviour to be contradictory.

It sounded dodgey but I get what he means, sometimes its just bet to keep quiet - which is true.

There will always be personal beliefs of HMs which people will disagree with to a greater or lesser extent, even of someone who might be your favourite. I think it's better to concentrate on HMs as they are in the house and just accept we will not know the full details of their beliefs, why they got them, how strong they are etc.

Totally agree.
I said at the time when he was having his arguments with Keeva about all that religious tosh. He refused to reply when she asked him pretty simple questions about homosexuality etc that only required a yes or no answer. He didn't have the courage of his convictions to say what he really believed and instead chose to muddy the waters..
Dave's real views on homosexuality and other things are totally fundamentalist and intolerant and he won't reveal them on BB because it would be the end of him.

My comment deals with his time in the house. Some of what I've seen has been hypocritical or at best contradictory. Someboby who within the past 24 hours has claimed to be friends with a Werewolf (along with the Drunk thing, flying to the sun, fairies, curing cancer, regrowing limbs etc...) is not the sort of person you would expect to be reluctant to call a spade a spade, or answer a direct question re his belief system .... afterall, he entered the house as a 'Minister' and so he leaves himself open to misinterpretation if he censors what he will and won't share, when asked, on the subject?

I wasn't that Caoimhe, who was raised a Catholic, already knew the answers and was just raising the questions for an argument?

He entered the house as a HM, nothing more. Same as the others.

exactly this.

Shouting 'The Glory' adinfinitum, wearing a Habit and calling himself the Monk .. ? He has said on many occassions that his Mission is to 'spread the word' ... I don't think its unreasonable under those circumstances, to expect answers to straightforward questions...
I hope you don't think I'm being argumentative, I really am fascinated.

I don't agree with his religious views but he's entitled to them. I find people who try and tell people how to think and feel more annoying, and if they don't think like this then you're a bad person.

But that is exactly what Dave's fundamentalist/infallible scripture based thought system/faith is!
:elephant:

Is it?

The scriptures he uses cant be infallible because within them is contained a yes no and maybe answer for everything.

How do you explain Andrew being one of Dave's best friends then? Dave has said that Andrew is the most sceptical atheist he's ever met.

Andrew is not equipped to argue the sceptics case. Dave has dealt with him pretty easily to be honest.
All Andrew has done is said he doesn't believe Dave's claims. An equipped sceptic would explain why Dave's claims are just that, "claims" and not "fact"...it's not Andrew's fault, I suppose he has had no need or interest in learning how to effectively debunk this sort of nonsense before.

Exactly, I agree...but a fundamentalist position like Dave's...remember his idiotic age of the earth and dinosaur crap...does not accept that scripture is fallible. That was the point I was trying to make.

Andrew isn't within his remit, Daves recruits are the ex drug users/alcohlics etc ... altogether more vunerable and needy beings. I'm pretty sure Dave wouldn't welcome anybody from the house openly displaying an interest in joining his organisation ... he would then be forced into opening up with some direct answers.
Also, its not in his interest to be unfriendly with 'non-believers' because he will know from experience that he would quickly become branded a fanatic or fundamentalist.... by HMs and viewers alike.

Well said.

"We" as in the "World" have practiced and believed all kinds of things in the past. It has NEVER made them true or morally right.
Fortunately, for those interested in a more enlightened and fair path, there exists today the knowledge and the fruits of labour of thousands (if not millions) of hard working scientists and scholars in all disciplines who have tried to move the human experience on just a little from a world of ghosts, goblins and gods.
Sadly, there still remains a hard core who are either too stupid or too bloody minded to grasp that the world is wonderful enough without it being based on fairy tales.

The above was in reply to a post by "El Proximo"(?)
The post seems to have been removed.

Thankfully...

I wish I had seen it .. was caught up in my teenagers problems and have only just managed to catch up here ... doh! (El Proximos Post)

Uh no. This has nothing to do with 'Science' although it is true that many scientifically advanced civilizations believed homosexuality was some kind of disease or even a 'genetic mistake' and in the case of highly advanced Germany their were medical scientists who supposed it was an evolutionary mistake.
They supposed you could send them to death camps (eliminate them from the gene pool) and eventually eliminate that problem altogether.

Now I haven't seen any actual polls or surveys on what % of PHD's in the world think 'gay marriage' is perfectly acceptable but maybe you have?
What about just the UK?

Duly not that neither this post or my last censored post are anything but descriptions of history and the world around us.
They are not personally directed at anyone.
They are not even my own 'personal opinion'.

As an example:
- Hitler really did mass-murder Jews.
Horrible.
But me stating that historical reality is not 'me offending Jews'. It is not 'flaming or trolling' Jews or Nazis.
It is not my own 'pro nazi' endorsement.
It is simply stating 'what happened'.

Likewise, I am just stating that gay marriage has been largely unheard of in human history and for vast numbers of peoples over time and history that would be considered, at least, weird and unacceptable.
MANY today would even consider it sexually perverse, bizarre or even punishable by death.
Serious.
Once again, this is simply stating 'reality'. This 'happened'. Its a 'neutral' statement.

