|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 11:24:58 AM
|
|
|
jadab
Posts: 99
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: inthysite
quote:
a) It failed to note that the bill (SB99) in question never made it out of the IL Senate, and;
Irrelevant; Obama still co-sponsored the bill meaning he agreed with what was in it.
quote:
b) It failed to note that parents had the option to exclude their children from taking part in any sex education school curriculum,
Again irrelevant; regardless of whether parents could op out, Obama still supports the idea of teaching kids in kindergarten sex ed that includes discussions on prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. The issue isn't about what the parent wants or doesn't want, the issue is about what Obama is in support of. Which is what McCain's ad was about.
Oh and FYI; parents are rarely informed of the content of these classes until after they have started teaching them, or until their children come home and start asking question about what they just learned in school.
quote:
c) It failed to note that the legislation posed abstinence policy (which is a failure anyhow) to older students.
And again, irrelevant. Again, the point is that a bill that Obama co-sponsored supports teaching sex education to children in kindergarten. No matter how you spin this you cannot get around the fact the bill requires that children in kindergarten be taught about sexually transmitted diseases.
It didn't pass but not because of Obama. Parents can opt out but that doesn't change the view that Obama has. Including the abstinence policy doesn't erase the policy of teaching children about sex.
I honestly don't understand what the problem is with teaching children about sex. Honestly. Sex is so pervasive in our media and in our culture. Children need to be educated about what it is, what it is not, what it means, what the consequences are, what the ideal situation is, etc. Why do people object to this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 1:36:58 PM
|
|
|
John_O
Posts: 8064
Joined: 9/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jadab
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Oh. I can respect that we have a fundamental difference of opinion. Those programs sound like they are worth paying for to me. I don't have an issue contributing to programs like that because to whom much is given, much is expected.
No one is stopping you from donating to whatever programs you want.
Lol. I don't need you to tell me that I'm free to donate. I work hard in my community and I donate more time than money. Our fundamental difference of opinion is that I don't have a problem with my taxes - which I'll have to pay anyway - being used for programs that improve education or provide resources for those who are less fortunate than me.
Cool. Donate those funds to those programs and stop stealing my money fromme to pay for things I don't agree with. I donate plenty to causes I support. I don't need feel good liberals picking my pockets to teach kindergartners how to have sex. (and you know that's what it will develop into)
quote:
What programs should our taxes go toward, in your opinion?
The constitution says Foreign relations, regulation of interstate trade, defense and the costs of the government (courts, congress, office of the presidency etc). Most other fedgov programs need to be axed. We can cut about 90% of the fedgov and it would only improve all our lives.
_____________________________
Psalms 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 1:40:41 PM
|
|
|
John_O
Posts: 8064
Joined: 9/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jadab
I honestly don't understand what the problem is with teaching children about sex. Honestly. Sex is so pervasive in our media and in our culture. Children need to be educated about what it is, what it is not, what it means, what the consequences are, what the ideal situation is, etc. Why do people object to this?
Sex is for grownups. Kindergartners do not have the emotional maturity to handle it. Exposingthem to sex early will result in messing them up big time. (Check out most pornography addicts and most other sexual deviants.) Early exposure equates to molestation in most cases.
Why don't we just let our kids be innocent kids until they are ready for more mature topics?
God designed them to be pretty much asexual until puberty yet the deviants want to indoctrinate them into sexual behavior as soon as they can. Why? More playthings? (As NAMBLA says "Sex before 8 or it's too late")
_____________________________
Psalms 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 2:01:38 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 380
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: okrox
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
ORIGINAL: okrox
quote:
and it takes courage and maturity to stand for what you believe in.
Oh...you mean like the courage and maturity it takes for someone to disagree with nearly everyone on this board? Like the maturity and courage it takes for someone to say, "Hey! Can we please extend some courtesy and respect to even those with whom we disagree?" Like the courage and maturity it takes to question the "official Christian party line"? Like the courage and maturity it takes to say to yourself..."I'm going to make up my own mind and not just vote for whoever they tell me Christians HAVE to vote for?
