Does "War in Iraq" define Conservative politics?

[questioner4]

Why are people that self-identify as "Christian," supporting Conservative politics?

Conservatives have ignored or broken international laws to wage a war on Iraq, killing tens of thousands of people. Why do Christians still support Conservativess?

The War In Iraq is to kill tens of thousands of people.

Why would Christians want to be part of a political movement that tens of thousands of people?

Clearly this word "War In Iraq" defines the arrogance and greed that is the "core values" in the Conservative political movement across America today.

Are not Christians "called" to not kill people?

Why do Christians that have read the words of Christ Jesus, "especially on killing people," continue to support Conservative politics?

[AlAyeti]

Why are people that self-identify as "Christian," supporting Conservative politics?

Because Liberal politics is killing our children in the US. Sexual perversion is seen as a civil right and even "marriage" is something that Liberals will redefine to soothe the terrorized minds of sexual deviants.

Conservatives have ignored or broken international laws to wage a war on Iraq, killing tens of thousands of people. Why do Christians still support Conservativess?

America is a secular nation and should care about the death and destruction caused by other countries on their own people that will effect our country.

The US supplied Saddam Hussien with the technology to make weapons of mass destruction and he used that information and slaughtered thousands of his own people. Hussien was literally paying the families of suicide bombers to kill innocent men, women and children in Israel. And since it was suicide murderers that flew planes into the Trade Towers, it was reasonable to believe that Hussien would do the same thing again on a country that waged war on Iraq in the Kuwaiti/Gulf war.

The War In Iraq is to kill tens of thousands of people.

Muslim suicide murderers have been killing innocent people for a long time. The war in Iraq was a war.

Why would Christians want to be part of a political movement that tens of thousands of people?

The entire Catholic Church is opposed to the war in Iraq. And same-sex marriage, homosexuality and redefining the family.

Clearly this word "War In Iraq" defines the arrogance and greed that is the "core values" in the Conservative political movement across America today.

The Christians that have made such an impact on Republican politics can and should continue to change politics to be more like Christ. Certainly arrogance and greed would be eliminated.

Also in stopping the vilification of Christians by Liberals in the Democrat party, would also mean to send Christian missionaries to Iraq to change the hearts and minds of those people to become Christians and live a life like Christ. But only conservatives think that Bible-believing Christians are not bad people.

Are not Christians "called" to not kill people?

100%. The GOP could become a morally better political party if Christians would further take over the goodness inherent in a party that already recognizes that children need a mother and a father and that marriage is a man and a woman exclusively. Together with other absolute Christian teachings of peace, the worlds suffering could be ended in a short time by Christians being what they are.

Why do Christians that have read the words of Christ Jesus, "especially on killing people," continue to support Conservative politics?

Christians live in a secular country and are trying their best to influence the political landscape for a better world. Not only are Muslim's killing innocent, harmless and unarmed Christian missionaries that could end all suffering, but Christians face a Democrat party that hates them and the Gospel of Christ and the truth that is the New Testament.

Unfortunately there is only one political party, the Republicans, that do not vilify and denigrate and outlaw Christians and Christianity or present hate crimes legislation to persecute Christians that teach and preach the true words of the Bible.

If the Democrats would rid themselves of sexual degenerates and Liberal-Progressive socialists bent on eradicating all Christianity from society, then indeed politics would be far different.

[MagusYanam]

Because Liberal politics is killing our children in the US.

Gun crime and gun accidents kill far more children in the US, but conservatives are against any kind of gun registry, however minimal. Why aren't you opposing the Republicans for that?

That aside, where the hell are you getting this 'sexual perversion as a civil right' crap? Gays (I assume they are those to whom you refer) should have the same legal liberties as heterosexuals do - not the right to sexual perversion per se, but the same legal liberties enjoyed by the rest of us.

It's a shame you can't see the difference.

The war in Iraq was a war.

And as such, even according to just-war Christianity, WRONG. It was not declared with the support of the churches and it was not declared with the intent of self-defence. In going to war we alienated our fellow nations. This is immoral in the most drastic sense of the word; nearly every mainline Christian denomination expressed their opposition to the war before it began.

