Christian Right Split Over GOP

[theeedude]

Atheists don't think we have all the answers. We think we need to find the answers for ourselves and not get them from a religion.

 

[lousydood]

Originally posted by: Corbett
And thats were secularism comes in. The difference is, Christians believe there is something more to life then just what one believes. THAT is the easy thing to do, to just believe something because YOU think you it is the right thing to believe. Most of us have done that for a certain period of our lives, and then we finally come to the realization that we are just a human being who doesnt have all the answers, but someone above us does. And those answers will never be wrong. Call it lazy. Call it eliteist. Call it whatever you want. But you have single-handedly pointed out the biggest difference between modern secularism, and modern Chrisitanity. One believes they have all the answers themselves, while the other knows enough to know that they don't know everything.

Oh, I cannot resist the irony.


The ones out looking for the answers to the mysteries of the universe are scientists.


Christians are the ones who believe they know everything. After all, it's written right down in that book of theirs. They sure don't give it a rest either.

Christians knew the Earth was the center of the universe and that it was flat.

Christians knew that witchcraft and magic were practiced around them.

Christians knew that Aristotle was the sole source of philosophy and learning.

Christians know that killing people in the name of Jesus was just what he wanted.

Christians know that human beings did not evolve from simians. [1]

Christians know the Earth is only 6000 years old.


[1] They are right on this one. We are still monkeys.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: lousydood

Originally posted by: Corbett
And thats were secularism comes in. The difference is, Christians believe there is something more to life then just what one believes. THAT is the easy thing to do, to just believe something because YOU think you it is the right thing to believe. Most of us have done that for a certain period of our lives, and then we finally come to the realization that we are just a human being who doesnt have all the answers, but someone above us does. And those answers will never be wrong. Call it lazy. Call it eliteist. Call it whatever you want. But you have single-handedly pointed out the biggest difference between modern secularism, and modern Chrisitanity. One believes they have all the answers themselves, while the other knows enough to know that they don't know everything.

Oh, I cannot resist the irony.


The ones out looking for the answers to the mysteries of the universe are scientists.


Christians are the ones who believe they know everything. After all, it's written right down in that book of theirs. They sure don't give it a rest either.

Christians knew the Earth was the center of the universe and that it was flat.

Christians knew that witchcraft and magic were practiced around them.

Christians knew that Aristotle was the sole source of philosophy and learning.

Christians know that killing people in the name of Jesus was just what he wanted.

Christians know that human beings did not evolve from simians. [1]

Christians know the Earth is only 6000 years old.


[1] They are right on this one. We are still monkeys.

Why do you have such a hard on for bashing Christians?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Corbett
Thats the difference. Homoseuality is specifically pointed out as a sin in the Bible. The others you speak of are not. Apples and oranges.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. Certain acts of homosexual sex, specifically pertaining to idolatrous worship that was common in Biblical times are pointed out as a sin in the Bible, but homosexuality as a general sexual orientation is not.

You are invited to support your claim that it is, however. I can explain that each passage you will cite conforms with my explanation above, and not your claim.

 

[Corbett]

This debate has been rehashed 1002032348 times. Please search and bring up an old thread.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Corbett
This debate has been rehashed 1002032348 times. Please search and bring up an old thread.

I don't need to. It is enough to note that you are unable to substantiate your claim, and mine remains unrefuted.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Corbett
This debate has been rehashed 1002032348 times. Please search and bring up an old thread.

I don't need to. It is enough to note that you are unable to substantiate your claim, and mine remains unrefuted.

LAWL!

Bring on the evidence to support that claim then.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Corbett
This debate has been rehashed 1002032348 times. Please search and bring up an old thread.

I don't need to. It is enough to note that you are unable to substantiate your claim, and mine remains unrefuted.

LAWL!

Bring on the evidence to support that claim then.

I'm sorry, I think you are confused about how this works. You made a claim. I explained how your claim was wrong. If you want us to believe your claim, it is your burden to support it. I've already invited you to cite any verses which you think substantiate your claim, but as I've also said, I can explain exactly how they do not.

I suppose you might say I made a claim, but it is a curious one to demand "evidence" for. If you want citation of the Bible verses that do not describe homosexuality as a sin, it is easy: all of them.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Corbett
This debate has been rehashed 1002032348 times. Please search and bring up an old thread.

I don't need to. It is enough to note that you are unable to substantiate your claim, and mine remains unrefuted.

LAWL!

Bring on the evidence to support that claim then.

I'm sorry, I think you are confused about how this works. You made a claim. I explained how your claim was wrong. If you want us to believe your claim, it is your burden to support it. I've already invited you to cite any verses which you think substantiate your claim, but as I've also said, I can explain exactly how they do not.

