How the Democratic Party opposes Christian Principles

[clirus]

Ringo84 quote

It's like an online civil war.

Response

I refer to the war as the Cultural War.

There is a cultural war in America between Christians and Atheists. This war is being fought on the battlefield of politics. The battles are in the voting booth. The prize in the cultural war is the hearts, minds and souls of the children. The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.

A lot of world events can be better understood when considered as part of the Cultural War.

 

[Flynmonkie]

Ringo84 quote

It's like an online civil war.

Response

I refer to the war as the Cultural War.

The Atheistic liberal news media greatly influences both domestic and foreign policy by constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats. The agenda of the Atheistic liberal news media is to promote extreme environmentalism, socialism, feminism, pornography, abortion, homosexuality and the Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.

A lot of world events can be better understood when considered as part of the Cultural War.

I will agree with you on the point of the educational systems take on Christianity. There is no balance there. But I also know most of the Administration is Republican, most of the staff is democrat. However, sin is laden in both side of that equation. (I am a left leaning populist, not a full blown democrat. They don't have an Icon for that!)

They are beaten down repeatedly in our area. From levy’s being blocked for assistance to teach our children, to even a more balanced approach to Christianity. Democrats have nothing to do with the lopsidedness of that, I have book, author, and proofs there. Republicans in our state are leaving our elderly, disabled and children to the dogs. No churches have stepped up to the plate? They actually advocate teachers taking Guns to school, selling off MOHELA loans to private entities. Forcing people to surrender their right to privacy to private corporations to prove they are needy enough to gain insurance.. I can go on and on. It is documented and easily supported. See Matt Blunt, Governor of Missouri. Do a bit of research on what this Republican is doing.

Then tell me it is not sinful. He learned it from his daddy.

No one is advocating rightness, people advocate choice. When you limit choice in a democracy, you limit your own freedoms (this includes the premise, “of religion”)
If I don’t want it done to me, I certainly am not going to vote to do it to others.

Is it a perfect system? Of course not, it is man made, God directed, that is what makes it perfect. I work with what God himself gave me as a Christian to work with based on discernment of scripture. Knowing full well, even if I screw up in my choice, God is greater than that. You feel more conservative in areas, I feel more liberal. This is called Christian Liberty. I respectfully disagree, but I do not attack unless you twist Gods word into some quagmire of emotional blackmail. That is not sharing Good news, it is peddling only bad. Not to mention it just furthers the educational systems one sided teaching on Christianity. It completely discredits our witness. If we are asked is when we should explain. Correction is for clear infractions of Christian brotherhood. I repeat Clear infractions. There is such a thing.

 

[Ringo84]

mpok1519 quote

Christians should be light and oppose evil things (such as cars, wine, cigars, soft-drinks and twinkies- you may call these things evil, but I'd think you're a grade-A psychopath if you honestly think these things are evil) but WHERES the middle ground?! Is there no such thing as moderatism nowadays? Or is it always radicalism?


Ringo84 quote

The flaw in your argument is that you assume that the government should be able to favor one religion over another. It isn't. The thing about freedom is that it must apply equally to everyone or it is meaningless. The government protects religious liberty by stepping aside and not taking sides on religious matters (religiously neutral) so that private citizens are given the freedom of conscience.

The government as an entity does not have the freedom of religion; it must remain religiously neutral. Private citizens - including those who work in government - do have freedom of religion because the government is religiously neutral.
Ringo

Response

The flaw in your argument is that you assume there is a neutral position or moderatism or compromise.

Things are either good or evil.

The question is what to do about good and evil.

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - reject it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world.

Evil should never be accepted, but it can be tolerated. I have never advocated force, or banning (however the government has decided to ban cigarettes). What I stated is the government should discourage evil (non religious) by pointing out the disease, death and destruction of evil, and the church should encourage good.

The Bible teaches Christians to love the sinner and not the sin.

The flaw in your argument is that you assume there is a neutral position or moderatism or compromise.

Things are either good or evil.