Unfortunately there is only one political party, the Republicans, that do not vilify and denigrate and outlaw Christians and Christianity or present hate crimes legislation to persecute Christians that teach and preach the true words of the Bible.

Is this the same Republican party whose nominal leader had his own Church's bishop arrested?

http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1212

Stop kidding yourself. Bush doesn't even listen to the voices coming from within his own United Methodist Church - the Republicans don't care about the opinions of real Christians, just about getting votes from those that endorse their policies.

The Democratic Party is still being guided and supported by many Christian organisations and churches. We just aren't as readily apparent because we keep getting overshadowed by the fundamentalists who for some reason fit for the media's idea of 'Christian'.

[AlAyeti]

AlAyeti wrote:
Because Liberal politics is killing our children in the US.

Gun crime and gun accidents kill far more children in the US, but conservatives are against any kind of gun registry, however minimal. Why aren't you opposing the Republicans for that?

I don't care one way or the other about guns, I know that Christians cannot use them to promote Christ OR defend themselves against Muslims and others that want to kill them BECAUSE the are Christians AND want them to deny Christ.

Why Liberals do not want to blame the criminals and not the gun owner is the sickness of what has become a Liberal. Honest people should not have to suffer for degenerates that cannot raise their children correctly.

That aside, where the hell are you getting this 'sexual perversion as a civil right' crap?

Nope not homosexuality this time. Californians denying parental rights to their own children is Satanic. It is as evil and perverted as it gets. Abortion is also as evil as it gets and that is a Liberal mantra that has them hypnotized to kill more humans in the womb than have ever fought in wars.

It is hard to imagine why a Liberal would even want to call themselves a Christian when Jesus would not agree with what they believe in and do.

Gays (I assume they are those to whom you refer) should have the same legal liberties as heterosexuals do - not the right to sexual perversion per se, but the same legal liberties enjoyed by the rest of us.

A Christian cannot vote for an abomination. The family is man-woman, husband-wife. I am confident that the Bible and those that believe in it should allow the secular world to destroy itself and have no vote in helping it. All I can say is "Repent!"

It's a shame you can't see the difference.

It is more then a shame that any Christian can lend their support for anti-Christ laws. Children cannot have Christians sentencing them to a life with a mother and a mother. Not even the Serpent in the Garden presented that sin scenario.

AlAyeti wrote:
The war in Iraq was a war.

And as such, even according to just-war Christianity, WRONG. It was not declared with the support of the churches and it was not declared with the intent of self-defence.

If you are going to get all Christianny than please take hold of all of the Gospel, not just whatever gets you through the night.

In going to war we alienated our fellow nations.

Asa Christian do you mean the godless, secular European nations like France or say Holland? No Christian can say these reprobate countries are our allies.

This is immoral in the most drastic sense of the word; nearly every mainline Christian denomination expressed their opposition to the war before it began.

Our President is a secular leader. America is a secular nation. Ask the atheists here at debatingchristianity.com. We see what the Liberals did to the faith-based initiative. Any hint of Christianity being squeaked and O'Reilly had some anti-religionist parading a lawsuit against a Christian org., and what they would suffer for being Christian.

AlAyeti wrote:
Unfortunately there is only one political party, the Republicans, that do not vilify and denigrate and outlaw Christians and Christianity or present hate crimes legislation to persecute Christians that teach and preach the true words of the Bible.

Is this the same Republican party whose nominal leader had his own Church's bishop arrested?

http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1212

Stop kidding yourself. Bush doesn't even listen to the voices coming from within his own United Methodist Church - the Republicans don't care about the opinions of real Christians, just about getting votes from those that endorse their policies.

Real Christians? The ones supporting the war or the ones supporting sodomy as a civil right? I'm cool with using the Bible for judging either.

The Democratic Party is still being guided and supported by many Christian organisations and churches.

Let's see how many would take a Bible test to prove their "Christianity?" I'm willing to go point for point.

