Hey alleged Christians ....

#151
#151
lawgator1 said:
Try to forget the government angle and focus on this:

1. Perry and Bachmann say that they are Christian conservatives and that is why Republicans should vote for them.

2. Both advocate social constructs that promote accumulation and maintenance of wealth.
Click to expand...

I would forget it if it wasn't the basis of your argument and the reason this thread was created. It was ignorant to begin with and has gotten worse the more you post.

the people you are talking about are against the gov't being the decision maker with their money. That has nothing to do with being Christian, wanting the poor to die, hating blacks or anything else you want to make up. It has to do with getting the govt out of places it doesn't belong and wasn't intended to go.

being a Christian and wanting less gov't are not competing ideas like you are trying to make them out to be. Sorry, Colbert is wrong and so are you
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#153
#153
possumslayer said:
Hypocrite politicians = hypocrite Christians,regardless of party affiliation . They all lie.
Click to expand...

I agree, but this one issue, in my mind more than any other, is the greatest source of skepticism towards hard right Christian conservatives by moderate or liberal church-goers. It's the perception that they claim to be really motivated or instructed by the Bible juxtaposed to the reality that their policies favor the super rich. And especially now, when the need is greatest, the advocacy of such policy seems inconsistent with the mist basic Biblical principles.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#155
#155
Every post you make proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you do not know what the Bible says on this subject.
 
#156
#156
T-TownVol said:
Every post you make proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you do not know what the Bible says on this subject.
Click to expand...


I'm wrong that the Bible says to focus your life on helping the needy and the poor rather than accumulation of wealth, and that in fact accumulation of wealth is a sign that you have gone astray, and that at some point you should give away such wealth to the poor and re-dedicate yourself to the less fortunate?
 
#158
#158
T-TownVol said:
Every post you make proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you do not know what the Bible says on this subject.
Click to expand...

Do you keep this copied to your clipboard for when you get into debate with non-Christians?

It wouldn't surprise me... beyond the shadow of a doubt.
 
#159
#159
lawgator1 said:
I'm wrong that the Bible says to focus your life on helping the needy and the poor rather than accumulation of wealth, and that in fact accumulation of wealth is a sign that you have gone astray, and that at some point you should give away such wealth to the poor and re-dedicate yourself to the less fortunate?
Click to expand...

Yes
 
#163
#163
possumslayer said:
I agree with utvolpj,liberals want a one gov't world,a socialist world
More gov't power.
Click to expand...

conservatives want something similar just with different terms. They all suck and have no one's interest at heart besides their own

lawgator1 said:
I'm wrong that the Bible says to focus your life on helping the needy and the poor rather than accumulation of wealth, and that in fact accumulation of wealth is a sign that you have gone astray, and that at some point you should give away such wealth to the poor and re-dedicate yourself to the less fortunate?
Click to expand...

where does it say the gov't should hand it out to the poor for you? Maybe that's just in the liberal bible version?
 
Last edited:
#164
#164
DinkinFlicka said:
Do you keep this copied to your clipboard for when you get into debate with non-Christians?

It wouldn't surprise me... beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Click to expand...

As my previous post states, this is not a debate. It is a miss guided quote from some one that does not know the Bible posted, and "backed" by another person that does not know the Bible.
 
#166
#166
T-TownVol said:
As my previous post states, this is not a debate. It is a miss guided quote from some one that does not know the Bible posted, and "backed" by another person that does not know the Bible.
Click to expand...

It's an intersection of opposing views littered with attempts to back said views. Naw, debate's quicker to type.

You really think you "know" the Bible? Does anyone?
 
#167
#167
lawgator1 said:
Try to forget the government angle and focus on this:

1. Perry and Bachmann say that they are Christian conservatives and that is why Republicans should vote for them.

2. Both advocate social constructs that promote accumulation and maintenance of wealth.
Click to expand...

lawgator1 said:
He makes a valid point. How can the likes of Bachmann or Perry tout Christian values while advocating massive cuts to the poor and the rich getting richer ?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Why?

You did not make the separation between "giving" to the needy, and giving to the government for them to decide who the needy is.

Thats what this whole rant is about. Its not about giving to needy, but rather by what channel. The left/U want(s) it filtered through the efficient (lol) government and then distributed in a way that best suits them which is re-election.

Unless you want to recant the above post, my assertion still stands you understand little about the principles in which your gripping about.
 
#170
#170
BeecherVol said:
Why?

You did not make the separation between "giving" to the needy, and giving to the government for them to decide who the needy is.

Thats what this whole rant is about. Its not about giving to needy, but rather by what channel. The left/U want(s) it filtered through the efficient (lol) government and then distributed in a way that best suits them which is re-election.

Unless you want to recant the above post, my assertion still stands you understand little about the principles in which your gripping about.
Click to expand...


All doubt has been removed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#171
#171
T-TownVol said:
Some more than others.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Its language is so vague and too open to interpretation for anyone to actually know.

I know it kinda poos on your elitist "You don't accept the savior, you don't know the text" shtick, but at least it's an answer with an explanation behind it.
 
#172
#172
DinkinFlicka said:
Yes because voting in ideologies instead of strong, viable candidates hasn't gotten us into any kind of mess or anything.

Moonshine is to be sipped, not chugged.
Click to expand...

Not sure I quit understand this so forgive me if misunderstood.

But, don't they all have ideologies?
 
#173
#173
BeecherVol said:
Not sure I quit understand this so forgive me if misunderstood.

But, don't they all have ideologies?
Click to expand...

Well, look at the post I quoted. You don't think it's better to vote for someone based on what issues they seek to take care of first or how they intend to solve those problems rather than what banner they fly?
 
#174
#174
Show me where I have said that any man "knows" the entire Bible and God's meaning behind every word.

The Bible tells us that God's ways are not our ways and that a saved person is gifted with the Holy Spirit to help him gain an understanding of the scriptures.

What else you want to "know"?
 
#175
#175
DinkinFlicka said:
Well, look at the post I quoted. You don't think it's better to vote for someone based on what issues they seek to take care of first or how they intend to solve those problems rather than what banner they fly?
Click to expand...

I generally agree with this but the banner is important too. For example, I'd hold my nose and vote for an R I don't agree with if it prevented D control of 2 branches of govt. even if I was cool with the D candidate. Since the politicians align under and move with the banner, it has to be a consideration.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top