Why can't you be both a Christian and a liberal? A thread for Conservative Christians to defend themselves.

[sandorski]

HoP quote

I'm at work so I can't find the exact quote, but the Bible says that God knew you before you were formed in the whom. That unequivically pronounces that your soul exists, at the latest, at the moment of conception. To then declare someone free to choose to kill that person is condoning murder (sin).
-------------------------------------

I'm aware of it. Disagree on your interpretation of it though. It is the sole reasoning behind the Pro-Life stance, as vague as it is, for it only implies the possibility of a soul/life. At any rate we're straying OT.

 

[mastertech01]

The only Democrats who go to church regularly are the ones who plan to run for president someday and are preparing in advance to fake a belief in God

I read this to say and mean Democrats, saying nothing about being liberals necessarily. I believe pointing out that all of the sudden Dean professes to be religious when he wants to up his supporting voter count.

There can be liberal Republicans, conservative Democrats, and everything in between. I think it would be definitely wrong to say all Democrats are liberal, or at least radical liberals. Let them all stand on thier record and thier agenda and vote for the right candidate.

Like the old Kennedy Family recording back in the 60's "Vote for the Kennedy of your choice but vote!" That kind of party line hogwash is why we should all be registered Independent.

 

[Cerb]

Ann Coulter

Laugh or cry, but don't take her seriously.

 

[jm0ris0n]

I'm not saying I'm pro-choice, but All pro-choice does is make an abortion LEGAL. It doesn't mandate everyone must have one.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

Interesting. The Phariscees, by any definition were "Conservative", bring an Adulterous woman before Jesus. According to Mosaic Law, she should be stoned to death. Jesus then says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", one-by-one the accusers walk away. Does Jesus not believe in Personal Responsibility? How could he let a Guilty Party escape from "Justice"?

Jesus in the stone throwing example, wasn't saying it was okay to be an adulterer, he was saying that it wasn't our place to condemn her when we also sin ourselves. We do receive guidance to treat other people the way we would want to be treated and to forgive them, but that doesn't mean there's no punishment for sin. The Bible states that the wages of sin is death. That adulterer would have had her reckoning if not by Law then before God in judgement. Liberalism, with it's lack or morality, would simply state that she was acting under her natual impulses and shouldn't be blamed nor held accountable for what she did nor given any cause to think what she'd done was wrong.

This is why you can't look at one verse and draw conclusions.

This doesn't mean Jesus was a Liberal, but it certainly doesn't make him a Conservative either.

Agreed...neither classification can be applied to Him. Supposing that believing the Bible is Truth is a requirement for a Christian, there's no way any pro-choice person could be a Christian, so that should exclude 98% of liberals and probably a sizeable chunk of conservatives as well.

I'm not saying he was saying that it was "ok to be an adulterer". You seem to confuse Liberalism with a lack of Morality. Liberals may not agree with your Morality, but that does not make them Immoral. In fact, by your use of the Moral Arguement, Liberals adhere to the Morality of Jesus better than you. Modern Christianity has a ncie little dittie, WWJD? Think about it.

As for Pro-Choice, what is Immoral about that? How does that contradict anything in the Bible? You assume that "Pro-Choice" means "Pro-Abortion", it does not, it merely allows a person their God given right to choose(free-will).

what do you mean by 'your morality'? thats like saying 'your ethics'. there is only moral and immoral, ethical and unethical. concerning morality and ethics, its either black or white, there is no gray area [that leaves no room for relativism]
so, basically yes, by saying that liberals dont agree with 'your morals' does make them immoral because from what I can tell, HoP is one who holds high moral character.
WWJD. would Jesus fvck his girlfriend out of wedlock? ok, assuming he did, would he then agree to an abortion? assuming that his woman laid the guilt trip on him and married her, would he have an extramarital affair?

as for your

...Pro-Choice, what is Immoral about that?...

comment, lets look at the defination of morality.

