How the Democratic Party opposes Christian Principles

[Suomipoika]

*raises hand and waves it manically* OOOH! OOOH! OOOH! I DO!!!!!!!!!

And he was not quite alone back then. So, as a contrast to the 'biased' title of this thread, you could instead argue that "you are just trying to make your contribution in bringing the Democratic party back to its basics", right? After all, it was only in the 1960's when the large-scale shift of the American Evangelicals to the Republican camp started.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The Godless often fail to comprehend even the simple admonistions and morality of God.
As for "lowest rates of transmission" is your morality based on disease transmission exclusively ? ? ?

Uhhh, it wasn't Izzy who tried to make the point that std rates were an outcome of biblical evil. Izzy was merely responding that there is a glaring hole in said argument.

Izzy provided information which clirus has not responded to (nor can), so you have jumped in to "move the goalposts"?

Is that how Religious Theocracy wins?

What is the reward for the God deniers and advocates of abomination and other iniquities ? ? ?

Apparently much the same as it is for those who don't deny God. Look at the previous arguments against social welfare programs. Those are directly in opposition to God's commands in the Old Testament.

So you see, we all are guilty of picking and choosing what we want to do that makes us feel good. Just when religious people do it, they try to pawn off any repsonsibility onto God by saying "But God doesn't want me to pay more in taxes to help the poor because God wants the poor to come to him instead of the government!" OR "But God wants me to dislike homosexuals!"

We all know, deep down, that people want to keep their money and people have that "ick" factor they have trouble with when thinking about other people's sexuality. We all just want to do what we want to do and dislike those whom we want to dislike and like those we want to like.

What do you want your country to stand for? Religious intolerance? Prejudice based on how someone was born? Rampant poverty and giant gaps between the "Haves and Have-nots"?

Humanism at least tries to keep people thinking about the other as they want to be thought of, without making it all conditional.

 

[ONEGod]

#542
thaumaturgy
Veteran
Uhhh, it wasn't Izzy who tried to make the point that std rates were an outcome of biblical evil. Izzy was merely responding that there is a glaring hole in said argument.

Izzy provided information which clirus has not responded to (nor can), so you have jumped in to "move the goalposts"?

Is that how Religious Theocracy wins?

ONEGod:
Don't blame me for trying to shift the discussion when i directly responded to what was said, you attempt to move the goal posts. Spare me the faulty judgmentalism. Biblical disease DO have consequences, but are not the sole consequences for iniquity. Need it EVEN need to be said ? Why do you even mention Religious Theocracy of Christians and not of Muslims ? The old lie doesn't have much traction anymore.

thaumaturgy:
Apparently much the same as it is for those who don't deny God. Look at the previous arguments against social welfare programs. Those are directly in opposition to God's commands in the Old Testament.

ONEGod:
God said to have compassion, not theive for you neighbor to give those unwilling to work.

2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

thaumaturgy:
So you see, we all are guilty of picking and choosing what we want to do that makes us feel good. Just when religious people do it, they try to pawn off any repsonsibility onto God by saying "But God doesn't want me to pay more in taxes to help the poor because God wants the poor to come to him instead of the government!" OR "But God wants me to dislike homosexuals!"

ONEGod:
Obviously it has not crossed your mind, religious people try to reach for a higher morality by accepting God's over their own nature.

thaumaturgy:
We all know, deep down, that people want to keep their money and people have that "ick" factor they have trouble with when thinking about other people's sexuality. We all just want to do what we want to do and dislike those whom we want to dislike and like those we want to like.

ONEGod:
Well you DO understand the 'ick' factor, Christians call it the iniquity 'factor'. You argue humanity views and not God's higher morality view/comprehension.

thaumaturgy:
What do you want your country to stand for? Religious intolerance? Prejudice based on how someone was born? Rampant poverty and giant gaps between the "Haves and Have-nots"?