The question is what to do about good and evil.

I believe the Bible teaches all things should be dealt with by the following three levels of action;
1) If it is good - accept it and nourish it.
2) If it is evil - reject it but tolerate it.
3) If it threatens your existence - destroy it before it destroys you. This is self defense, which both the individual and society have a right and responsibility to do.

The first two are from the New Testament of the Bible and represent the Law of Love. The third is from the Old Testament of the Bible and represents the Law of Purity/Self Defense. The New Testament deals more with personal responsibility and the Old Testament deals more with the preservation of society. The Old Testament and the New Testament together present God's Law, a means of survival for a person, a nation and a world.

Evil should never be accepted, but it can be tolerated. I have never advocated force, or banning (however the government has decided to ban cigarettes). What I stated is the government should discourage evil (non religious) by pointing out the disease, death and destruction of evil, and the church should encourage good.

The Bible teaches Christians to love the sinner and not the si

It's not a flaw in my argument because it's not the way our government works. Our government is not run on religious principles; it steps aside and allows private citizens the chance to come to their own conclusions concerning religion. Just because you operate on a "good/evil/threat" system doesn't mean the government works in the same way.

Thank you.

David Barton has done an excellent job of presenting information on the relationship of the church and state.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/

I believe God did guide the framers of the Constriction, whether they were Christians, Deists, or Atheists. God can use any type of person to bring about His will. That does not mean Deists and Atheists will be in heaven, just that God can use anyone.

David Barton also has many books about the ill effects of America turning away from God and getting into socialism for the bast 60 years.

While I wouldn't go so far as to call Barton a liar, he is certainly not the great historian that people may think. He misquotes the founding fathers, he pulls quotes from thin air (see my post above), he comes to illogical conclusions, and he is completely wrong about the relationship between church and state. There are a lot of pseudoexperts out there who think that they have all the answers when it comes to church/state separation, but I have yet to see anyone that can prove conclusively that there is no separation of church and state - including Jay Sekulow and David Barton.

I refer to the war as the Cultural War.

If you had more adequately read my post, you would have seen that I was neither talking to you nor was I referring to the "culture war". I was referring to the growing divide between members here on CF/Foru.ms regarding the recent changes.

Atheistic liberal news media

Just because it may be liberal doesn't mean that it's "atheistic".

constantly reporting only bad news about Christians, conservatives and Republicans and only good news about atheists, liberals and democrats.

That is an oversimplification of the facts.

extreme environmentalism

Again: what, exactly, is "extreme environmentalism"? You continue to use these words without defining what you mean. As far as any of us know, you could be referring to any care for the environment at all.

socialism

A label that's been so overused in political discussion these days that the real meaning of "socialism" is likely lost on those who use it.

feminism

As long as it isn't man-hating feminism, I see no problem.

pornography

Exactly how does the Democratic party supposedly "promote" pornography? I have yet to understand that one. It's almost like you throw pornography into the mix just to shock and further anger those who believe this sort of malarkey.

Atheistic Lifestyle by having democrats in control of government.

The "Atheistic Lifestyle" is promoted by having Democrats in control? That does not follow at all.
Ringo

 

[Nathan Poe]

Right there you have the largest donor to the Democratic Party in history opposing the principles of the church which represents about half of Christendom.

Considering that the other half of Christendom opposes the principles of that church -- some of them going so far as to claim that church doesn't even represent "True" Christianity -- what's your point?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ringo84 quote

It's like an online civil war.

Response

I refer to the war as the Cultural War.

<spam snipped>

A lot of world events can be better understood when considered as part of the Cultural War.

A lot of world events can be better understood when considered as part of mind-control rays from planet Saturn.

But the easiest explanation isn't always the correct one.

 

[Flynmonkie]

A lot of world events can be better understood when considered as part of mind-control rays from planet Saturn.

But the easiest explanation isn't always the correct one.

You know that whole "mind control" and world event deal is not something to scoff at LOL! I am so not a conspiracy theorist, but there are those days I feel it goes beyond “groupthink” ! LOL!