I suppose you might say I made a claim, but it is a curious one to demand "evidence" for. If you want citation of the Bible verses that do not describe homosexuality as a sin, it is easy: all of them.

Matthew 8:5-13
Romans 1:26-27
I Corinthians 6:9
1 Timothy 1:9
Jude 7

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Matthew 8:5-13

Nothing that even approaches a description of homosexuality.

Romans 1:26-27

It isn't unnatural for homosexuals to desire the same sex, so these verses do not describe homosexuals, but rather conflicted heterosexuals. or likely heterosexual males engaged in pederasty.

I Corinthians 6:9

Paul admonishes pagan temple prostitutes, common at the time. Not homosexuals.

1 Timothy 1:9

Nothing that even approaches a description of homosexuality.

EDIT: Perhaps you meant 1 Tim 1:10, but again, as in Corinthians, Paul is admonishing the pagan practices of temple prostitution, not homosexuality.

Jude 7

Admonitions against general fornication, not specific to homosexuals.

See?

 

[Corbett]

Thanks for proving my point. No matter what I post, you will shrug off as not pertaining to homosexuality when they most certainly do. Sorry but I dont have the time nor the energy to rehash this again, which is why I referred to your searching the forums instead.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Thanks for proving my point.

What point was that, pray tell?

No matter what I post, you will shrug off as not pertaining to homosexuality...

This can't be it, since this is the first time you've claimed it in this thread -- not to mention the fact that I haven't shrugged anything off. My explanations were precise and complete.

...when they most certainly do.

Such is your heretofore un-substantiated and contraindicated assertion.

Sorry but I dont have the time nor the energy to rehash this again, which is why I referred to your searching the forums instead.

Your claim was made in this thread, and it was likewise refuted herein.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

However, I do believe that the "Fundie Right" has less relevance/sway as of late which is not such a bad thing.

True, real Conservatives want less government interference in ones life where the Fundies want more.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Corbett
Thanks for proving my point.

What point was that, pray tell?

No matter what I post, you will shrug off as not pertaining to homosexuality...

This can't be it, since this is the first time you've claimed it in this thread -- not to mention the fact that I haven't shrugged anything off. My explanations were precise and complete.

...when they most certainly do.

Such is your heretofore un-substantiated and contraindicated assertion.

Sorry but I dont have the time nor the energy to rehash this again, which is why I referred to your searching the forums instead.

Your claim was made in this thread, and it was likewise refuted herein.

Sorry but you have given little evidence to support your disproving of my beliefs other than saying, "NO that has nothing to do with abortion" or something similar.

Not to mention the fact you are just rehashing what has been brought up before, only to try to shrug off verses pertaining specifically to homoshexuality being a sin.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Rainsford

I KNOW you use the Bible to debate moral issues, and I think that's just intellectually lazy. Because what you're doing isn't "debating" at all, you're not forming an opinion based on reasoning or knowledge or emotional understanding or insights offered by others, you're just borrowing your opinion from a book. I understand just fine that's how religion works, I just don't happen to like it.

And thats were secularism comes in. The difference is, Christians believe there is something more to life then just what one believes. THAT is the easy thing to do, to just believe something because YOU think you it is the right thing to believe. Most of us have done that for a certain period of our lives, and then we finally come to the realization that we are just a human being who doesnt have all the answers, but someone above us does. And those answers will never be wrong. Call it lazy. Call it eliteist. Call it whatever you want. But you have single-handedly pointed out the biggest difference between modern secularism, and modern Chrisitanity. One believes they have all the answers themselves, while the other knows enough to know that they don't know everything.

If that was your approach to "secularism", no wonder you became a Christian...you were doing it wrong. Being agnostic doesn't mean you have all the answers, it just means being willing to admit that there aren't any EASY answers. I admit that there are a lot of things I don't know, so those things I either try to figure out or just become comfortable with not knowing. I don't pretend to know what happens after death, but I'm OK with that, I have no need of a religion that "answers" the question for me. THAT is the real point, because you guys DON'T admit that you don't know everything...if there is any uncertainty, it's "God did it". That's not being wise or pragmatic or realistic, it's exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. Being able to admit you don't know the answers to everything does NOT mean adding "...but this book told me what I didn't know", it means being able to admit that YOU DON'T KNOW.

And you're confusing "religion" with belief in something bigger than yourself. There is as much belief about your place in the universe in many non-religious philosophies as there is in any Church group. My point was that the real difference is where those ideas come from. Almost everyone has their own personal religion, and while I admit that the more traditional organized religion has its place...there is something I admire about the ability to come up with your beliefs about the universe yourself instead of getting the $19.95 packaged deal with everyone else.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Sorry but you have given little evidence to support your disproving of my beliefs other than saying, "NO that has nothing to do with abortion" or something similar.