You know, the funny thing is, if you and I knew each other IRL, we'd never have this discussion, and I bet we'd get along just dandy. But your post was such a beautiful example of what I was trying to ask people to re-examine: that whole "If you don't see it like I do, you're just plain nuts" school of thought that makes Christians so very, very repulsive to the rest of the world in general.
We can cherish our own convictions, and even converse and reason and disagree about them, without being shrill and self-righteous and narrow-minded. At least, that's what I hope.
You are doing the same thing by calling those who have decided on their candidate and their positions "shrill and self-righteous" and "Mine is right, and the other is pure evil. The End." Those who have clarity on moral issues and choose to take a stand are always accused of narrow-mindedness and are resented by those who don't, and by Christians who value "getting along" or fear the world's opinion. It is a typically liberal response to accuse those who disagree with liberal positions of attacking them personally, because one of the core beliefs of liberalism is "the political is personal and the personal is political".
quote:
Don't make excuses if you opt to sit it out.
quote:
I never said I was sitting it out. I was just pointing out that the candidates may as well sit it out, because apparently everyone else has already decided and nothing, NOTHING will get anyone to change their minds.
I mis-read this point and stand corrected.
_____________________________
Any of this gettin' through to you, son?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 2:20:50 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 727
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
It is a typically liberal response to accuse those who disagree with liberal positions of attacking them personally, because one of the core beliefs of liberalism is "the political is personal and the personal is political".
Man, I was just wondering why I whine about how much of a victim I am all the time. Turns out it's part of my ideology!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 2:34:18 PM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1666
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I honestly don't understand what the problem is with teaching children about sex. Honestly. Sex is so pervasive in our media and in our culture. Children need to be educated about what it is, what it is not, what it means, what the consequences are, what the ideal situation is, etc. Why do people object to this?
You know what, after five years of working with sex offenders, I agree with you. Yet, it's the job of parents to teach their kids about sex, to determine when their kids are mature enough to discuss the matter. It's not any business of the government to teach kids about sex. Because who is the government? The government is made up of all kinds of people from a variety of backgrounds. How would you know if your kindergartners teacher was a member of NAMBLA or not? We want to trust those we place in charge of our kids. But, unless we know our kids and know them well, we never know who is influening our kids in what way.
I think this is what most people object to. We don't want our kids being taught things that conflict with our values. And, because the government has made it illegal to say homosexuality is wrong, it's teachers are forced to teach the virtues of all sexual choices.
_____________________________
“A dead thing goes with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.”
G.K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 6:28:39 PM
|
|
|
okrox
Posts: 157
Joined: 4/28/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
You are doing the same thing by calling those who have decided on their candidate and their positions "shrill and self-righteous"
No, I am not calling people who have decided on their candidates "shrill and self-righteaous". I am calling people who are shrill and self-righteous about it, well, them, yeah...that's what I'm calling them. It's possible to be firm in your own convictions without that.
quote:
Those who have clarity on moral issues and choose to take a stand are always accused of narrow-mindedness and are resented by those who don't, and by Christians who value "getting along" or fear the world's opinion.
Yes, I do value "getting along". I think we are called to live peacably and respectfully with all our neighbors, believers and unbelievers alike. I seriously doubt anyone was ever won to the Lord by rigid judgmentalism.
I guess I am having a hard time explaining myself here. I'll try one more time.
I'm not asking anyone to change their minds. I'm just asking people--Christian people, people I consider my own family--to please stop making a Holy War out of this election, and to just consider that possibly, a person could be a born-again Christian and yet still not want to vote for McCain. That's all.
_____________________________
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 6:49:17 PM
|
|
|
okrox
Posts: 157
Joined: 4/28/2005
Status: offline
|
Oh, John O....Please keep in mind that I have always enjoyed reading your posts on the Singles forum. (And I probably should get myself right back to those safer grounds. Sheesh!) I have often respected your input.
But. I just can't let this pass:
quote:
I cannot respect any democrat because they support ideas that encourage people to go to hell.
What-what-what? What are you actually saying here? That Democrats are going to Hell? That they are encouraging people to go to Hell? Do you mean that if you get an abortion or teach sex ed, you are going to Hell?