ONEGod:
Communism/socialist have long espoused their 'better way', the results don't match their posturing. Capitalism still far and away provides far better for its citizens. Odd you haven't noticed !

thaumaturgy:
Humanism at least tries to keep people thinking about the other as they want to be thought of, without making it all conditional.

ONEGod:
Without a superior morality (Godliness) its all a house of cards regardless of the system espoused.

 

[Suomipoika]

Sad but true -- eliminate the infidels, the Atheists, the liberals, the homosexuals, the radicals, the renegades, the rebels, the rogues, and anyone else you think may be a threat to you, and in time, you'll be left with a population of one.

And before the day is out, he'll attack the mirror.

One of the reasons why I study church history of North America has been to discover - seeing that Christianity is a world-wide faith - why, of all the countries, the US has been the best breeding ground for this kind of militant, 'dominionist' branch of so-called Christian 'fundamentalism'. Because it's pretty hard to find elsewhere.

 

[Suomipoika]

Ah, but whose interpretation of Old Testament law? A literalist interpretation, as the Christian Right espouses?

I believe the Christian Right and the Reconstructionist/Dominionist movement aren't quite the same thing.

 

[thaumaturgy]

ONEGod:
Don't blame me for trying to shift the discussion when i directly responded to what was said, you attempt to move the goal posts. Spare me the faulty judgmentalism.

Here, let me remind you what you were responding to:

FIRST: Clirus makes this claim:

Homosexuality activity is inconsistent with the Bible and leads to disease and death.

Then Izzy responds:

Clirus, every single time I see you lie about this, I am going to ask you the same question until you either answer it or stop telling lies. If what you say is true, does that make lesbians God chosen? They have the lowest rates of STD transmission.

So, indeed, Izzy was correct to point out the flaw in Clirus' arguments. That flaw still stands until someone responds to it substantively.

You, then made the statement:

The Godless often fail to comprehend even the simple admonistions and morality of God.
As for "lowest rates of transmission" is your morality based on disease transmission exclusively ? ? ?

So indeed it seems you have attempted to trump the logic of Izzy's question by moving the goal posts.


So I will ask that we keep to the topic at hand and remember that Clirus made a claim, Izzy responded, and so far the Biblical camp has not defended clirus' claim.

Biblical disease DO have consequences, but are not the sole consequences for iniquity. Need it EVEN need to be said ? Why do you even mention Religious Theocracy of Christians and not of Muslims ? The old lie doesn't have much traction anymore.

Do you actually think I like muslim theocracy?

Please, you are tripping over yourself to commit all the logic errors you can in the minimum number of posts.

I despise muslim theocracy. I despise any theocracy. But the fact that some Christians seem to want a theocracy indicates that they aren't thinking it through. Because you run the very real risk that whoever is in power will get to ram their own particular religion down everyone's throat.

And if muslims took over they'd do to you what you would have done to them.

Didn't a very important person to Christianity say something about that? Hmmm, well, I'm just a vile socialist atheist, I'm sure I wouldn't know what
[bible]Matthew 7:12[/bible] means. I'm sure I'd twist it all around.

ONEGod:
God said to have compassion, not theive for you neighbor to give those unwilling to work.

No one said anything about those unwilling to work! Do you honestly think all the poor are simply unwilling to work??? That's kinda naive.

I am merely saying that YOUR bible tells you that God wants you to care for the poor. Directly and purposefully.

[bible]Exodus 23:11[/bible]
[bible]Leviticus 19:10[/bible]
[bible]Leviticus 23:22[/bible]

If you have a problem with this, then I suggest you take it up with your God. Or maybe you have a different master to serve?

ONEGod:
Obviously it has not crossed your mind, religious people try to reach for a higher morality by accepting God's over their own nature.

You mean by telling a large group of humans that God made them wrong and that they should be denied a loving relationship with an equal for their entire lives until they die?

Gosh, sorry, didn't realize by superior morality you meant such sad darkness for another human being.