taken from dictionary.com:

morality
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
please tell me how having an abortion fits any of those?
is it good or right conduct? NO.
is baby killing virtuous conduct? NO.
is having an abortion a good lesson on how do conduct yourself morally? NO.
seems to me that abortions fail the test of morality.

oh yes, and Pro-Choice does mean Pro-Abortion, President Clinton. if youre fighting for Pro-Choice, your fighting for the 'right' to have an abortion.

rant

and while im on the subject, when a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, and uses the argument "its my body, its my right to choose"...what about the babys body and its right to choose? and furthermore, it is not your body anymore, now youre sharing it with the man that knocked you up, and the baby thats now growing inside you!

/rant

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Anybody who says Jesus was a liberal has 1) no concept of Jesus and 2) no concept of the term liberal. You idiots seem to think 'liberal' means being counter culture. Liberalism is predicated on the lack of interference on daily life of any kind of moral judgement or self responsibility...that's what Jesus was for too?

Interesting. The Phariscees, by any definition were "Conservative", bring an Adulterous woman before Jesus. According to Mosaic Law, she should be stoned to death. Jesus then says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", one-by-one the accusers walk away. Does Jesus not believe in Personal Responsibility? How could he let a Guilty Party escape from "Justice"?

Jesus in the stone throwing example, wasn't saying it was okay to be an adulterer, he was saying that it wasn't our place to condemn her when we also sin ourselves. We do receive guidance to treat other people the way we would want to be treated and to forgive them, but that doesn't mean there's no punishment for sin. The Bible states that the wages of sin is death. That adulterer would have had her reckoning if not by Law then before God in judgement. Liberalism, with it's lack or morality, would simply state that she was acting under her natual impulses and shouldn't be blamed nor held accountable for what she did nor given any cause to think what she'd done was wrong.

This is why you can't look at one verse and draw conclusions.

This doesn't mean Jesus was a Liberal, but it certainly doesn't make him a Conservative either.

Agreed...neither classification can be applied to Him. Supposing that believing the Bible is Truth is a requirement for a Christian, there's no way any pro-choice person could be a Christian, so that should exclude 98% of liberals and probably a sizeable chunk of conservatives as well.

I'm not saying he was saying that it was "ok to be an adulterer". You seem to confuse Liberalism with a lack of Morality. Liberals may not agree with your Morality, but that does not make them Immoral. In fact, by your use of the Moral Arguement, Liberals adhere to the Morality of Jesus better than you. Modern Christianity has a ncie little dittie, WWJD? Think about it.

As for Pro-Choice, what is Immoral about that? How does that contradict anything in the Bible? You assume that "Pro-Choice" means "Pro-Abortion", it does not, it merely allows a person their God given right to choose(free-will).

what do you mean by 'your morality'? thats like saying 'your ethics'. there is only moral and immoral, ethical and unethical. concerning morality and ethics, its either black or white, there is no gray area [that leaves no room for relativism]
so, basically yes, by saying that liberals dont agree with 'your morals' does make them immoral because from what I can tell, HoP is one who holds high moral character.
WWJD. would Jesus fvck his girlfriend out of wedlock? ok, assuming he did, would he then agree to an abortion? assuming that his woman laid the guilt trip on him and married her, would he have an extramarital affair?

as for your

...Pro-Choice, what is Immoral about that?...

comment, lets look at the defination of morality.

taken from dictionary.com:

morality
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
please tell me how having an abortion fits any of those?
is it good or right conduct? NO.
is baby killing virtuous conduct? NO.
is having an abortion a good lesson on how do conduct yourself morally? NO.
seems to me that abortions fail the test of morality.

oh yes, and Pro-Choice does mean Pro-Abortion, President Clinton. if youre fighting for Pro-Choice, your fighting for the 'right' to have an abortion.

rant

and while im on the subject, when a woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, and uses the argument "its my body, its my right to choose"...what about the babys body and its right to choose? and furthermore, it is not your body anymore, now youre sharing it with the man that knocked you up, and the baby thats now growing inside you!

/rant

I don't want to turn this into an abortion debate, but you touch on an interesting point. No, Jesus would not knock up his girlfriend, but that's missing the point. What would Jesus do, as a third party, seeing that someone else knocked up their girlfriend? That's where WWJD comes into play(technically Jesus would never have a girlfriend, but that too misses the point). Jesus was very big on Personal Responsibility, but he was also very big on minding one's own business too. IOW, Jesus would be sure not to sin himself, but he wouldn't get in a huff by other peoples sins.

Re: "Your Morality": I used the term because it was appropriate, there is no Universal Morality. Most Moral Codes have certain similarities, but all have certain dissimilarities as well.

Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion, sorry.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Jesus was very big on Personal Responsibility, but he was also very big on minding one's own business too. IOW, Jesus would be sure not to sin himself, but he wouldn't get in a huff by other peoples sins.

Is that a joke? Of course Jesus would get into a huff as a result of the sins of mankind. His heart breaks everytime someone sins, and he is the one that carries the brunt of man's sin. Just look at the story of Jesus money changers in the synagogue (John 2):

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

Why don't you read the Bible before commenting on what Jesus would do.

Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion, sorry.

That's like saying you are pro-Nazi but against genocide. I don't think so. If you support it, or standby and watch it happen without doing anything, you are just as guilty as those that commit the sin.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: xochi

Originally posted by: alchemize
You can be a liberal and a Christian, you'd just have to be a hypocrite

While I agree with this mostly in principle, in reality it doesn't work very well. Example:

I believe abortion is morally wrong (conservative viewpoint), however I don't believe I need to make the decision for others (i.e. make it against the law) (liberal viewpoint), except in certain cases (i.e. minors get parental consent, conservative viewpoint).

I still want to see the article!

I read somewhere that the majority of Catholics, about 60%, vote democrat. I for one am Catholic, Liberal and proud of it.

When you look at what the Catholic Church recent stances you find out that it is against the Iraq War, against the Death Penalty, against Abortion, and Pro-Immigration.

Note we said Christian, not Catholic (another thread altogether there...)

Catholic's are Christians.

no theyre not.



This is all your opinion.

They believe in intermediaries between themselves and God with which to confess their sins. Christians confess their sins to God directly. Not only that, but Christian denominations [the Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc...] DO NOT pray to the Mother Mary, and do not believe in her having any significance other than that of bringing Jesus into the world.

Saying Catholics are Christians is like saying Mormons are Christians.

Fact: Protestants broke away from the original Christian church i.e the Catholic church. Martin Luther left because of corruption and the King of England left because he wanted a divorce from his wife and did not want the church leaders in Rome getting in his way. As for "intermediaries" this has been a tradition in the Christian religion that predated the Protestant break-away from the Church.

You're like a Sunni saying that Shiite's are not Muslim because one believes that the Khalif ( aka head of the Muslim world ) must be appointed from Muhammad's blood line and the other is saying that they should be elected instead. You are just splitting hairs here on traditions of one sect that was the orginal one versus another one which broke away for whatever reason from the main religon that founded both.

ugh, theres to many posts here trying to refute what i have said, but ill just reply to this one for now, then when i get back from physical therapy, ill reply to the others.

yes, I do know so well of the Protestant break from the Catholic church, i read a lot of history. Protestants are Christians, but Protestants are not Catholic. So, if you to play it that way, no, Catholics are not Christians.

Again you are confusing the name of religious doctrines,Catholicism and
Protestantism which deals on how each sect views, and performs the practicing of the teachings of Christ. Again you are wrong and need to think about this a little more. One can easily point out the differences in terms of how each denominations of the Protestant faith practices their particular view of Christianity and disqualify each and every one of them if you only look at one particular standard of worshiping. Again for example Shiites and Sunnis each have different views and practices for the same faith ( Islam ) yet both are clearly muslims.

or here's another example:

Catholicism = A more orthodox view of the Christian faith ( in Western Europe ) in terms of it's leadership structure and what religious text and practices they adhere too. Of course the Eastern Orthodox church is even more orthodox then the Catholic church in several areas which are closer to the orginal teachings of Christ and his early followers.

Protestantism = a reformist view of the Christian faith and it's leadership structure which expanded on the original texts to justify their breaking away from the more orthodox Catholic church in the West and to clear up the rough edges left un-answered or which contradicted itself in previous older religious text used by the Catholic church.

So basically Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Eastern Orthodox Church all evolved from the same Christian seed that grew into a tree but they are different because they are branches that followed their own paths. Yet they are branches connected to the same trunk of core teachings and roots of the same beliefs systems that fed the tree known as Christianty.

no, i dont believe that im confused on the names of the doctrines and how they carry out their beliefs. that [to me anyway] is what seperates them. its all the ridiculous ceremony and ritual practices [and in the case of Mormons, what they've added to the religion] that seperates Catholics and Protestants [Christians] and Mormons. Sure, they all share a smiliar belief, but because Catholics decide they need an intermediary to confess their sins, they are no longer Christian [Protestant]. Sure, Mormons believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, but because they believe that he also traveled to N. America to preach disqualifies them being considered Christian [Protestant] as well.

So, yes Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Eastern Orthodox Church [Catholics] all derive their teachings and such from the same place, but in that case [to a lesser extent], so do Messianic Jews.

You, sir, are clueless... not even deserving of conversation with the intelligent members of this forum.

I see. And judging by your post, you have a greater clue to what is being discussed than I do? Please, enlighten me since you're privy to knowledge that I am not.

Or you could easily say "because Protestants easily decided to not use an intermediary", etc... Again you are injecting your own opinions rather then looking at the facts and history. This is a classic example of why I don't care for religion and especially Christianity as a whole. People become so en-trenched in their own perceptions and religious doctrine that you can't possibly rationally explain things to them. Oh yeah Messianic Jews may accept Christ as the Messiah but they are still Jews because they have not abandoned their Jewish traditions and forms of worship like Christians have. Of course you can argue that they are stuck in the middle of the religious evolutionary process that formed Christianity and separated it from Judaism, a glimpse of the past of some early Christians who were also mostly Jews in the beginning.

lol, Christians not using an intermediary to confess their sins is not opinion! that is FACT. its my opinion that Catholics arent Christian [and Mormons arent Christian], and believe me, that opinion is far from doctrine. And what is this classic example of why do you dont like religion? Because we present facts and then opinions based on those facts that disagree with your beliefs [or opinions]? I think you've become confused in your thinking [or at least in your interpretation of arguments presented], but thats also my opinion.

No it's because you use your opinion to form facts.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Jesus in the stone throwing example, wasn't saying it was okay to be an adulterer, he was saying that it wasn't our place to condemn her when we also sin ourselves. We do receive guidance to treat other people the way we would want to be treated and to forgive them, but that doesn't mean there's no punishment for sin. The Bible states that the wages of sin is death. That adulterer would have had her reckoning if not by Law then before God in judgement. Liberalism, with it's lack or morality, would simply state that she was acting under her natual impulses and shouldn't be blamed nor held accountable for what she did nor given any cause to think what she'd done was wrong.

You just made a great argument against the death penalty. Good job.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski

Jesus was very big on Personal Responsibility, but he was also very big on minding one's own business too. IOW, Jesus would be sure not to sin himself, but he wouldn't get in a huff by other peoples sins.

Is that a joke? Of course Jesus would get into a huff as a result of the sins of mankind. His heart breaks everytime someone sins, and he is the one that carries the brunt of man's sin. Just look at the story of Jesus money changers in the synagogue (John 2):

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

Why don't you read the Bible before commenting on what Jesus would do.

Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion, sorry.

That's like saying you are pro-Nazi but against genocide. I don't think so. If you support it, or standby and watch it happen without doing anything, you are just as guilty as those that commit the sin.

I've read the Bible. Yes, he chased out the Money Changers, but the Mary Magdalene and oher situations point to quite another attitude. On a personal basis Jesus was very forgiving and was criticized quite adamantly for his associations with "sinners". Regarding the Establishment, Jesus was very critical, as your example illustrates as well as many other examples in scripture. It seems rather disheartening to me that so many Christians seem to adhere to the attitudes of the Phariscees while proclaiming Jesus at the same time, of those, the words "I never knew thee" seem to apply.

It boils down to this: Sin is to be avoided by those in the know, to fail to do so is greivous, but "sin" is not to be used as a method of condemnation by those in the know, that in itself is a sin. Jesus harped on this theme constantly, yet still many think of Salvation as a popularity contest and are willing to deceive themselves into thinking they are better than X("X" being a sinner), thus in favour with God. They have totally missed the point and have put themselves into opposition with Jesus.

A big part of the problem here is our concept of "God". There is no God, at least not one we could recognized based upon our ideas of God. When we evoke God, we evoke nonsense that has been formulated over millenia by human concept and imagination, "God" does not exist! Jesus tried to show us this, Salvation is not escape after death, it is the turning of one into a constructor for the benefit of future humanity. It is about our interactions with people and how we treat our fellow man(humans). We are not called to condemn, we are called to Help.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no God, at least not one we could recognized based upon our ideas of God. When we evoke God, we evoke nonsense that has been formulated over millenia by human concept and imagination, "God" does not exist! Jesus tried to show us this, Salvation is not escape after death, it is the turning of one into a constructor for the benefit of future humanity.

So, God is nonsense that in reality, doesn't exist? I thought you said that you've read the Bible. Perhaps you missed the section on God?

I find it humorous that you think you know so much about the Bible and Jesus' intentions, and yet you don't believe in the very core of Christianity. Once again, liberalism at its best...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: sandorski
There is no God, at least not one we could recognized based upon our ideas of God. When we evoke God, we evoke nonsense that has been formulated over millenia by human concept and imagination, "God" does not exist! Jesus tried to show us this, Salvation is not escape after death, it is the turning of one into a constructor for the benefit of future humanity.

So, God is nonsense that in reality, doesn't exist? I thought you said that you've read the Bible. Perhaps you missed the section on God?

I find it humorous that you think you know so much about the Bible and Jesus' intentions, and yet you don't believe in the very core of Christianity. Once again, liberalism at its best...

This isn't about me and my beliefs, which you don't understand. It is about Jesus and his intentions. Not surprised though as you fail to understand "liberalism".

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: xochi

Originally posted by: alchemize
You can be a liberal and a Christian, you'd just have to be a hypocrite

While I agree with this mostly in principle, in reality it doesn't work very well. Example:

I believe abortion is morally wrong (conservative viewpoint), however I don't believe I need to make the decision for others (i.e. make it against the law) (liberal viewpoint), except in certain cases (i.e. minors get parental consent, conservative viewpoint).

I still want to see the article!

I read somewhere that the majority of Catholics, about 60%, vote democrat. I for one am Catholic, Liberal and proud of it.

When you look at what the Catholic Church recent stances you find out that it is against the Iraq War, against the Death Penalty, against Abortion, and Pro-Immigration.

Note we said Christian, not Catholic (another thread altogether there...)

Catholic's are Christians.

no theyre not.



This is all your opinion.

They believe in intermediaries between themselves and God with which to confess their sins. Christians confess their sins to God directly. Not only that, but Christian denominations [the Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc...] DO NOT pray to the Mother Mary, and do not believe in her having any significance other than that of bringing Jesus into the world.

Saying Catholics are Christians is like saying Mormons are Christians.

Fact: Protestants broke away from the original Christian church i.e the Catholic church. Martin Luther left because of corruption and the King of England left because he wanted a divorce from his wife and did not want the church leaders in Rome getting in his way. As for "intermediaries" this has been a tradition in the Christian religion that predated the Protestant break-away from the Church.