John, I don't think you believe that, do you? Don't you, like most of us here, believe that you only go to Hell by refusing to accept Jesus' sacrifice and forgiveness for your sins? That's the only sin that sends you to Hell, isn't it?
Yet can't you see how spectatcularly un-helpful your statement and the mindset behind it is?
If I went with your statement, though, I could say, "I cannot respect any Republican because they support ideas that encourage people to go to Hell."
Because, even though I AM a registered Republican and have never voted for a Democrat in ANY state or local election yet, I am so frustrated with the lying, hypocrisy, greed, arrogance and lack of compassion that is so entrenched in the Republican party. True, it is no worse than the Democratic party. But. The Maybe Deal-Killer in it for me is the way all that is swept under the rug, those sins are NO BIG DEAL, because we are..obviously... GOD'S CHOSEN PARTY. That, to me, is every bit as odious a sin as anything you accuse Democrats of. Possibly worse, because we are claiming it under Christ's banner.
quote:
If you read the democrat party platform (pick one from any of the last few elections) you see that they stand against almost everything Jesus stands for and that they stand for almost everything Jesus stands against.
I have a hard time believing Jesus would be against HeadStart, healthcare, college educations for the indigent, more funding for public schools, banning armor-piercing ammunition, outlawing torture, caring for the Earth....
< Message edited by okrox -- 9/24/2008 7:05:58 PM >
_____________________________
Redeeming love has been my theme, and shall be 'til I die.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 7:02:00 PM
|
|
|
ayani
Posts: 194
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist
You are doing the same thing by calling those who have decided on their candidate and their positions "shrill and self-righteous" and "Mine is right, and the other is pure evil. The End." Those who have clarity on moral issues and choose to take a stand are always accused of narrow-mindedness and are resented by those who don't, and by Christians who value "getting along" or fear the world's opinion. It is a typically liberal response to accuse those who disagree with liberal positions of attacking them personally, because one of the core beliefs of liberalism is "the political is personal and the personal is political".
I'd just remind you that: what may be a clear moral issue to one person is a grey area to another person.
To often we define the conflict with our opponents as one between people with a value system (us) and people with no values (the other guy).
The tension between being prophetic and standing up for absolute values on the one hand, and being pragmatic on the other hand, can make decision less 'black-and-white' than they would seem.
The difference between having 'moral clarity' and being a 'naive do-gooder' depends on whether you agree with the moral stance.
This is why, as Okrox is saying, we need to have some humility and be respectful of others who don't agree with us. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them just to get along, but yelling and being hateful makes things worse.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 7:20:48 PM
|
|
|
Stimpy
Posts: 78
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: okrox
So that would be a "no", then, I take it.
At the expense of truth, never.
quote:
We can't even agree that both candidates are well-intentioned?
I'm not convinced he is "well-intentioned". He's a "socialist" who doesn't practice what he preaches. (Why's his half-brother living on less than $1/mo. when kids in the World Vision program even get more than that?)
quote:
The official position here is, "Mine is right, and the other is pure evil. The End."
I don't know if he's "pure evil" but I don't trust the guy, and with the media coddling him, the only ones exposing him for the fraud that he is, is talk radio.
quote:
What I find even stranger is that there is a great deal of hooplah from all the political commentators about how each side needs desperately to capture the undecided vote.
I don't think I was ever truly "undecided" except maybe early in the primaries for which Republican to vote for (I voted for Romney btw). I'm not sure what it would take for a Dem to win my vote anymore besides being "pro-life". The only Dems I'm aware that I might even consider voting for are Lieberman and Zell Miller. I was already leery of him simply by the fact that he (and I thought the same of Edwards in '04) is arrogant enough to feel he's qualified to be President when he's a FIRST TERM senator!
Most of the "undecideds" are made up of the "wishy-washy" (the ones who make the polls sway so wildly) and/or the "ill-informed". Many of whom might as well flip a coin in the voting booth.
quote:
I find this strange because apparently they are talking about me, and me only. I have yet to find another person IRL or online, who hasn't married a candidate yet. I am apparently the only person in the US who has yet to decide.
What do you EXPECT them to say to you? If you think politics requires you to only pay attention once every 4 years for a couple months, all you're going to get is the side of the candidates they want you to believe. The one which makes them out to be a reasonable "moderate" who's pandering to both sides.
quote:
And since my state is about 68% McCain right now, it won't matter how I vote. Why don't they all just save their money and take a nice long cruise until November. Everyone has already decided and the vote is merely a formality now.
I'm in California, so it probably won't matter here either (the OTHER way), but I still vote to remind them I'm here. Besides, there's ballot measures to vote for like one on "gay marriage". But unless the AOL "Straw Poll" is correct (which all the states were red, even California), I don't expect to see any change in color this year either. If he loses California though, he doesn't stand a chance against McCain.
The "talk radio" crowd doesn't need an additional month or so to learn about the candidates because we've been learning about them for MONTHS now. McCain's hardly my first choice, but it's who we got and he's certainly better than the alternative. Besides, at least I like his pick for VP.
< Message edited by Stimpy -- 9/24/2008 8:50:04 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 7:25:37 PM
|
|
|
ayani
Posts: 194
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: John_O
If you read the democrat party platform (pick one from any of the last few elections) you see that they stand against almost everything Jesus stands for and that they stand for almost everything Jesus stands against.
I'd much rather be narrow minded and on Jesus' side than be broad minded and against him.
(Note" I'm not saying that Republicans are perfect, they are human after all, but at least the party platform is not anti-Christian. And in almost any election they are the only responsible choice a Christian can make)
I think this says a lot more about your values than Jesus' values.
If we look at the Democratic platform, we'll see it call for things like feeding and clothing poor people, life saving health care for poor people who can't afford it, banning companies from putting toxic chemicals in cities drinking water, keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, improving education of kids and protecting them against violence, against mistreating alien children, against torturing etc...
Which of these postions are, in your reading of the gospels, are 'against what Jesus stands for'?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 7:34:32 PM
|
|
|
Stimpy
Posts: 78
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: todd_t
That's completely bogus.
The entire point of the bill emphasizes the "age-appropriate" nature of the ed, and nothing in it suggests that K-kids be targeted for discussions about STDs.
Age appropriate for kindergarten includes the following: "Boys and girls have parts that feel good when touched".
I don't know about you but I'd be concerned about a child molestor using that exact sort of wordage to convince a young impressionable kid that "they'll enjoy it".
quote:
By shelving that discussion until the kindergarten kid at issue gets into HS.
Isn't it obvious?
How about adopting the method that many parents adopt (and leave it to the parents in the FIRST PLACE) and that's, "When your kids are ready to learn about it, they'll start asking questions." Then you only answer til their curiousity is satisified.
< Message edited by Stimpy -- 9/24/2008 9:19:56 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 8:03:48 PM
|
|
|
Stimpy
Posts: 78
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: okrox
It's not the disagreements I find strange. It's the way some people use their faith to justify skewering anyone who disagrees with them.
Sorry, but I really don't feel God is "ok" with abortion and gay marriage. How a Christian could think so is beyond me.
quote:
Oh...you mean like the courage and maturity it takes for someone to disagree with nearly everyone on this board? Like the maturity and courage it takes for someone to say, "Hey! Can we please extend some courtesy and respect to even those with whom we disagree?" Like the courage and maturity it takes to question the "official Christian party line"? Like the courage and maturity it takes to say to yourself..."I'm going to make up my own mind and not just vote for whoever they tell me Christians HAVE to vote for?"
No, like the courage and maturity it takes to stand up for Christian beliefs when (to borrow your words), "makes Christians repulsed by the rest of the world".
quote:
You know, the funny thing is, if you and I knew each other IRL, we'd never have this discussion, and I bet we'd get along just dandy.
I can agree with that. I've even had discussions with people I knew to be very liberal in which they told me how pleasant it was to talk to me, how reasonable and polite I was, and how well I could defend my beliefs, EVEN THOUGH THEY DISAGREED WITH ME. One advantage I have in live discussions as opposed to here is you can't hear my tone of voice, and I can't get an immediate answer from you so I need to speak more at one time rather than a more even exchange which can nip any misunderstanding on the spot rather than an entire reply or two later.
quote:
But your post was such a beautiful example of what I was trying to ask people to re-examine: that whole "If you don't see it like I do, you're just plain nuts" school of thought that makes Christians so very, very repulsive to the rest of the world in general.
You mean like the side that seems to take such delight at the misfortune of Republicans, largely due to the moral contingient they represent while ignoring their own misbehavior and hypocrisy? After all, you can't be labeled a "hypocrit" if you don't have any moral standard to be held accountable to in the first place. Which is why they seem to take such delight in "Christians'" failures.
"You will be hated for My name's sake...". The more "intollerant" they are of my beliefs, the more I know I'm on the right side.
< Message edited by Stimpy -- 9/24/2008 9:21:22 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 8:19:43 PM
|
|
|
Stimpy
Posts: 78
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jadab
What programs should our taxes go toward, in your opinion?
Besides taking less of them to begin with, programs that "promote the general welfare" of the country and encourage people to take a "hand UP and not a hand OUT". Ones that move people off the system all together rather than passing that behavior down from generation to generation. The fewer "programs" the better. Programs that enable us to either eliminate more programs than they create, or at least scale down the existing ones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 8:46:33 PM
|
|
|
Stimpy
Posts: 78
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: okrox
Because, even though I AM a registered Republican and have never voted for a Democrat in ANY state or local election yet, I am so frustrated with the lying, hypocrisy, greed, arrogance and lack of compassion that is so entrenched in the Republican party. True, it is no worse than the Democratic party. But. The Maybe Deal-Killer in it for me is the way all that is swept under the rug, those sins are NO BIG DEAL, because we are..obviously... GOD'S CHOSEN PARTY. That, to me, is every bit as odious a sin as anything you accuse Democrats of. Possibly worse, because we are claiming it under Christ's banner.
You are SO WRONG about that! Look what happens to many of the Republicans that do so. Some are guilted into resigning, others into serving out their term agreeing not to run again, and then others are voted out by the very supposed "hypocrits". You are so wrong there!
It's the DEMOCRATS who keep re-electing guys like Ted Kennedy over and over again, or former Klan leader, Robert Byrd. It's the Dems who when they found out one of their own was so damaged by scandal that he was destined to lose in New Jersey, sought to overrule election laws to replace him on the ballot fewer that 60 days from an election.
Republicans hold their own accountable if their own fail to do so themselves. If only Democrats had the same integrity.
quote:
I have a hard time believing Jesus would be against HeadStart, healthcare,
If Jesus were here, we wouldn't NEED healthcare. :P
quote:
college educations for the indigent, more funding for public schools,
How much MORE funding do you need for a broken system? What you need is "vouchers" and make them PERFORM for your tax dollars, and make the curiculum more accountable to YOU!
quote:
banning armor-piercing ammunition,
There is a time for everything under Heaven, including war. While not pleasant, freedom is NOT "free".
quote:
outlawing torture,
I assume this refers to such things as "Gitmo" where many of the inmates there are treated better than they were in their own country.
quote:
caring for the Earth....
Yeah by outlawing plastic bags and dictating which light bulbs you can use (which are actually MORE TOXIC btw).
What was Jesus' opinion? "Who's face is on the coin?" ["Caesar's"] "Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and render to God that which is God's".
He didn't seem too concerned with how the GOVERNMENT spent your money but rather how YOU spend YOUR time/gifts/money.
< Message edited by Stimpy -- 9/24/2008 9:26:11 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 9:18:27 PM
|
|
|
Stimpy
Posts: 78
Joined: 4/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ayani
If we look at the Democratic platform, we'll see it call for things like feeding and clothing poor people,
Republicans of ALL income levels consistently give MORE than their Democrat counterparts. Democrats support a system of "giving a man a fish" rather than "teaching the man TO fish". All they do is create a system of people who just keep their hand OUT asking for more money.
quote:
life saving health care for poor people who can't afford it,
We don't refuse treatment to those who need it. However, there's something wrong with a system in which people who use it often find the money to pay for a cell phone which a luxury and foregoing their own health coverage because "the government will provide it".
quote:
banning companies from putting toxic chemicals in cities drinking water,
Yeah I hate that line in the Republican platform that says, "Let's put all the pollutants into the water we can find. [sarcasm intended]
quote:
keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals,
By banning LAW OBIDING citizens from being able to get them and only driving the criminals to the black market to get theirs. The very fact they are "criminals" should demonstrate they can't be trusted to obey gun laws!
quote:
improving education of kids
Hardly! They think it's "unfair" to require students to reach a certain proficiency in various subjects before being allowed to graduate/advance in grade. They throw more and more money with less results and STILL scream it's not enough! They ban all mention of God from school, but activities celebrating Islam, homosexuality, etc. are proudly embraced. I doubt Christ would be proud of their track record on this.
quote:
and protecting them against violence,
"They took God out of schools, now they can't keep the guns out".
quote:
against mistreating alien children,
Yeah, let's reward people whos' claim "they are not criminals" is negated by the fact that the very act they commited to get here in the first place WAS IN FACT CRIMINAL! Then in order to stay here, they often STEAL SOMEONE'S IDENTITY thus commiting ANOTHER crime. And what we do to them? We offer them free education, free health care, WIC/welfare, lower cost mortgages that WE have to bail them out on, etc. and to top it off, we toss in the ultimate threat: to reward them with the object of their crime... CITIZENSHIP! I know I'm speaking of the "sins" of the parents, but quit white-washing it by changing the subject to make it about "the kids". Whenever libs need more tax money, they always make it about "the children" or "we need more police and firemen".
quote:
against torturing etc...
Which is why you supported disposing of Saddam no doubt. 
quote:
Which of these postions are, in your reading of the gospels, are 'against what Jesus stands for'?
What part of the gospels tell you that providing for the needy was the role of the government? What part of the gospels alleviates you of the need to take matters into your OWN hands and quit extorting money from others however well your intentions are?
< Message edited by Stimpy -- 9/24/2008 9:39:27 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 10:43:19 PM
|
|
|
John_O
Posts: 8064
Joined: 9/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: okrox
Oh, John O....Please keep in mind that I have always enjoyed reading your posts on the Singles forum. (And I probably should get myself right back to those safer grounds. Sheesh!) I have often respected your input.
Thank you okrox!
This is why I normally avoid the current events and morality and ethics folders. I'm usually much too nice to discuss things this way but I'm much too honest to not speak the truth if I am discussing them.
quote:
But. I just can't let this pass:
quote:
I cannot respect any democrat because they support ideas that encourage people to go to hell.
What-what-what? What are you actually saying here? That Democrats are going to Hell? That they are encouraging people to go to Hell? Do you mean that if you get an abortion or teach sex ed, you are going to Hell?
John, I don't think you believe that, do you? Don't you, like most of us here, believe that you only go to Hell by refusing to accept Jesus' sacrifice and forgiveness for your sins? That's the only sin that sends you to Hell, isn't it?
The bible says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9). Yet the democrats encourage kids to enter homosexuality by FORCING teachers to say it is a normal lifestyle. How can someone claim to be a homosexual and claim to be a Christian? The two are incompatible. (Someone may struggle with homosexual desires but still be a Christian but when they identify as a homosexual they are rejecting Christ. How can you claim to be His follower if you blatantly and habitually do what he says not to do?)
The bible says that shalt not murder, yet the democrats encourage girls to murder their inconvenient babies.
The bible says that sex outside of marriage is fornication and fornicators will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9 again). yet the democrats push kids into sexual relationships as early as kindergarten (and the homosexual types are trying to push even before then).
Now certainly some of these people can be free of these things (1 Cor 6:11) but these things are hard to come out of and many get lead into hell by these behaviors. When the democrats have all these people thoroughly enslaved by sexual perversion how many do you think will hear the gospel? We already see most homosexuals choosing their sin rather than choosing to be free of it. "I was made this way" they say. Hogwash. They were damaged into being that way but since then their entire lives are built around their sin. Some get out, but most die in their sins.