Not sure if I have missed the link to this branch of the topic and I'm a bit puzzled as to how we got here.
Gay Marriage may have been unheard of, despised and or thought of as an 'abomination' throughout History and may still be, in areas/individuals of the World today. However, gay relationships covert or otherwise have been with us since the dawn of time.
Daves views on Gay Marriage are his own affair, I doubt his Cult will be recruiting many who would be affected by this dictate anyway?

It is true that we can find some cultures in history who (for a time at least) had some kind of acceptance of homosexual couples or even some kind of 'marriage' for them.
These are called 'exceptions to the rule'. Sometimes they didn't last long. Other times were even considered 'strange' in those exceptions,
but,
The actual 'complaint' being made here was that there are a number of people who believe this ought to be acceptable (wait for it) but who also carry on discussions 'as if' everyone else ought know and accept it too,
and,
what is worse is that they not only presume their 'truth' is superior and everyone should agree but that anyone who disagrees must be 'strange' and even punished for their non-compliance.

I'm in favour of 'each to their own' .. I won't accept being told what to think on any topic but I am avidly interested in both sides of every (reasoned) argument. If I find holes in my 'reasoning, I'm happy to have learnt something.
My problem with Dave is that I think he is wrong to duck and dive on issues which HE raised by entering onto a public platform, proclaiming himself to be a Monk.
Offering his 2% under those circumstances is tantemount to how Blair got us into Iraq, we never learn .. theres more to be learnt from whats been left unsaid sometimes.
Ultimately, somebody has to care about Daves recruits. Dave openly boasts about his travel agendas over the past years, this alone should atleast raise some eyebrows.

A trip to the sun must cost a fortune. Pity it wasn't a one way ticket

How on earth (lol) does he pay for these trips ... he's off to Australia and America after BB ... I want to know where the money comes from, if its all upfront there shouldn't be a problem.
Does anybody know if there are any official bodies who are charged with 'monitoring' these Organisations etc ...?

In no way defending or suspecting anything Dave's cult is doing but it's entirely possible that Crowderites in (for example) invited him and bought him a ticket from donations,
and/or
a common way with Church circles is that Dave pays his own way out of whatever money he has.
After speaking/babbling/prophecying they take a collection to help cover his travel expenses.

As a practice there is obviously nothing wrong with that but it would be up to the ministry to make sure they report to their tax authorities in their countries as they should.

As a general description - Crowderites are NOT wealthy and are largely younger types and many out of drug or party lifestyles (so nothing changed) but not 'street people' poor either.
It is possible they have some benevolent wealthy sponsors but I don't see any lavish wealth quite yet.

Then the next puzzle is how Dave manages to support his Family and run his home expenses ... whichever way you look at it, it doesn't make sense. He travels extensively, has three kids and can manage to host huge sloshfests (I'm going to assume they eat tangible food at these events) aswell as travelling around to Towns around the Country for their You Tube Promos.
He named a huge figure of Money to Keely when she questioned him about how they made their money, covering the prior 18 months .. This doesn't tally with what you are saying.
I don't see how very many ex drug takers/Alcoholics manage to get their lives back on track and then fall into brackets of pay which would take them THAT far away from poverty.

That actually sounds like a description of Christians (or any one of the of the archaic religious groups that sadly still exist!).:hugesmile:

In fact it sounds like you. Someone who is not aware that Christianity is growing in massive leaps and bounds on this planet,
and,
someone who doesn't understand that just their peculiar cultural 'beliefs' are not shared by the rest of the planet and let me describe this for you:
- You have a 'belief' that technological progress and 'modernization' is the same as 'declining religion'.
That is something peculiar to just a few western countries and is not shared by the rest of the world.

In fact, religion never became 'archaic' in these western countries but never mind that because in the rest of the planet religion maintains popularity and practice REGARDLESS of 'modernization' or these advances in society (technology, sciences etc).
Religion maintains or in many cases lately INCREASES in practice.

But you just assumed that your own peculiar experience of your little culture in just these last few decades is 'The World Now and Always'.
An 'Objective Truth'.
In fact, I better you are 'surprised' by what I'm telling you and your first reaction is 'Disbelief'.
I must be crazy.
In fact I must not only be wrong but deliberately 'offending you' with some lies.
You think and react this way BECAUSE you are one of these types who is absolutely so convinced their beliefs and knowledge must be superior that to even question it 'offends you'.
Thats you.
You just did that.

He isn't a politician.

No, its not.
I don't believe you are trying to deliberately offend anyone.
The practising Christian (worldwide) community is declining, FACT. Static at best, but growing in massive leaps and bounds, it is not, FACT.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :sleep:

Methinks you have been having some of what Dave has been having... ;)

Funny how you think that your opinions are the truth & shared by the majority of the population, when infact it is the complete opposite & it is YOUR opinions that are very much in the minority... thankfully... :xyxwave: