How the Democratic Party opposes Christian Principles

[thaumaturgy]

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

Again with the strawman! If you honestly think the poor are all to a person just lazy people, then I fear you are too naive.

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.

Why do you insist on mischaracterizing my stance? I am not saying give lazy people money for being lazy. I say help the poor. Social programs coordinate and give a boost to efforts. If you diffuse the efforts across a bunch of different churches, many of whom have strings attached or will only apply to those in their own faith, then I think you do a disservice to the poor.

But further, I don't see anywhere in the Bible quotes I posted where you can justify the abandonment of social programs. Did God say "Don't glean your fields every 7 years but definitely post a guard to keep lazy people away!"?

Neither do i adhere to one is a innocent victim of ones sexuality.

So you think ones' sexuality is chosen?

Then again a I ask (knowing you don't have the cojones to answer it);

When did you choose your sexual orientation?

Once you do answer it, then tell me how often you struggle to maintain your sexual orientation? Do you ever see a hot person of the same sex as you and think "Hmm, I'd like to be with that person."

You surely must, if it's a choice, you must battle it quite often.

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 ?

Gosh, you are too busy with the strawmen! I DON'T like giving away money when we have poor in our own country! I'm not for coddling illegal immigration!

Maybe you are the one assuming too much!

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

Jeez, you can't get enough of that particular logical fallacy can you?

I am (apparently unlike the theocrats here) quite proud of America and her non-denominational, secular, and pluralistic nature. I think we have done a great deal of good in the world. I also know we are capable of a great deal of evil. Neither of which we do because we are all Baptists.

With great power and wealth come great rsponsibility. But first and foremost that responsibility comes to our people at home. Our poor.

I love social programs. It helps me feel like being an american means being safe. No matter what happens to me, I'll be safe from dying in a dumpster somewhere because I couldn't get decent healthcare or food.

I'm willing to pay more in taxes to make it better for everyone regardless of what God they worship. I've voted for tax increases for public schools (even though I don't have kids and will never have kids in those schools), and I've worked for grass-roots programs to get universal single-payer healthcare installed, despite the fact that it will increase my taxes and I already have good health insurance. I'm trying to live my ideals at personal cost.

At least no one is picking and choosing my morality for me based on their selective reading of a holy book.

[BIBLE]Luke 16:13[/BIBLE]

 

[Nathan Poe]

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.

Around here, it's known as "Poe's Law," named after its brilliant author .

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it's impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

Sadly though, while clirus' arguments are not very original (he cuts and pasts that "cultural war" nonsense verbatim into every thread he's in, no matter how off topic), he is completely sincere about it -- at least as far as anyone can tell.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

As an aide memoire for those who think religion has a place in government, check out the Treaty of Tripoli - I will post the link again if you want.

 

[Voegelin]

As an aide memoire for those who think religion has a place in government, check out the Treaty of Tripoli - I will post the link again if you want.

Someone just posted a whole thread on that treaty I see. Which again proves the point of this OP, doesn't it?

Rather than read that one treaty, may I suggest you pick up these two sets of books:

Political Sermons of the American Founding Era 1730-1805 edited by Ellis Sandoz. 1,779 pages.

American Political Writing During the Founding Era: 1760-1805 edited by Charles S. Hyneman and Donald S. Lutz. 1,447 pages.

Read what the founders and framers said. All of them. Not just snippets from one or two of them on websites hostile to the faith. It is much more enlightening (my personal favorite is another two volume set: Works of Fisher Ames. As Published by Seth Ames. Ames drafted the first amendment. He was an anti-Jacobin. He thought he was preventing exactly what the ACLU, AJC and AU have done--file lawsuits to drive faith out of the public square)

 

[thaumaturgy]

Someone just posted a whole thread on that treaty I see. Which again proves the point of this OP, doesn't it?

Rather than read that one treaty, may I suggest you pick up these two sets of books:

Political Sermons of the American Founding Era 1730-1805 edited by Ellis Sandoz. 1,779 pages.

American Political Writing During the Founding Era: 1760-1805 edited by Charles S. Hyneman and Donald S. Lutz. 1,447 pages.

Read what the founders and framers said. All of them. Not just snippets from one or two of them on websites hostile to the faith. It is much more enlightening (my personal favorite is another two volume set: Works of Fisher Ames. As Published by Seth Ames. Ames drafted the first amendment. He was an anti-Jacobin. He thought he was preventing exactly what the ACLU, AJC and AU have done--file lawsuits to drive faith out of the public square)

Let's go with this for a sec. Regardless of what we all learned about many of the deists who founded our country, and regardless of the fact that no single religion has dominated our country since its inception (largely due to the Establishment Clause and largely due to the many disparate faiths that make up the U.S.), let's go with it for a second:

Imagine that I make the claim this country was indeed founded by Christians. Which sect? I assume you are equally sanguine with all sects (otherwise you'd have a tough time here in the U.S.), so let's default to CATHOLICISM.