There isn't much evidence required. All one has to do is look at the verses in question and read the original greek to understand that it doesn't mean what you claim.

Not to mention the fact you are just rehashing what has been brought up before, only to try to shrug off verses pertaining specifically to homoshexuality being a sin.

I'll make this easy for you: Which word(s) of those verses do you think stand for "homosexuality"?

Answer that and I will tell you how you have misinterpreted the original Greek.

 

[FoBoT]

Robertson is an idiot
i think the ones supporting Giuliani figure the Bush appointees to the Supreme Court are good enough for now

 

[piasabird]

Since when have religious groups in the USA ever agreed about anything?

I am a Mormon and I see people all the time saying Mormons are not Christians. These same people also say Catholics are not christians.

Churches should not be allowed to endorse candidates. It violates the separation of Church and state. I dont care if churches want to comment on public issues or legislation or public policy, just stay out of the election process. If a church or a minister endorses a person or political party they should lose their tax exempt status for trying to affect the political process.

Also if you are a member of the clergy and you run for office, you should no longer be eligible for a tax exempt status.

What if the Pope came out tomorrow and said if you are a catholic you have to vote for Hillary Clinton or you will be excommunicated. As rediculous as this seems it would be the action on behalf of a church to attempt to control the government. No tax exempt person or group should be allowed to do this. This should include all tax exempt groups like the red cross, the AFLCIO or any organization which receives government tax free status of funds.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

However, I do believe that the "Fundie Right" has less relevance/sway as of late which is not such a bad thing.

True, real Conservatives want less government interference in ones life where the Fundies want more.

One could also look at it as Fundies want different gov't intereferences than liberals, not necessarily "more". Most "fundies" I know really only want the libs to stop taking God out of things and also wish to not have liberal ideals forced on society. But in general you are mostly correct.
I as a Conservative want less gov't interference and so along with that I expect less "God" by the gov't - but not a prevention of God within gov't.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

However, I do believe that the "Fundie Right" has less relevance/sway as of late which is not such a bad thing.

True, real Conservatives want less government interference in ones life where the Fundies want more.

One could also look at it as Fundies want different gov't intereferences than liberals, not necessarily "more". Most "fundies" I know really only want the libs to stop taking God out of things and also wish to not have liberal ideals forced on society. But in general you are mostly correct.
I as a Conservative want less gov't interference and so along with that I expect less "God" by the gov't - but not a prevention of God within gov't.

Where I believe a Secular Government has no room for any diety, whether it be the diety of the majority or minority. Your own beliefs should be just that, your own. Your religious beliefs should have no influence on others period.

That said, I believe there are more pressing problems regarding our government and country than the mere mention of god as long as it's just the mere mention of god.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

However, I do believe that the "Fundie Right" has less relevance/sway as of late which is not such a bad thing.

True, real Conservatives want less government interference in ones life where the Fundies want more.

One could also look at it as Fundies want different gov't intereferences than liberals, not necessarily "more". Most "fundies" I know really only want the libs to stop taking God out of things and also wish to not have liberal ideals forced on society. But in general you are mostly correct.
I as a Conservative want less gov't interference and so along with that I expect less "God" by the gov't - but not a prevention of God within gov't.

I appreciate a Fundy not wanting liberal ideals "forced" on them, such as mandatory healthcare or similar gov't programs, but the basic liberal ideals are about "forcing" CHOICE on people, not taking it away.

Abortion or childbirth? Sex or abstinence? To pray or not to pray? Right to terminate your life if you suffer from a painful terminal illness or to hold on until even a machine can't support you? To read a book or ignore it.

It's seems it's the Fundy's who want to remove the choices and force their views on me and the country. No abortion ever. No sex before marriage. Mandatory prayer time set aside in schools. No medically assisted suicide. Banning "evil" books.

Of course libs aren't entirely consistent, who is? I doubt the uber left would mind seeing all guns taken away from the people, not a choice on whether or not to own a gun. But in general, the freedom to make choices is the ideal.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

However, I do believe that the "Fundie Right" has less relevance/sway as of late which is not such a bad thing.

True, real Conservatives want less government interference in ones life where the Fundies want more.

One could also look at it as Fundies want different gov't intereferences than liberals, not necessarily "more". Most "fundies" I know really only want the libs to stop taking God out of things and also wish to not have liberal ideals forced on society. But in general you are mostly correct.
I as a Conservative want less gov't interference and so along with that I expect less "God" by the gov't - but not a prevention of God within gov't.