ONEGod:
Well you DO understand the 'ick' factor, Christians call it the iniquity 'factor'. You argue humanity views and not God's higher morality view/comprehension.

Well, obviously! I don't argue god's morality because I don't believe God exists, so I think "God's Morality" is just something someone wrote and TOLD you was God's morality and you just bought it!

The good thing about God's morality is that it allows people to despise some other people because of the way they were born and then not even have to worry about feeling bad about it!

ONEGod:
Communism/socialist have long espoused their 'better way', the results don't match their posturing. Capitalism still far and away provides far better for its citizens. Odd you haven't noticed !

-sigh-

I'm arguing for social democracy. Not hardline stalinist communism. In case you hadn't noticed the huge number of poor people (>0 is too many in the richest country on the planet), or maybe you simply forgot about the 40 million americans without health insurance?

Sorry but if being an American means treating our fellow americans worse than wild dogs treat each other (at least wild dogs look out for pack members), then count me out. If you want a theocracy of intolerance and codified prejudice and forced religious cohesion, then I leave you to it. But please don't think for one minute you'll have an easy time getting that evil set up in this country as long as people like me are around.

ONEGod:
Without a superior morality (Godliness) its all a house of cards regardless of the system espoused.

Yeah the minute you find me a superior morality, please pass it along. I just hope you realize that imposing a morality based on religion is pretty tenuous because you might end up having a religious morality forced on YOU that was not of your choosing.

And I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere about religious morality versus humanist morality:

I am pretty sure religion never kept anyone from doing whatever evil they truly wanted to commit and atheism never kept someone from doing a good thing they truly wanted to do...and vice versa.

 

[KomissarSteve]

And he was not quite alone back then. So, as a contrast to the 'biased' title of this thread, you could instead argue that "you are just trying to make your contribution in bringing the Democratic party back to its basics", right? After all, it was only in the 1960's when the large-scale shift of the American Evangelicals to the Republican camp started.

I'd date the large-scale politicization of Evangelicals a little later, actually (late 70's), but otherwise, I agree 100% - that is certainly a way of looking at it.

 

[Voegelin]

As this thread developed the validity of the title pretty much proved itself, didn't it?

Anyone still have doubts, go into Ethics and Morality. Look at the political icons, the religious icons and commentary.

 

[The Bellman]

As this thread developed the validity of the title pretty much proved itself, didn't it?

No.

Anyone still have doubts, go into Ethics and Morality. Look at the political icons, the religious icons and commentary.

I don't have any doubts, but if I did, that area would convince me that the Republican Party is about as far from Christian ideals as you can get.

 

[KomissarSteve]

No.


I don't have any doubts, but if I did, that area would convince me that the Republican Party is about as far from Christian ideals as you can get.

Hear hear. You're not helping your wing of the GOP's case, Voegelin.

 

[ONEGod]

thaumaturgy:
Apparently much the same as it is for those who don't deny God. Look at the previous arguments against social welfare programs. Those are directly in opposition to God's commands in the Old Testament.

ONEGod:
Socialist programs do take from the workers/earners and gives to those that don't work. You don't know that ?

---

thaumaturgy:
I am merely saying that YOUR bible tells you that God wants you to care for the poor. Directly and purposefully.
If you have a problem with this, then I suggest you take it up with your God. Or maybe you have a different master to serve?

ONEGod:
You misunderstand what you have read. Do not glean the fields so that there is left enough for the poor to survive, compassion. It does not say to take of your labors and give to those that toil not. The ungleaned fields are open for the poor to labor to harvest to feed themselves. It is what is says, not what you would assume.
Quote:
ONEGod:
Obviously it has not crossed your mind, religious people try to reach for a higher morality by accepting God's over their own nature.

thaumaturgy:
You mean by telling a large group of humans that God made them wrong and that they should be denied a loving relationship with an equal for their entire lives until they die?

