Hey alleged Christians ....

[sjt18]

FWIW, our laws are not limited by what the NT teaches. If we as a people want to foolishly reward irresponsible behavior then we can. If we want to create a gov't contrary to the wisdom of scripture and history then we can.

The only issue I am addressing is whether it is "Christian" to support forced "charity" or redistribution of wealth. It is not.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I see you are interpreting the Bible here so as to reach a certain conclusion that you'd like to reach. Yet, your interpretation is contrary to the actual words.

You are such a hypocrite.

what an arrogant @$$
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Also, liberals often argue that Jesus lacked opportunity to establish certain things. That is NOT the case with taxing the rich to give to the poor.

While I disagree with just about everything LG is throwing at you, he is the only one I've seen make these claims who isn't on radio/television/newsprint.

You blanket liberals as much as LG blankets conservatives. It's so maddening and oh so small.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Hey alleged Christians ....

The more I read the thread title, the more I feel that there is a condescending, obnoxious tone to it. Almost as though the OP is looking to pick a fight with Christians, rather than actual open an honest dialogue to understand some apparent ambiguities he/she may be unclear about.

 

[KiffinKiller]

The more I read the thread title, the more I feel that there is a condescending, obnoxious tone to it. Almost as though the OP is looking to pick a fight with Christians, rather than actual open an honest dialogue to understand some apparent ambiguities he/she may be unclear about.

If I were to try and pick a fight with christians on the interwebz, this is as good a place as any. I'd say only the people who feel personally guilty of not being 'true christians' are offended. Personally, doesn't affect me in the least.

 

[Oldvol75]

LG, you say you have a law firm. Do you take a salary? If so then why? Why not put your money where your mouth seems to be going and give it to your deserving employees who obiviously make less than you. After all, YOU are the RICH lawyer. Does not charity start at home?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[OrangeEmpire]

LG, you say you have a law firm. Do you take a salary? If so then why? Why not put your money where your mouth seems to be going and give it to your deserving employees who obiviously make less than you. After all, YOU are the RICH lawyer. Does not charity start at home?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I wouldnt get worked up, his daddy is the judge
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

While I disagree with just about everything LG is throwing at you, he is the only one I've seen make these claims who isn't on radio/television/newsprint.

You blanket liberals as much as LG blankets conservatives. It's so maddening and oh so small.

Sorry. I meant the more narrow definition of theological liberals.

However there are some valid generalizations of "conservatives", "conservative-libertarians", "Progressives/liberals", etc. Those generalizations are generally affirmed by the positions voted for.

 

[sjt18]

The more I read the thread title, the more I feel that there is a condescending, obnoxious tone to it. Almost as though the OP is looking to pick a fight with Christians, rather than actual open an honest dialogue to understand some apparent ambiguities he/she may be unclear about.

I believe he was quoting Jon Stewart... who does try to pick fights with Christians but only in venues where he has complete editorial control over their response. IOW's, when he can say what he wants then set up strawman responses that he gets to knock down to make him look really, really smart to folks like LG.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Sorry. I meant the more narrow definition of theological liberals.

However there are some valid generalizations of "conservatives", "conservative-libertarians", "Progressives/liberals", etc. Those generalizations are generally affirmed by the positions voted for.

I still don't understand the forced link of religion and politics.

 

[theFallGuy]

I believe he was quoting Jon Stewart... who does try to pick fights with Christians but only in venues where he has complete editorial control over their response. IOW's, when he can say what he wants then set up strawman responses that he gets to knock down to make him look really, really smart to folks like LG.

Wait, are you saying the Daily Show is not a legitimate news source?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

It snot?!?!?!?!?!

 

[VolinArizona]

20 something posts in and I can't stand the generalizations being made about Christians (or any group as a whole). Come to my church - you'll have a hard time finding a mercedes or a bmw. Just because some Christians you know aren't following the gospel doesn't mean the entire body of us isn't. Same as generalizing an entire race...

 

[OrangeEmpire]

20 something posts in and I can't stand the generalizations being made about Christians (or any group as a whole). Come to my church - you'll have a hard time finding a mercedes or a bmw. Just because some Christians you know aren't following the gospel doesn't mean the entire body of us isn't. Same as generalizing an entire race...

muschump knows all!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[KiffinKiller]

did sjt somehow rationalize that generalizations are correct? I am in awe.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

did sjt somehow rationalize that generalizations are correct? I am in awe.

nancy!
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[RespectTradition]

I still don't understand the forced link of religion and politics.