You're like a Sunni saying that Shiite's are not Muslim because one believes that the Khalif ( aka head of the Muslim world ) must be appointed from Muhammad's blood line and the other is saying that they should be elected instead. You are just splitting hairs here on traditions of one sect that was the orginal one versus another one which broke away for whatever reason from the main religon that founded both.

ugh, theres to many posts here trying to refute what i have said, but ill just reply to this one for now, then when i get back from physical therapy, ill reply to the others.

yes, I do know so well of the Protestant break from the Catholic church, i read a lot of history. Protestants are Christians, but Protestants are not Catholic. So, if you to play it that way, no, Catholics are not Christians.

Again you are confusing the name of religious doctrines,Catholicism and
Protestantism which deals on how each sect views, and performs the practicing of the teachings of Christ. Again you are wrong and need to think about this a little more. One can easily point out the differences in terms of how each denominations of the Protestant faith practices their particular view of Christianity and disqualify each and every one of them if you only look at one particular standard of worshiping. Again for example Shiites and Sunnis each have different views and practices for the same faith ( Islam ) yet both are clearly muslims.

or here's another example:

Catholicism = A more orthodox view of the Christian faith ( in Western Europe ) in terms of it's leadership structure and what religious text and practices they adhere too. Of course the Eastern Orthodox church is even more orthodox then the Catholic church in several areas which are closer to the orginal teachings of Christ and his early followers.

Protestantism = a reformist view of the Christian faith and it's leadership structure which expanded on the original texts to justify their breaking away from the more orthodox Catholic church in the West and to clear up the rough edges left un-answered or which contradicted itself in previous older religious text used by the Catholic church.

So basically Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Eastern Orthodox Church all evolved from the same Christian seed that grew into a tree but they are different because they are branches that followed their own paths. Yet they are branches connected to the same trunk of core teachings and roots of the same beliefs systems that fed the tree known as Christianty.

no, i dont believe that im confused on the names of the doctrines and how they carry out their beliefs. that [to me anyway] is what seperates them. its all the ridiculous ceremony and ritual practices [and in the case of Mormons, what they've added to the religion] that seperates Catholics and Protestants [Christians] and Mormons. Sure, they all share a smiliar belief, but because Catholics decide they need an intermediary to confess their sins, they are no longer Christian [Protestant]. Sure, Mormons believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins, but because they believe that he also traveled to N. America to preach disqualifies them being considered Christian [Protestant] as well.

So, yes Catholicism, Protestantism, and the Eastern Orthodox Church [Catholics] all derive their teachings and such from the same place, but in that case [to a lesser extent], so do Messianic Jews.

You, sir, are clueless... not even deserving of conversation with the intelligent members of this forum.

I see. And judging by your post, you have a greater clue to what is being discussed than I do? Please, enlighten me since you're privy to knowledge that I am not.

Or you could easily say "because Protestants easily decided to not use an intermediary", etc... Again you are injecting your own opinions rather then looking at the facts and history. This is a classic example of why I don't care for religion and especially Christianity as a whole. People become so en-trenched in their own perceptions and religious doctrine that you can't possibly rationally explain things to them. Oh yeah Messianic Jews may accept Christ as the Messiah but they are still Jews because they have not abandoned their Jewish traditions and forms of worship like Christians have. Of course you can argue that they are stuck in the middle of the religious evolutionary process that formed Christianity and separated it from Judaism, a glimpse of the past of some early Christians who were also mostly Jews in the beginning.

lol, Christians not using an intermediary to confess their sins is not opinion! that is FACT. its my opinion that Catholics arent Christian [and Mormons arent Christian], and believe me, that opinion is far from doctrine. And what is this classic example of why do you dont like religion? Because we present facts and then opinions based on those facts that disagree with your beliefs [or opinions]? I think you've become confused in your thinking [or at least in your interpretation of arguments presented], but thats also my opinion.