We just aren't as readily apparent because we keep getting overshadowed by the fundamentalists who for some reason fit for the media's idea of 'Christian'.

Would those be the fundamentalists that believe that a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves unto his "wife" both becoming one flesh?

Or the ones that think chopping up babies for birth control is wrong?

Or the ones that believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to God?

Or the ones that believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected? Some ultra famous Liberal scholars do not believe the things that define what a Christian "is."

"Real" Christians, unless they file for their own political party have no other choice than the GOP. The abominations that ARE the Democrats are not things that Christians (real Christians) can join forces with.

Anytime Magus, that you want to match up Christian beliefs with the two main political parties in the Untied States, I will go point for point.

You have the correct "Biblical" position on the war (and war), but as far as the Gospels and New Testament are concerned, the Liberals are wrong on everything else.

The poor in Liberal dominated cities are living in squalor and still bringing in child after child to fatherless families. Of course what are the role models held up by Liberals? Snoop Dog? Jesse Jackson? The Reverend that can use the term "my baby's mama" like any good ol' homey on the block? Democrats use the poor far more malevolently than the GOP use Fundamentalist Christians.

And the unbelievable hypocrisy of Liberal Christians when it comes to not opposing Islamic atrocities is as borderline as it gets to complicity.

If you want to walk the path of righteousness, you need to walk down Fundamental Road. It's easy to see. It's the narrow path.

It looks like Democrats are getting good mileage from the very thing that always gets them votes and wins them elections. Death. Evey suicide bomber gets another Liberal one-step closer to the power they need to enforce their will and inflict America with the agenda of abomination once again.

Roe v. Wade is the alter at which all Liberals bow and the innocent lives sacrificed on that alter of sexual sin keeps them alive and wellin a world eager to wipe away culpabilty. It is not surprising that Muslim's slaughtering innocent people worldwide would benefit the party that is the slaughter of the innocents in America.

[MagusYanam]

I am confident that the Bible and those that believe in it should allow the secular world to destroy itself and have no vote in helping it. All I can say is "Repent!"

If you would abandon God's will for the world as Jesus taught us to pray, you sail dire straits. If all you can say is 'repent', I pray for your soul that you're not slated with the Pharisees and the scribes.

If you are going to get all Christianny than please take hold of all of the Gospel, not just whatever gets you through the night.

I'd be more worried for my own understanding of the Gospel if I were you.

Asa Christian do you mean the godless, secular European nations like France or say Holland? No Christian can say these reprobate countries are our allies.

You won't get any argument from me on France, since their stance is somewhat hypocritical. But France is not all our allies. There is also Germany to consider, England, Australia, Japan, South Korea and myriad others where majorities of the population thought the war was wrong, usually on the same moral grounds that Christians here used.

We see what the Liberals did to the faith-based initiative.

You're looking at us. We mainline churches constitute most faith-based initiatives (just not silly crap like 'ten commandments in courthouses' but real moral issues). And much to our chagrin, our opinions count for nothing when weighed against the 'national interest'.

Real Christians? The ones supporting the war or the ones supporting sodomy as a civil right?

Fallacious argument. Straw man. Stop using it.

It's a civil liberties issue, not a sexual one.

Let's see how many would take a Bible test to prove their "Christianity?" I'm willing to go point for point.

Students and ministers from any reputable theological seminary in the nation versus nepotistically selected fundamentalist 'pastors'? What can I say but 'bring it on'? I'll provide the soap-box and get the funding for the moderating panel!

The poor in Liberal dominated cities are living in squalor and still bringing in child after child to fatherless families. Of course what are the role models held up by Liberals? Snoop Dog? Jesse Jackson? The Reverend that can use the term "my baby's mama" like any good ol' homey on the block? Democrats use the poor far more malevolently than the GOP use Fundamentalist Christians.

I'll leave it for others to see just how racist these comments are. I know no 'homeys' that use the term 'my baby's mama'. The only one I know who says that is you, Al.

As far as the poor go? They're actually not as bad off here as they are in, say, the deep South. Why? Because liberals - real Midwest, Mid-Atlantic and New England liberals - put stock in things like 'education' to better our communities. Visit Madison sometime. Or Ithaca. Or any other 'university town'. Sure, there will be poverty, but it won't be anything as bad as in, say, Atlanta or Los Angeles.

And the unbelievable hypocrisy of Liberal Christians when it comes to not opposing Islamic atrocities is as borderline as it gets to complicity.

Islamic fundamentalists don't determine public policy. What would the good be in picketing them? But we opposed Islamic fundamentalism back when arming them was the chic thing for conservatives like Reagan to do (and still do - we oppose the Bush regime's endorsement of the Saudi Islamists). Liberals were the ones hurt worst in 9/11, you'd best be aware, and every state or district which was directly affected by 9/11 went overwhelmingly Democratic.

If you want to walk the path of righteousness, you need to walk down Fundamental Road. It's easy to see. It's the narrow path.

Sorry, I'm not willing to give myself over to an evil that robs me of my rational autonomy. That's not the easy road that Jesus trod, nor the light burden he bade us carry. Righteousness is the path of moral responsibility and reason - the path the Church of England has found best among the Christian denominations these past 1500 years.

Roe v. Wade is the alter at which all Liberals bow and the innocent lives sacrificed on that alter of sexual sin keeps them alive and wellin a world eager to wipe away culpabilty. It is not surprising that Muslim's slaughtering innocent people worldwide would benefit the party that is the slaughter of the innocents in America.

Straw man. You're talking to a pro-life liberal here, a la Dennis Kucinich. You know my stand on abortion - I'd support any limited-abortion policy that would be practicable the way society stands.

So quit using arguments you know are false. Bearing false witness is forbidden you; stop doing it.

[AlAyeti]

Is Conservatism antithetical to being a Christian?

There are immutable facts about God, Jesus and the Gospels. Liberals deny this.

Can a Christian oppose Christ and be a Christian?

Denying Christ means you are not a Christian.

Why would a Christian follow anti-Christian ways?

To be elected a Democrat-Liberal.

[AlAyeti]

AlAyeti wrote:
I am confident that the Bible and those that believe in it should allow the secular world to destroy itself and have no vote in helping it. All I can say is "Repent!"

If you would abandon God's will for the world as Jesus taught us to pray, you sail dire straits. If all you can say is 'repent', I pray for your soul that you're not slated with the Pharisees and the scribes.

My fingers are not shaking. "Thy will be done . . ." means only one thing to marriage, abortion, adultery, promiscuity, and the other forms of hedonism and licentiouseness you hear no preaching against in Liberal Churches.

"I" call on the Name of the Lord. I'm not losing sleep about my eternal home. I believe Jesus is exactly Who and What He is.

AlAyeti wrote:
If you are going to get all Christianny than please take hold of all of the Gospel, not just whatever gets you through the night.

I'd be more worried for my own understanding of the Gospel if I were you

.

Please let's go text for text about pet Liberal politics and theology.

AlAyeti wrote:
Asa Christian do you mean the godless, secular European nations like France or say Holland? No Christian can say these reprobate countries are our allies.

You won't get any argument from me on France, since their stance is somewhat hypocritical. But France is not all our allies. There is also Germany to consider, England, Australia, Japan, South Korea and myriad others where majorities of the population thought the war was wrong, usually on the same moral grounds that Christians here used.

You have a correct view about war and Christ. Unfortunately your positions on same-sex marriage and voting for Liberal-Demoicrats has no footing in the Gospels. Actually, using your logic about war, Christians can neither vote for Democrats or Republicans because both bomb bad guys. I'm with you, let's just get martyred by Muslims.

AlAyeti wrote:
We see what the Liberals did to the faith-based initiative.

You're looking at us. We mainline churches constitute most faith-based initiatives (just not silly crap like 'ten commandments in courthouses' but real moral issues). And much to our chagrin, our opinions count for nothing when weighed against the 'national interest'.

You Liberal Christians not only yoke yourselves TO unbelievers but help them in their abominations. Odd "faith-based" works.