 

[Nathan Poe]

David Barton has done an excellent job of presenting information on the relationship of the church and state.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/

I believe God did guide the framers of the Constriction, whether they were Christians, Deists, or Atheists. God can use any type of person to bring about His will. That does not mean Deists and Atheists will be in heaven, just that God can use anyone.

David Barton also has many books about the ill effects of America turning away from God and getting into socialism for the bast 60 years.

David Barton's quotes from Founding Fathers have been repeatedly shown to be fabricated.

These quotes, however, are the genuine article:

I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country.

Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of all government to protect all conscientious professors thereof, and I know of no other business which government hath to do therewith.

And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

The United States government must not undertake to run the Churches. When an individual, in the Church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the public interest he must be checked.

The United States, knowing no distinction of her own citizens on account of religion or nationality, naturally believes in a civilization the world over which will secure the same universal laws.

The divorce between church and state should be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state, or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community.

To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.

Whatever one's religion in his private life may be, for the officeholder, nothing takes precedence over his oath to uphold the Constitution and all its parts -- including the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state.

We have the most religious freedom of any country in the world, including the freedom not to believe.

And even Dubya can get it right once in a while...

I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Consider the following:

I am an Atheist. I have not, nor will I, accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and/or savior.

I subscribe to what you would call "pornography" (Playboy Magazine -- I save 50% off the newsstand price!)

I have injested mind-altering chemical substances in the past (cannibas and LSD), and still occasionally imbibe alcohol (love a good Scotch and soda once in a while).

I have, and continue to, engage in premarital sexual activites, the deatils of which I leave to the imagination.

I have neither the desire nor the inclination to repent of these activities, nor do I wish to discontine the ones I still practice.

In short, clirus, I am both an advocate and a participant of what you would call the "Atheistic Lifestyle," and thus far, I have shown no signs of death, disease, or destruction.

Now, let us assume for a moment that the "Cultural War" takes a major shift in favor of the "Christian Lifestyle" as you define it, and American Civil Law is rewritten according to your whim.

I have one question, clirus:

What will become of me?

 

[KomissarSteve]

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

I especially like this one.

 

[Flynmonkie]

I especially like this one.

Yeah, I liked that one too!

 

[clirus]

Nathan Poe quote

I am an Atheist. I have not, nor will I, accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and/or savior.

What will become of me?

Response

The bad news is, Revelation 20:15 states, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

The good news is, John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The ball is in your court.

 

[clirus]

To Flynmonkie

Throughout your discussion you show you are concerned about a lot of the social issues of society.

However, I don't seem to be able to convince you that the solution to all problems of society begin with advocating Christianity and rejecting Atheism.

Advocating Christianity and rejecting Atheism is an abstract concept, but voting for a Republican or a democrat is where the rubber meets the road.

Republicans have yet to prove to me that they really support Christian principles, but democrats have proven they do "not" support Christian Principles.

No one can guarantee that a Republican will do right no more than any one can guarantee a democrat will do wrong, but the probabilities favor the Republicans supporting Christian Principles and the democrats opposing Christian Principles.

The only way the democratic party will ever change from the position of advocating the Atheistic Lifestyle is for people to refuse to vote for democratic candidates.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Nathan Poe quote

I am an Atheist. I have not, nor will I, accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and/or savior.

What will become of me?

Response

The bad news is, Revelation 20:15 states, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

The good news is, John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The ball is in your court.

Not so fast.

Who says that you know the criteria regarding who is and who isn't found in the Book of Life, and how do you know that Revelation has anything to do with salvation/soteriology? Who's to say it's not an allegory of the Neronian Persecution?

 

[Sphere]

The bad news is, Revelation 20:15 states, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

The good news is, John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The ball is in your court.

In other words, the classic christian message of convert or burn.

Which affirms this perverted notion that your deeds don't get you into heaven, only belief in Christ. In other words, it's not about what you did in life, your conduct or anything, it's about what team you play for.