Gosh, sorry, didn't realize by superior morality you meant such sad darkness for another human being.

ONEGod:
Again you assume/presume much. God states clearly as to the error and incompatibility of abomination. Neither do i adhere to one is a innocent victim of ones sexuality.



Quote:
ONEGod:
Well you DO understand the 'ick' factor, Christians call it the iniquity 'factor'. You argue humanity views and not God's higher morality view/comprehension.

thaumaturgy:
Well, obviously! I don't argue god's morality because I don't believe God exists, so I think "God's Morality" is just something someone wrote and TOLD you was God's morality and you just bought it!

The good thing about God's morality is that it allows people to despise some other people because of the way they were born and then not even have to worry about feeling bad about it!

Quote:
ONEGod:
Communism/socialist have long espoused their 'better way', the results don't match their posturing. Capitalism still far and away provides far better for its citizens. Odd you haven't noticed !

thaumaturgy:
-sigh-

I'm arguing for social democracy. Not hardline stalinist communism. In case you hadn't noticed the huge number of poor people (>0 is too many in the richest country on the planet), or maybe you simply forgot about the 40 million americans without health insurance?

ONEGod:
I find the same that would have given $2-4 TRILLION to illegal aliens the same that decry poverty in our own nation. How do you have compassion by giving your own peoples money over to foreigners to impoverish your own people dooming them to live in squalor ?
]]]]]]]]]]]]]

thaumaturgy:
Sorry but if being an American means treating our fellow americans worse than wild dogs treat each other (at least wild dogs look out for pack members), then count me out. If you want a theocracy of intolerance and codified prejudice and forced religious cohesion, then I leave you to it. But please don't think for one minute you'll have an easy time getting that evil set up in this country as long as people like me are around.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]
ONEGod:
Your supposed compassiuon based on false politically correct posturing, ignoring the reality of your political views and consequences

Quote:
ONEGod:
Without a superior morality (Godliness) its all a house of cards regardless of the system espoused.

thaumaturgy:
Yeah the minute you find me a superior morality, please pass it along. I just hope you realize that imposing a morality based on religion is pretty tenuous because you might end up having a religious morality forced on YOU that was not of your choosing.

ONEGod:
Try you own comments above bracketed with ]]]]]]]]]]

thaumaturgy:
And I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere about religious morality versus humanist morality:

I am pretty sure religion never kept anyone from doing whatever evil they truly wanted to commit and atheism never kept someone from doing a good thing they truly wanted to do...and vice versa.
ONEGod:
Consider America and her Judeo-Christian past of freeing from oppression and economically saving other nations in their desperate times of need, and the humanist governing of Communist who often butcher more of their own civilians that their enemies in times of war

 

[Ringo84]

As this thread developed the validity of the title pretty much proved itself, didn't it?

Anyone still have doubts, go into Ethics and Morality. Look at the political icons, the religious icons and commentary.

What's with suddenly declaring victory for the hateful assertions posted here when very little - if any - objective fact has been established from the side who seeks to insult any of the millions of good people who call themselves Democrats?

Seems to me, Voegelin, that lack of arguments has left you with little recourse than to simply said, "Well, the posts prove it. We win".
Ringo

 

[Suomipoika]

I'd date the large-scale politicization of Evangelicals a little later, actually (late 70's), but otherwise, I agree 100% - that is certainly a way of looking at it.

Might well be that you know better. It was probably the "Moral Majority" that caused the flux to the GOP? And the 'dissapointment' with the politics of Carter, the "Evangelical president"? But in the meantime, you could take a look at this: [SIZE=-1]

www.cdusa.org/

They claim that W. J. Bryan could well join their sprouting camp if he was alive today.
[/SIZE]

 

[KomissarSteve]

Might well be that you know better. It was probably the "Moral Majority" that caused the flux to the GOP? And the 'dissapointment' with the politics of Carter, the "Evangelical president"?