AlAyeti wrote:
Real Christians? The ones supporting the war or the ones supporting sodomy as a civil right?

Fallacious argument. Straw man. Stop using it.

Straw man? That is denying the truth. You cannot use the Gospels and New Testament on war and killing and forget it about other wrongs. Though, having studied what Liberal-Christianty actually does, they actually do discard the Gospel truth whenever it offends a sinner.

It's a civil liberties issue, not a sexual one.

I can just see and hear the Disciple asking Jesus: "Ahh, umm, is it OK if we let these children have abortions? They are worried they won't fit into their prom dresses next month.

Christians taht support the civil liberties of anti-Christs have an odd view of "being" a Christian.

AlAyeti wrote:
Let's see how many would take a Bible test to prove their "Christianity?" I'm willing to go point for point.

Students and ministers from any reputable theological seminary in the nation versus nepotistically selected fundamentalist 'pastors'? What can I say but 'bring it on'? I'll provide the soap-box and get the funding for the moderating panel!

You provide the soap box and I will clean the floor with these hypocrites in five minutes.

AlAyeti wrote:
The poor in Liberal dominated cities are living in squalor and still bringing in child after child to fatherless families. Of course what are the role models held up by Liberals? Snoop Dog? Jesse Jackson? The Reverend that can use the term "my baby's mama" like any good ol' homey on the block? Democrats use the poor far more malevolently than the GOP use Fundamentalist Christians.

I'll leave it for others to see just how racist these comments are. I know no 'homeys' that use the term 'my baby's mama'. The only one I know who says that is you, Al.

Oops, I guess the 25-year old that told me about the two young women that bore his children didn't really refer to them as "my baby's mama" on more than one occasion. But then again maybe I have it backwards? What about the movie "MY Baby's Daddy?"

Save your racism comments for a better time to implement ad hom.

My Baby's Daddy (2004)
Directed by
Cheryl Dunye

Writing credits (WGA)
Eddie Griffin (written by) &
Damon 'Coke' Daniels (written by) ...
(more)

Genre: Comedy (more)

Tagline: They're going from players to playtime.

Plot Outline: A trio of young men (Griffin, Anderson, and Imperioli) are forced to grow up quick when their girlfriends all become pregnant around the same time. (more)

///

As far as the poor go? They're actually not as bad off here as they are in, say, the deep South. Why? Because liberals - real Midwest, Mid-Atlantic and New England liberals - put stock in things like 'education' to better our communities. Visit Madison sometime. Or Ithaca. Or any other 'university town'. Sure, there will be poverty, but it won't be anything as bad as in, say, Atlanta or Los Angeles.

Inner cities are Democrat strongholds. Do the math.

AlAyeti wrote:
And the unbelievable hypocrisy of Liberal Christians when it comes to not opposing Islamic atrocities is as borderline as it gets to complicity.

Islamic fundamentalists don't determine public policy. What would the good be in picketing them? But we opposed Islamic fundamentalism back when arming them was the chic thing for conservatives like Reagan to do (and still do - we oppose the Bush regime's endorsement of the Saudi Islamists). Liberals were the ones hurt worst in 9/11, you'd best be aware, and every state or district which was directly affected by 9/11 went overwhelmingly Democratic.

Just proves the mindlessness (bobbleheadism) of Liberal political adherents and proponents. Those people in New York also want unhindered abortion. And I'll let Greenwich Village alone.

AlAyeti wrote:
If you want to walk the path of righteousness, you need to walk down Fundamental Road. It's easy to see. It's the narrow path.

Sorry, I'm not willing to give myself over to an evil that robs me of my rational autonomy. That's not the easy road that Jesus trod, nor the light burden he bade us carry. Righteousness is the path of moral responsibility and reason - the path the Church of England has found best among the Christian denominations these past 1500 years.

Would that be the Church of England that forced people to flee England for America? I cannot go further on what you will not give yourself over to.

AlAyeti wrote:
Roe v. Wade is the alter at which all Liberals bow and the innocent lives sacrificed on that alter of sexual sin keeps them alive and wellin a world eager to wipe away culpabilty. It is not surprising that Muslim's slaughtering innocent people worldwide would benefit the party that is the slaughter of the innocents in America.