No it's because you use your opinion to form facts.

please elaborate.

Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion, sorry.

then [reguarding abortion], if you're pro choice, what is it that you're being an advocate for? are you advocating use of drugs? are you advocating thievery? please help me clear this up, i was always under the impression that pro choice meant pro abortion.

This isn't about me and my beliefs, which you don't understand. It is about Jesus and his intentions. Not surprised though as you fail to understand "liberalism".

ummm, no, this is about your beliefs. you honestly cannot tell us you know what Jesus's intentions were because we [you] were not his disciples when he was roaming the lands. what you are telling us is your interpretation of Jesus's intentions.
i cannot tell you what Jesus's intentions were [are] either, i can only do like you and state my interpretation of what Jesus's message is/was.

You just made a great argument against the death penalty. Good job.

since i havent done any sinning that is deserving of the death penalty, i can cast the first stone [or pull the lever ]

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Drift3r
No it's because you use your opinion to form facts.

please elaborate.

Pro-Choice does not mean Pro-Abortion, sorry.

then [reguarding abortion], if you're pro choice, what is it that you're being an advocate for? are you advocating use of drugs? are you advocating thievery? please help me clear this up, i was always under the impression that pro choice meant pro abortion.

This isn't about me and my beliefs, which you don't understand. It is about Jesus and his intentions. Not surprised though as you fail to understand "liberalism".

ummm, no, this is about your beliefs. you honestly cannot tell us you know what Jesus's intentions were because we [you] were not his disciples when he was roaming the lands. what you are telling us is your interpretation of Jesus's intentions.
i cannot tell you what Jesus's intentions were [are] either, i can only do like you and state my interpretation of what Jesus's message is/was.

You just made a great argument against the death penalty. Good job.

since i havent done any sinning that is deserving of the death penalty, i can cast the first stone [or pull the lever ]

Mostly I wanted to trim the ridiculous nested quoting, but I agree with Drift3r that pro-choice is not at all the same as pro-abortion. Many people, myself included, do not like abortion, but we also do not feel we have the right to impose our belief on others. We support people's right to make their own decision in the matter. Many will chose NOT to have abortions. Many will chose TO have abortions. We support the right to chose the path that best fits their own values and morality.

Christianity is about living the values you believe, not forcing those values on others.

PS. Jesus was a liberal. No doubt about it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Ann Coulter

The only Democrats who go to church regularly are the ones who plan to run for president someday and are preparing in advance to fake a belief in God.

I feel the traditional concept of conservatism has been so utterly butchered by those who call themselves conservatives these days its unbelievable. Conservatism has a religious history in the US, doesn't it? Isn't it about Patriotism? Christian morality? The concept that one should have the freedom to go as far as one's ambitions will take them and the variations in individual ambition is the reason why some are poor and others are rich and so be it?

If so, sign me up for being a conservative.

Just because you can align yourself with a party based on the issue of abortion doesn't mean you have to toe party lines from then on, and drift in whichever trends may follow. Since when is the concept of big government conservative? When is allowing corporations and lobbyists to take control by turning down soft money restrictions, conservative? When is identifying oneself with placing environmental issues dead last, conservative? When is rampant fiscal irresponsibility conservative?

If this is conservative, why are any of us conservatives?

In short, I'm not a liberal because I believe in abortion. Because I don't. And as transparent as it sounds, I'm liberal because I don't believe conservatism really stands for what it should... And because I wholeheartedly believe liberals are not as arrogant and stand for respecting and caring for their fellow neighbors.

As a Christian, I beg to differ with Ann Coulter. I think Jesus would too. Unlike Jesus, Coulter is an elitist hypocrite, and I'm ashamed that we seemlingly share the same faith.

This is probably in response to those candidates that go to church for a photo op, but then dont stay for the service, or to listen to the congrefation. I beleive Lieberman is the only one of the democratic candidates that has not done this.