Religion and politics will forever be linked. They both encompass practical applications of ethics and viewpoint. Your religion, if you take it seriously, cannot help but inform your political agenda. Example, my religious beliefs lead me to be a pacifist, ergo, I tend to vote for anti-war or at least minimal-war candidates. I believe that God wants us to be free, because without freedom it becomes much more difficult to be moral for the right reasons. The bible tells us that to want to sin is the same moral equivalent as acting. That is why I believe you can't legislate morality. That leads me to vote for candidates that don't try to force their view of morality down my throat. I believe that my religious beliefs should not be compromised by my government and that is why I am against state-sponsored prayer in schools. That leads me to vote against candidates that want it.

You may be pro-gay because you have no religious qualms about it. That may lead you to vote for a candidate that is pro-gay. That is an example of your religious view helping determine who you vote for. You may be an atheist and that may lead you to vote against a bible-thumping candidate that wants to take evolution out of biology class. It doesn't matter. The point is, our religious beliefs, or non-beliefs if you prefer, will always impact our outlook on life and thereby our political agenda.

The two are inseparable.

 

[RespectTradition]

did sjt somehow rationalize that generalizations are correct? I am in awe.

Would you say that most generalizations are incorrect?

Wouldn't that be a generalization?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Religion and politics will forever be linked. They both encompass practical applications of ethics and viewpoint. Your religion, if you take it seriously, cannot help but inform your political agenda. Example, my religious beliefs lead me to be a pacifist, ergo, I tend to vote for anti-war or at least minimal-war candidates. I believe that God wants us to be free, because without freedom it becomes much more difficult to be moral for the right reasons. The bible tells us that to want to sin is the same moral equivalent as acting. That is why I believe you can't legislate morality. That leads me to vote for candidates that don't try to force their view of morality down my throat. I believe that my religious beliefs should not be compromised by my government and that is why I am against state-sponsored prayer in schools. That leads me to vote against candidates that want it.

You may be pro-gay because you have no religious qualms about it. That may lead you to vote for a candidate that is pro-gay. That is an example of your religious view helping determine who you vote for. You may be an atheist and that may lead you to vote against a bible-thumping candidate that wants to take evolution out of biology class. It doesn't matter. The point is, our religious beliefs, or non-beliefs if you prefer, will always impact our outlook on life and thereby our political agenda.

The two are inseparable.

The majority of that first paragraph sounds as though you vote in an effort to separate religion and public policy, though.

For example, you say your religious (correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume Christian) beliefs lead you to vote for anti-war policies. That seems to heavily oppose most Christian voters that think we should have gone to Iraq. Most atheists I know who consider themselves politically involved, for the most part, found themselves anti-war. Most conservative Christians I know, however, shared John McCain's philosophy and believe we should chase America's Middle Eastern enemies to the gates of hell.

This sort of confusion is what... well... addles me.

FTR, I totally see where you're coming from and can't bring myself to disagree with it. It just seems that the rift between religion and political alignment seems to be the mutest shade of gray and totally different than what you're describing.

I'm a few beers in, so if there are any "out there" pieces of this post, let me know and I'll be glad to elaborate or re-word them. Thanks.

 

[sjt18]

I still don't understand the forced link of religion and politics.

I am not making one that I know of.

A religious worldview if it means anything will inform someone's overall worldview if not dominate it. We all derive our worldviews from either ourselves, other people, philosophy, experience, religious teachings,... something.

But the beginning of this argument was a quote of Jon Stewart who is a "liberal" of the antagonistic sort and fairly anti-Christian where he tries to assert that it is "unchristian" for Christians to oppose gov't run social programs and wealth transfers.

I am simply saying that the NT does not say that a Christian should support gov't run or "secular" relief for the poor. It is only minimally "interpretive" to say that the NT model mandates that Christians relieve the poor as individuals and as a function of the church to spread the gospel both by accompanying words and by testimony.

I challenged LG when he seemed to say that the NT does demand Christians support such things.