Now, all Americans must be Catholic. You OK with that? Sure you are. You're an American and you know that America is a Christian Nation! And of course there is no older version of Christianity still in existence than Catholicism who can trace themselves directly back to Peter.

Yay Catholics!

Oops, you were born into a Baptist family? Too bad! You better hit Mass Saturday afternoon. You know the drill. What, you don't? Well, you better learn. In the U.S. we are all strict pre-Vatican II, so mass is held in Latin, your wife must wear a chapel veil. You believe in transubstantiation. That wafer actually IS Jesus' body!

You happy so far? Well, now here's another wrinkle. Catholics believe in evolution so that Creationism stuff ain't gonna be taught in school. Why bother with fairy tales! Still happy? Doesn't matter, you're a good Catholic and you actually answer to a higher power.

I hope you see where this is going. I doubt you do. You probably just assume that since America is a Christian nation it just so happens to be YOUR sect. And we all know how every sect just loves the others, right? I mean all paths lead to God, right?

You better hope so, because the theocracy you get may not be the theocracy you want.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Read what the founders and framers said. All of them. Not just snippets from one or two of them on websites hostile to the faith.

One does not have to be hostile towards Christianity to acknowledge that many of the Founding Fathers were not orthodox Christians. I, for example, am not hostile towards Christianity - I am, in fact, a Christian. Yet I acknowledge that the Founding Fathers were not orthodox Christians because, in many cases, they weren't.

 

[Ringo84]

Someone just posted a whole thread on that treaty I see. Which again proves the point of this OP, doesn't it?

If it proves the OP's point to mention the Treaty of Tripoli, then I assume that the founding fathers - many of which signed the treaty when it was read to Congress - oppose Christian principles as well, since that treaty proves fairly conclusively that this nation was never meant to be a Christian nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, or anything else.

Rather than read that one treaty

"One treaty" that happens to say: "this nation was not in any way founded on the Christian religion", which was signed by a majority of the founders who had written the Constitution? How's that denial working out for you?

Read what the founders and framers said. All of them. Not just snippets from one or two of them on websites hostile to the faith.

Very clever: simply dismiss websites that show the truth behind the assertion that our founders did not create a Christian nation as "hostile to the faith". That type of spin may work with some people, but it doesn't work with me. You're either going to have to find better arguments or abandon discussing the issue until you can find some.

Ames drafted the first amendment.

When even the Encyclopedia Britannica, a trusted source of information, does not mention the First Amendment at all in relation to Fisher Ames, it's a fairly good indication that the claims that he wrote the First Amendment are exaggerated at least.

He thought he was preventing exactly what the ACLU, AJC and AU have done--file lawsuits to drive faith out of the public square)

The purpose is never to "drive faith out of the public square", as you claim, but to maintain a religiously neutral government. We have freedom of conscience in this country, and that is protected and ensured by the separation of church and state.

I'm sorry. You're wrong.
Ringo

 

[Nathan Poe]

Rather than read that one treaty, may I suggest you pick up these two sets of books:

Political Sermons of the American Founding Era 1730-1805 edited by Ellis Sandoz. 1,779 pages.

American Political Writing During the Founding Era: 1760-1805 edited by Charles S. Hyneman and Donald S. Lutz. 1,447 pages.

Before we all stampede to the nearest bookstore, how about you tell us how many of those 3,226 pages have as much force of law behind them as the Treaty of Tripoli?

 

[Ringo84]

The title of this thread should properly be changed to: "How those who argue (ineffectively) against the separation of church and state and other similar wise decisions from our founding fathers oppose Christian Principles".
Ringo

 

[ONEGod]

Suomipoika:
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?

Galatians 5:21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

ONEGod:
Perhaps you should read more ?

 

[Suomipoika]

Galatians 5:21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

ONEGod:
Perhaps you should read more ?

But that passage doesn't even remotely imply that any of those sins would be unforgivable. Have you read Matthew 12:31?

"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven"

(Also, Mark 3:28)

That means every sin. Including murder, drunkedness, revelling and such. But of course it's a very different matter if someone is an active, non-regretting practioner of some of those things. Forgiveness only becomes active with repentance. But that doesn't mean they would ever be unforgivable.