Straw man. You're talking to a pro-life liberal here, a la Dennis Kucinich. You know my stand on abortion - I'd support any limited-abortion policy that would be practicable the way society stands.

I don't think Jesus would let those prom girls kill their unborn children. Do you? I'll even let you refer me to one of those Liberal theologians!

So quit using arguments you know are false. Bearing false witness is forbidden you; stop doing it.

"By their fruit you will know them." There is only dead children from Liberal politics. Denying that you are supporting Liberals and their relentless march of unfettered hedonism is not in keeping with being able to see the fruit falling off Liberal trees.

[MagusYanam]

"I" call on the Name of the Lord. I'm not losing sleep about my eternal home.

'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in Heaven. On that day, many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out daemons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?" Then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers."' (St. Matthew 7:21-23)

There's virtue in humility, something the fundamentalists have forgotten long ago. It does you no credit to claim that 'you' call on the Name of the Lord - you have to put your money where your mouth is.

Unfortunately your positions on same-sex marriage and voting for Liberal-Demoicrats has no footing in the Gospels.

You're right. Jesus never mentioned same-sex marriage (though he did mention divorce a lot), and the Democrats as they are today didn't really come about until the days of Franklin Roosevelt.

Times change, so we apply the Gospels where we can, and use our considered moral judgment where we can't.

Actually, using your logic about war, Christians can neither vote for Democrats or Republicans because both bomb bad guys. I'm with you, let's just get martyred by Muslims.

You're constructing so many straw men I'm surprised you don't have hay fever. Self-defence is acceptable by Christian just war theory. This war was not self-defence, however, and it was not declared in a manner in which Augustine would have approved (and Jesus would not have approved in any case).

You Liberal Christians not only yoke yourselves TO unbelievers but help them in their abominations. Odd "faith-based" works.

http://www.madison.com/communities/ihn/
http://www.episcopalcharities.com/
http://www.mcc.org/
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/submi ... f_war.html

You have a strange 'definition' of 'abomination'. I named just a few examples, I could easily have gotten a dozen more.

Christians taht support the civil liberties of anti-Christs have an odd view of "being" a Christian.

So you're advocating theocracy? Thanks for making my case for me. In a democracy, you have to allow bad speech with good - it's the only way people can reason themselves toward the good.

Civil liberties are in themselves a moral good. Just look up Immanuel Kant or any other Christian ethicist.

Just proves the mindlessness (bobbleheadism) of Liberal political adherents and proponents.

Go ahead and blame the victim. I submit, however, that it's a better representation of how poorly Bush allayed public fears of terrorism and handled the war on terror abroad.

Would that be the Church of England that forced people to flee England for America?

Read your history. The C of E didn't 'force' anyone to flee for America. Verifiable historical fact. It did, however, not allow them to become clergy (for obvious reasons - the Puritans wanted to undo the Elizabethan Religious Settlements of 1559). The Puritans left England because they wanted to found their own little Puritans-only theocracy (which they did). In fact, many Puritan-leaning Englishmen stayed behind and became the Presbyterians and the Low Church within the Church of England (the Roundheads, as they were called back in the day).

I don't think Jesus would let those prom girls kill their unborn children. Do you? I'll even let you refer me to one of those Liberal theologians!

I think he'd have said it was wrong, if that's what you mean. As do I. That having been said, until I see something solid and practicable which will effectively reduce the number of abortions in this country, anti-abortion activists have no valid reason to complain to me about it.

There is only dead children from Liberal politics. Denying that you are supporting Liberals and their relentless march of unfettered hedonism is not in keeping with being able to see the fruit falling off Liberal trees.

I am a liberal and proud of it. I stand against war, for economic egalitarianism and for greater environmental wisdom. Nowhere does that imply that I am a hedonist or a pervert (and, being a liberal deontologist, I can be neither).