In fact, Jesus specifically did NOT make the relief of the poor for the sake of the poor the priority. When Judas protested that the very expensive spices/oils being used on Jesus would have been better sold to provide for the poor, Jesus rebuked him strongly.

In John 6, we find record of a multitude that had been fed the day before following Jesus in search of another free meal w/entertainment. He refused to feed them because they had come to fill their bellies rather than hear His preaching.

The "Christian" argument for supporting gov't social programs was born out of the late 19th century move away from biblical authority toward philosophical humanism/materialism/modernism. It was not derived from the study of the NT.

 

[sjt18]

did sjt somehow rationalize that generalizations are correct? I am in awe.

No. Only that they have some value. You can argue the "absolutes" of the two sides while realizing that few hold every position that might be attributed to one side or the other.

I also do not think it is adequate to consider just two or three sides, ie. liberal, moderate, conservative.

 

[KiffinKiller]

the parties are holding us hostage. I either have swallow shiit from the right or the left...it's shiit either way.

 

[sjt18]

the parties are holding us hostage. I either have swallow shiit from the right or the left...it's shiit either way.

No you don't.

I am done voting for the lesser of two evils.

There is not enough difference to me between Romney's philosophy concerning the role of gov't and Obama's for me to vote for Romney. Obama has us flying down the the highway to hades at breakneck speed... Romney would just slow down so those currently panicking would go back to sleep.

Will one of those two sides win? Probably. But if third parties pick up significant votes then the losing side will try to find a way to align with those votes. Protest votes ARE effective. If there were more of them then we wouldn't get candidates like Obama, Kerry, Bush, McCain.... and have to choose between the lesser of two evils who, lo and behold, do a bad job or worse.

 

[RespectTradition]

The majority of that first paragraph sounds as though you vote in an effort to separate religion and public policy, though.

For example, you say your religious (correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume Christian) beliefs lead you to vote for anti-war policies. That seems to heavily oppose most Christian voters that think we should have gone to Iraq. Most atheists I know who consider themselves politically involved, for the most part, found themselves anti-war. Most conservative Christians I know, however, shared John McCain's philosophy and believe we should chase America's Middle Eastern enemies to the gates of hell.

This sort of confusion is what... well... addles me.

FTR, I totally see where you're coming from and can't bring myself to disagree with it. It just seems that the rift between religion and political alignment seems to be the mutest shade of gray and totally different than what you're describing.

I'm a few beers in, so if there are any "out there" pieces of this post, let me know and I'll be glad to elaborate or re-word them. Thanks.

It's a little counterintuitive. I vote with the intent of limiting the commingling of government and religion, because of my religious beliefs. Weird, huh?

As to your second point, not to start a war here, but I believe that to be a christian you have to be christ-like. To be christ-like is to be non-violent and to turn the other cheek. So, I reject the idea that any true christian ever advocates war.

The confusion among 'christians' is a result of people putting their own wants, opinions and logic ahead of what God commands. There is no confusion for those who accept the word and live by it, even in the face of their own experience. For example, Paul said that the world considers preaching foolishness, but God commands it. When we think about things and arrive at conclusions other than what the book teaches, then we are being worldly and not spiritual. I understand that may sound like a lot of crap to someone who does not believe. If you want to get into the reasons for belief, I think we need to take it elsewhere, but I would be happy to oblige.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

It's a little counterintuitive. I vote with the intent of limiting the commingling of government and religion, because of my religious beliefs. Weird, huh?

As to your second point, not to start a war here, but I believe that to be a christian you have to be christ-like. To be christ-like is to be non-violent and to turn the other cheek. So, I reject the idea that any true christian ever advocates war.

The confusion among 'christians' is a result of people putting their own wants, opinions and logic ahead of what God commands. There is no confusion for those who accept the word and live by it, even in the face of their own experience. For example, Paul said that the world considers preaching foolishness, but God commands it. When we think about things and arrive at conclusions other than what the book teaches, then we are being worldly and not spiritual. I understand that may sound like a lot of crap to someone who does not believe. If you want to get into the reasons for belief, I think we need to take it elsewhere, but I would be happy to oblige.

ever advocates war? really?
Posted via VolNation Mobile