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.