I appreciate a Fundy not wanting liberal ideals "forced" on them, such as mandatory healthcare or similar gov't programs, but the basic liberal ideals are about "forcing" CHOICE on people, not taking it away.

Abortion or childbirth? Sex or abstinence? To pray or not to pray? Right to terminate your life if you suffer from a painful terminal illness or to hold on until even a machine can't support you? To read a book or ignore it.

It's seems it's the Fundy's who want to remove the choices and force their views on me and the country. No abortion ever. No sex before marriage. Mandatory prayer time set aside in schools. No medically assisted suicide. Banning "evil" books.

Of course libs aren't entirely consistent, who is? I doubt the uber left would mind seeing all guns taken away from the people, not a choice on whether or not to own a gun. But in general, the freedom to make choices is the ideal.

"SOME" liberal ideals are about "choice" - some are not.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

However, I do believe that the "Fundie Right" has less relevance/sway as of late which is not such a bad thing.

True, real Conservatives want less government interference in ones life where the Fundies want more.

One could also look at it as Fundies want different gov't intereferences than liberals, not necessarily "more". Most "fundies" I know really only want the libs to stop taking God out of things and also wish to not have liberal ideals forced on society. But in general you are mostly correct.
I as a Conservative want less gov't interference and so along with that I expect less "God" by the gov't - but not a prevention of God within gov't.

Where I believe a Secular Government has no room for any diety, whether it be the diety of the majority or minority. Your own beliefs should be just that, your own. Your religious beliefs should have no influence on others period.

That said, I believe there are more pressing problems regarding our government and country than the mere mention of god as long as it's just the mere mention of god.

I should have been a bit more clear. The point was not about having "God" laws but rather that it shouldn't be forbidden for gov't like some are trying to do these days. Removing "in God we Trust" off coinage? Seems pretty harmless and doesn't FORCE religion on anyone. Pledge? Same thing. It just seems there is a lot of "God" being forbidden whereas that is not the intent of the idea of Seperation of Chuch and State. They can co-exist, but the point was that we didn't have a Church State(which we have been no where near in our history).

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

However, I do believe that the "Fundie Right" has less relevance/sway as of late which is not such a bad thing.

True, real Conservatives want less government interference in ones life where the Fundies want more.

One could also look at it as Fundies want different gov't intereferences than liberals, not necessarily "more". Most "fundies" I know really only want the libs to stop taking God out of things and also wish to not have liberal ideals forced on society. But in general you are mostly correct.
I as a Conservative want less gov't interference and so along with that I expect less "God" by the gov't - but not a prevention of God within gov't.

I appreciate a Fundy not wanting liberal ideals "forced" on them, such as mandatory healthcare or similar gov't programs, but the basic liberal ideals are about "forcing" CHOICE on people, not taking it away.

Oh contrair Sir. Abortion? The libs want, and have federal funding of it. That's makingthose who disagree with have to fund it. Libs doen't stop at at making sure it's not illegal. Then they take away your parental rights, your kid doesn't even need you to informed if they get a gov provided aboratiopn etc.

Same with premarital sex. Gotta teach it in schools and use taxpayer funds for free condums etc.


Abortion or childbirth? Sex or abstinence? To pray or not to pray? Right to terminate your life if you suffer from a painful terminal illness or to hold on until even a machine can't support you? I'm tired of seeing the Sciavo thing misrepresented. I don't every recall it being a religious thing. The husband was portrayed as shady, possibbly having a hand in her condition. And he wanted the insurance money. Her parents wanted to support her. Many people felt bad for the parents. Particularly those of us with children of our own. To read a book or ignore it.

It's seems it's the Fundy's who want to remove the choices and force their views on me and the country. I think you've got it backwards No abortion ever. No sex before marriage. Mandatory prayer time set aside in schools. No medically assisted suicide. Suicide is a catholic no-no. Not a Protestant one. Look, if the Libs wanna outlaw teh death penalty cuz the method causes pain, how can you support the same thing for someone under different circumstances? Makes no sense. Banning "evil" books.

Of course libs aren't entirely consistent, who is? I doubt the uber left would mind seeing all guns taken away from the people, not a choice on whether or not to own a gun. But in general, the freedom to make choices is the ideal. As long as it's the choice the libs like. As we've seen time and again.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Sciavo was a perfect example of GOP failure on moral values, and trying to get the government into peoples personal lives. There is no justification what so ever for the federal government to be involved in this. The same "small federal government" and "states rights" hypocrites wanted the federal government to overrule state court's decision on that matter, because it didn't fit into their ideology. That's why I don't buy for a second that they want to leave abortion up to the states. Once they overturn Roe, the next thing they'll try to do is ban abortion at the federal level.