We have the fruits of people like Walter Rauschenbusch, Henry Emerson Fosdick, Reinhold Niebuhr, Edgar S. Brightman and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. to signify what we stand for in terms of war, economic egalitarianism and the environment.

Oops, I guess the 25-year old that told me about the two young women that bore his children didn't really refer to them as "my baby's mama" on more than one occasion. But then again maybe I have it backwards? What about the movie "MY Baby's Daddy?"

Using that as an example is no better than using the Onion to justify book-burnings of Harry Potter. I notice the 'genre' heading read comedy. As in not a realistic representation of real life.

It's worth noting that one twenty-five-year-old man does not the entire African-American community make. If that's what you're trying to imply with that little anecdote (what all 'homeys' think or say), that's racism and I deplore it.

[juliod]

I think he'd have said it was wrong, if that's what you mean. As do I. That having been said, until I see something solid and practicable which will effectively reduce the number of abortions in this country, anti-abortion activists have no valid reason to complain to me about it.

I'm intrigued as to why you think Jesus would think abortion is wrong (Al too). I think you are projecting your modern moral views backwards.

Jesus would have quoted Old Testement Law, as he tended to do. He would have pointed out that the Law does not prescribe punishment for causing a misscarriage unless the husband wants to impose a fine.

He might have pointed out that the immortal soul is not harmed by abortion, and the ultimate destiny of the soul is not alter either.

DanZ

[AlAyeti]

AlAyeti wrote:
"I" call on the Name of the Lord. I'm not losing sleep about my eternal home.

'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in Heaven. On that day, many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out daemons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?" Then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers."' (St. Matthew 7:21-23)

Good quote. Not anyone that performs a same-sex weddings can use the word Lord either unless it is to ask for forgiveness for violating God's will.
Pretty hard to cast out demons when they are witnesses in what is happening in a Liberal church.

There's virtue in humility, something the fundamentalists have forgotten long ago. It does you no credit to claim that 'you' call on the Name of the Lord - you have to put your money where your mouth is.

There are very, very few Christians on this website that will stand up to Liberals-agnostics-progressives-atheists-freethinkers . . . yada, yada. There is virtue in fighting against those that attack Christ and the Gospel.

AlAyeti wrote:
Unfortunately your positions on same-sex marriage and voting for Liberal-Demoicrats has no footing in the Gospels.

You're right. Jesus never mentioned same-sex marriage (though he did mention divorce a lot), and the Democrats as they are today didn't really come about until the days of Franklin Roosevelt.

Times change, so we apply the Gospels where we can, and use our considered moral judgment where we can't.

And? Have chosen to go against the Word of god. Literally. Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. For THIS REASON (marriage) a man leaves his family and cleaves unto his wife (a woman). You have chosen the wide path theologically.

AlAyeti wrote:
Actually, using your logic about war, Christians can neither vote for Democrats or Republicans because both bomb bad guys. I'm with you, let's just get martyred by Muslims.

You're constructing so many straw men I'm surprised you don't have hay fever. Self-defence is acceptable by Christian just war theory. This war was not self-defence, however, and it was not declared in a manner in which Augustine would have approved (and Jesus would not have approved in any case).

There is no justifiable war in any quote from Jesus in the Gospels. What we Christians need to do is remove ourselves from politics and let the secular (and Muslim) world do with us what it will. And it won't be pretty.

There is no just "Christian war." Are you already stumping for Hilary?

AlAyeti wrote:
You Liberal Christians not only yoke yourselves TO unbelievers but help them in their abominations. Odd "faith-based" works.

http://www.madison.com/communities/ihn/
http://www.episcopalcharities.com/
http://www.mcc.org/
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/submi ... f_war.html

You have a strange 'definition' of 'abomination'. I named just a few examples, I could easily have gotten a dozen more.

Abortion and sexualizing the youth are pet Liberal civil rights. WWJD?

AlAyeti wrote:
Christians taht support the civil liberties of anti-Christs have an odd view of "being" a Christian.

So you're advocating theocracy?

Try to stick to debating my points and not putting words into my keyboard. Christians have no business anymore in American politics.