That's always been my interpretation of events, yes. My goodness, you know your American political history pretty darn well.

But in the meantime, you could take a look at this: [SIZE=-1]

www.cdusa.org/

They claim that W. J. Bryan could well join their sprouting camp if he was alive today.
[/SIZE]

LOL, why am I not surprised.

 

[Suomipoika]

My goodness, you know your American political history pretty darn well.

I've read a couple of books..

 

[Suomipoika]

I believe sin destroys a nation, if the sin is not dealt with.

Sin was dealt with once and for all on the cross of Golghata. That ws God's way to do it, and after that the focus and emphasis of Christians should most definetily not be on 'dealing with sin' through the means of harshest possible punishments ('Biblical punishments', in your vocabulary). If you want to reinstate the Mosaic Law for this age and for this 'covenant', your literacy of the New Testament and the life, spirit and the attitudes of the early Christian Church is really twisted.

 

[Suomipoika]

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.

This could smell like writing of a troll to me.

As an outsider stuying Christianity in America, your writing falls so perfectly in the category of some of the most parodic stereotypes, lacking originality in style and self-criticism, that I could well just fabricate the very same kind of statements myself, based on the most flagrant stereotypes I've learned about what some call 'fundamentalism', and just keep repeating them all over again, like you have done.

No offense, but this is the picture I get. You could always try to do better, though.

 

[Suomipoika]

Only those who commit the unforgivable (by humans) like murder, and child molesting.

Acoording to the Bible, no other sin but the "mockery of the Holy Spirit" is unforgivable. Why are you twisting the Scriptures, and even in such serious core issues?

 

[Voegelin]

What's with suddenly declaring victory for the hateful assertions posted here when very little - if any - objective fact has been established from the side who seeks to insult any of the millions of good people who call themselves Democrats?

Seems to me, Voegelin, that lack of arguments has left you with little recourse than to simply said, "Well, the posts prove it. We win".
Ringo

Not a matter of winning. A matter of facts. The comments on this thread by those with the Democratic icon and especially in Ethics and Morality speak for themselves.

But you want something outside this forum?

How about this:

Top UN Official Praises Efforts to Throw the Vatican Out of the UN

September 6, 2007Volume 10, Number 38 By Samantha Singson
(NEW YORK — C-FAM) A top advisor to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon made what can only be seen as a major diplomatic blunder in an article published recently. In the article Nafis Sadik, the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS, praised the campaign to have the Vatican stripped of its UN Observer status and effectively kicked out of the UN General Assembly. The comment will likely have serious repercussions for Sadik, long a controversial and polarizing figure in the UN system.

The article ran in Conscience Magazine which is published by the pro-abortion group "Catholics" for a Free Choice (CFFC), a group dedicated, in the words of its past president Frances Kissling, to "overthrowing" the Catholic Church . . .

http://www.c-fam.org/

So who funds and works with this group which its past president says wants to overthrow the Catholic Church?

Peter Edelman for one. You may have heard of his wife, Democratic party activist Marian Wright Edelman Hillary Clinton interned with Edelman's organization.

Some foundations which fund CFFC are here. If any of them are not liberal and do not support Democrats, it is news to me.

And, as we would expect, George Soros, who spent over $24 million in 2004 trying to elect John Kerry president also funds Catholics for a Free Choice.

So, here we have the heavy hitters in the Democratic party funding an organization which directly, on issue after issue, opposes the teachings of the largest Christian church in the world and wants the Vatican "effectively kicked out of the UN." An impartial observer looking at all this would, I believe, say "Yeah...the title of this thread is pretty accurate".

 

[KomissarSteve]

Not a matter of winning. A matter of facts. The comments on this thread by those with the Democratic icon and especially in Ethics and Morality speak for themselves.

Indeed - they demonstrate that the Democrats present who believe in God don't feel that they have the right to put Him into the box of a party ideology.