Wouldn't it be better for the government to encourage Godly behavior instead of ungodly? Yet the democrats want ungodly behavior to rule. (read their platform)
quote:
If I went with your statement, though, I could say, "I cannot respect any Republican because they support ideas that encourage people to go to Hell."
Because, even though I AM a registered Republican and have never voted for a Democrat in ANY state or local election yet, I am so frustrated with the lying, hypocrisy, greed, arrogance and lack of compassion that is so entrenched in the Republican party.
The difference is that none of these things is entrenched in the party platform and all of these individual "sins" are counter to republican philosophy. When a republican messes up he is ostracized by the rest of the party. When a democrat commits immorality "I did not have sex with tha woman" He is lauded by the democrat party. All men sin, and I don't hold individual sins against the party. but when the party platform is anti-biblical, as the democrats' is, then I have to speak up.
quote:
I have a hard time believing Jesus would be against HeadStart, healthcare, college educations for the indigent, more funding for public schools,
While these are all good things there is no constitutional authority for any of these programs. Therefore any tax funds expended on them are taken by theft. Jesus says "Thou shalt not steal." These are the duty of the church and us as individuals.
Most democrat sponsored programs (OK most government programs) have done more harm to people than good.
quote:
banning armor-piercing ammunition, outlawing torture, caring for the Earth....
These may be OK. I'd have to check the ammo one. that may be a violation of the second ammendment since ammend 2 is intended to equip the militia (Of which we are all members) so military grade weapons should be allowed.
But these are also immaterial. If a child molester feeds the poor that doesn't excuse his molestation. (And yes, I consider force feeding kindergartners (through 6th grade or so) sex ed to be molestation.)
< Message edited by John_O -- 9/25/2008 8:59:41 AM >
_____________________________
Psalms 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/24/2008 10:47:46 PM
|
|
|
John_O
Posts: 8064
Joined: 9/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ayani
quote:
ORIGINAL: John_O
If you read the democrat party platform (pick one from any of the last few elections) you see that they stand against almost everything Jesus stands for and that they stand for almost everything Jesus stands against.
I'd much rather be narrow minded and on Jesus' side than be broad minded and against him.
(Note" I'm not saying that Republicans are perfect, they are human after all, but at least the party platform is not anti-Christian. And in almost any election they are the only responsible choice a Christian can make)
I think this says a lot more about your values than Jesus' values.
If we look at the Democratic platform, we'll see it call for things like feeding and clothing poor people, life saving health care for poor people who can't afford it, banning companies from putting toxic chemicals in cities drinking water, keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, improving education of kids and protecting them against violence, against mistreating alien children, against torturing etc...
Which of these postions are, in your reading of the gospels, are 'against what Jesus stands for'?
Pushing for the murder of babies. Pushing for the forced normalization of homosexuality.Pushing for the forced sexualization of our kids. Just because a murder feeds the dog on his way out doesn't excuse the murder. If the platform is not pro-life then it is anti-Christ. Everything else is smoke and mirrors
_____________________________
Psalms 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can we at least agree on this... - 9/25/2008 12:51:56 PM
|
|
|
backrowbaptist
Posts: 380
Joined: 6/7/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: okrox
I guess I am having a hard time explaining myself here. I'll try one more time.
I'm not asking anyone to change their minds. I'm just asking people--Christian people, people I consider my own family--to please stop making a Holy War out of this election, and to just consider that possibly, a person could be a born-again Christian and yet still not want to vote for McCain. That's all.
For what it's worth, rox, I don't WANT to vote for McCain. I've never particularly liked him as a politician. I HAVE to vote McCain, because the alternative is a radical socialist from a party that has shifted radically to the left. That's what the issue is. It's not about personalites, it's about ideology and values. Socialism by definition is God-less. The further left you go politically, the more the State becomes all-powerful, and values become more secular. The consequences of this have been catastrophic for humanity in the past, and there's every reason to believe the consequences for America will be, also. The election is not a Holy War, but the stakes are very high.
_____________________________
Any of this gettin' through to you, son?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