Which in turn means that people who dedicate their lives to murdering women, raping and killing children, and creating untold misery to other people--will still get to celebrate and dance in Heaven with Jesus Christ--provided they convert to Christianity moments before being executed in a prison(or dying from natural causes). Isn't it wonderful? Child killers get to go to the very SAME heaven that their victims go to! (Unless the victim was an atheist, jew, muslim, ect ect, then they're just in Hell--but the killer/serial child rapist celebrates in Heaven!).

 

[clirus]

Ringo84 quote

The "Atheistic Lifestyle" is promoted by having Democrats in control? That does not follow at all.

Response

One of the works of Satan is to take the good things of the Bible and pervert them to evil.

Extreme environmentalism, where one worships nature instead of God, is a perversion of God's instruction to have dominion over the earth.

Socialism, where one uses government for charity, is a perversion of God's instruction that individuals should show charity.

Feminism is a perversion of God's purpose for women.

Pornography is a perversion of God's intent for sex within a marriage.

Abortion is a perversion of God's freedom of choice.

Homosexuality is a perversion of God's intent for sexuality.

The democratic party supports the Atheistic Lifestyle by appointing judges who legalize pornography, abortion and homosexuality. The democratic party has always supported and was supported by the extreme environmentalists, the abortionists, and the socialists.

The democratic party always proposes socialistic solutions to social problems such as the Universal Health Care.

A perfect example of the democratic party supporting homosexuality was the Oregon domestic partnerships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Oregon

However, after the November 2006 mid-term elections Democrats won a majority of the formerly Republican-controlled house[4], and in early 2007, Democrats was re-introduced a bill in the House similar to the 2005 legislation. The bill adopted the term "domestic partnership" to describe these unions; the terms "marriage" or "civil union" were absent. This bill enjoyed a relatively easy passage through the legislature, when compared to its 2005 predecessor. Passed by the House on April 17, 2007 (by a vote of 34-26) and by the Senate on May 2, 2007 (by a vote of 21-9), Governor Kulongiski signed the Oregon Family Fairness Act on May 9, 2007. The law is not scheduled to take effect until January 1, 2008.

 

[KomissarSteve]

One of the works of Satan is to take the good things of the Bible and pervert them to evil.

Extreme environmentalism, where one worships nature instead of God, is a perversion of God's instruction to have dominion over the earth.

Socialism, where one uses government for charity, is a perversion of God's instruction that individuals should show charity.

Feminism is a perversion of God's purpose for women.

Pornography is a perversion of God's intent for sex within a marriage.

Abortion is a perversion of God's freedom of choice.

Homosexuality is a perversion of God's intent for sexuality.

Even if these were evils, they would pale in comparison to the evil of driving people away from Christ by delivering a hateful message ostensibly in Christ's name.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan Poe quote

I am an Atheist. I have not, nor will I, accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and/or savior.

What will become of me?

Response

The bad news is, Revelation 20:15 states, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

The good news is, John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

The ball is in your court.

Being an Atheist, you know perfectly well that those verses mean nothing to me.

The question remains: What will the America you envision, enforcing the "Christian Lifestlye" you praise, do to me?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Extreme environmentalism, where one worships nature instead of God, is a perversion of God's instruction to have dominion over the earth.

Socialism, where one uses government for charity, is a perversion of God's instruction that individuals should show charity.

Feminism is a perversion of God's purpose for women.

Pornography is a perversion of God's intent for sex within a marriage.

Abortion is a perversion of God's freedom of choice.

Homosexuality is a perversion of God's intent for sexuality.

And Democracy is a perversion of God's intent to control us. Good thing, too.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In other words, the classic christian message of convert or burn.

Of course, if this message was so effective in the first place, clirus wouldn't need Civil Law to back him up.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Of course, if this message was so effective in the first place, clirus wouldn't need Civil Law to back him up.

Agreed; evidently clirus and I have very different perceptions of God. My perception of God, for example, is that He's strong enough that we can spread His Word by leading through example, not through legislating morality.