 

[Greatcloud]

Have you read Romans? We are under Grace.

By whom also we have access by faith into this Grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Rom 5:2

Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness Rom 4:4,5

The economy of the christian life is the economy of grace. We have our freedom but we follow God under the law of grace,sin is no longer in effect,it has lost its power. Stop talking about dead sin.

 

[Ceris]

This thread has been going back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back again for over a month.

 

[ONEGod]

ONEGod:
It's really quite simple, the unrepentant are not under GRACE.

IF unrepentant sin no longer mattered, YOU COULD AND WOULD BE SERVING TWO GODS. and as God said; YOU CANNOT.

Ringo84:

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

ONEGod:
Declaring victory without a funeral ? Something new for the 'playbook' eh ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ONEGod http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=38736312/lpost38736312

Galatians 5:21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

ONEGod:
Perhaps you should read more ?

Suomipoika:
But that passage doesn't even remotely imply that any of those sins would be unforgivable. Have you read Matthew 12:31?

"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven"

(Also, Mark 3:28)

That means every sin. Including murder, drunkedness, revelling and such. But of course it's a very different matter if someone is an active, non-regretting practioner of some of those things. Forgiveness only becomes active with repentance. But that doesn't mean they would ever be unforgivable.

ONEGod:
So be forgiven but be barred from heaven. (your interpretation). Galatians might just be spelling out some of the blasphemy against the spirit.

 

[Nathan Poe]

ONEGod:
It's really quite simple, the unrepentant are not under GRACE.

IF unrepentant sin no longer mattered, YOU COULD AND WOULD BE SERVING TWO GODS. and as God said; YOU CANNOT.

But God no longer punished the penitent for the sins of the unrepenitant.

 

[Suomipoika]

ONEGod:[/FONT]
So be forgiven but be barred from heaven. (your interpretation). Galatians might just be spelling out some of the blasphemy against the spirit.

I don't have a faintest clue about what you are trying to put into my mouth.

 

[Ceris]

"Beating a dead horse": an idiom which is most often used as a retort used to make clear that a particular request or line of conversation is already foreclosed, mooted, or otherwise resolved. See also: Circular arguements, and Dead Topics

 

[ONEGod]

ONEGod:
Galatians 5:21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Suomipoika:
But that doesn't mean they would ever be unforgivable

ONEGod:
Of course they would never be unforgivable, that's why:
"...shall not inherit the kingdom of God"
some how means; certain to be forgiven, right ?
Galatians makes clear those that practice/live such are not going to go to heaven, ergo not be forgiven.

 

[Suomipoika]

ONEGod:
Galatians 5:21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Suomipoika:
But that doesn't mean they would ever be unforgivable

ONEGod:
Of course they would never be unforgivable, that's why:
"...shall not inherit the kingdom of God"
some how means; certain to be forgiven, right ?
Galatians makes clear those that practice/live such are not going to go to heaven, ergo not be forgiven.

Well, didn't I just try to take pains to make the neccessary distinction between unrepentant practicing of those things (making the person in question a 'drinker', 'murderer'and so on the moment he or she should take their last breath here on earth) and repentance after committing some of those things (making the person a forgiven sinner, instead of an '-er' person of any kind, on the moment of their earthly death)?

 

[ONEGod]

#572
Greatcloud:

Sin is no longer the issue

Have you read Romans? We are under Grace.

By whom also we have access by faith into this Grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Rom 5:2

Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness Rom 4:4,5

The economy of the christian life is the economy of grace. We have our freedom but we follow God under the law of grace,sin is no longer in effect,it has lost its power. Stop talking about dead sin.

ONEGod:
Revelation 20:11-15
11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

ONEGod:
Make no mistake, Grace is for repentant believers who are profitable servants unto the Lord.
Believing Grace is for the wicked and doers of iniquity who serve a Lord of darkness and then be rewared with eternal life is to believe God is a fool to be plundered. God is no bodies fool, but the reward for those that believe so is known.

Matthew24:50-51
50The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew25:29-30
29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:41-43
41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Luke 19:21-22
21For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/austere
Austere:
1.
severe in manner or appearance; uncompromising; strict; forbidding: an austere teacher.
2.
rigorously self-disciplined and severely moral; ascetic; abstinent: the austere quality of life in the convent.
3.
grave; sober; solemn; serious: an austere manner.
4.
without excess, luxury, or ease; simple; limited; severe: an austere life.
5.
severely simple; without ornament: austere writing.
6.
lacking softness; hard: an austere bed of straw.


ONEGod:
You must know God if you would have the Lord know you.