Thanks for making my case for me. In a democracy, you have to allow bad speech with good - it's the only way people can reason themselves toward the good.

This just proves my point that Liberals yoke themselves with unbelievers.

Civil liberties are in themselves a moral good. Just look up Immanuel Kant or any other Christian ethicist.

I choose to think for myself. Dead philosophers of yestercentury are truly meaningless in society that cannot judge right from wrong anymore.

AlAyeti wrote:
Just proves the mindlessness (bobbleheadism) of Liberal political adherents and proponents.

Go ahead and blame the victim. I submit, however, that it's a better representation of how poorly Bush allayed public fears of terrorism and handled the war on terror abroad.

The only victims of Liberal politics are slaughtered unborn children and the fathers and mothers of those decadent lifestyles promoted by Liberal politics.

AlAyeti wrote:
Would that be the Church of England that forced people to flee England for America?

Read your history. The C of E didn't 'force' anyone to flee for America. Verifiable historical fact. It did, however, not allow them to become clergy (for obvious reasons - the Puritans wanted to undo the Elizabethan Religious Settlements of 1559). The Puritans left England because they wanted to found their own little Puritans-only theocracy (which they did). In fact, many Puritan-leaning Englishmen stayed behind and became the Presbyterians and the Low Church within the Church of England (the Roundheads, as they were called back in the day).

I'm sorry I missed the point that proved that the Church of England was intolerant? Oh yeah, there it is. I just reread your last paragraph.

AlAyeti wrote:
I don't think Jesus would let those prom girls kill their unborn children. Do you? I'll even let you refer me to one of those Liberal theologians!

I think he'd have said it was wrong, if that's what you mean. As do I. That having been said, until I see something solid and practicable which will effectively reduce the number of abortions in this country, anti-abortion activists have no valid reason to complain to me about it.

Something "solid" and "practicable?" How about preaching the Gospel? You know something "solid" and "practicable." You have no Liberal role models to present to these promiscuous children do you?

But that aside for the moment, you just spun the response to my question with effortless political ease. "I think he'd say it was wrong."

You think "He" Christ Jesus, would "say" that it was wrong?

Oh my goodness. Man I don't need much more proof of Liberal theology being outside the pale of orthodoxy than your response.

AlAyeti wrote:
There is only dead children from Liberal politics. Denying that you are supporting Liberals and their relentless march of unfettered hedonism is not in keeping with being able to see the fruit falling off Liberal trees.

I am a liberal and proud of it. I stand against war, for economic egalitarianism and for greater environmental wisdom.

Does this sentence actually mean something? What is it that you are standing against? If war is not for economic and egalitarian and evironmental wisdom can it be waged?

Nowhere does that imply that I am a hedonist or a pervert (and, being a liberal deontologist, I can be neither).

I believe you. But why support and celebrate hedonists and perverts? WWJD?

We have the fruits of people like Walter Rauschenbusch, Henry Emerson Fosdick, Reinhold Niebuhr, Edgar S. Brightman and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. to signify what we stand for in terms of war, economic egalitarianism and the environment.

OK. But when gas is seven-dollars a gallon becasue environmentalists refuse to allow the trillions of barrels of crude oil that exists in abundance from being refined how will all of the poor and middle-class not suffer in unmeasurable ways?

AlAyeti wrote:
Oops, I guess the 25-year old that told me about the two young women that bore his children didn't really refer to them as "my baby's mama" on more than one occasion. But then again maybe I have it backwards? What about the movie "MY Baby's Daddy?"

Using that as an example is no better than using the Onion to justify book-burnings of Harry Potter. I notice the 'genre' heading read comedy. As in not a realistic representation of real life.

I guess I'm not as fundamenalist as I think. I have no problem with my children watching H. Potter movies. I just remind them it is a fantasy like the Origins of Species.

It's worth noting that one twenty-five-year-old man does not the entire African-American community make. If that's what you're trying to imply with that little anecdote (what all 'homeys' think or say), that's racism and I deplore it.

Ad hom instead of just facing facts. Typical. Is Bill Cosby a racist too? And Martin Luther King Jr.? Not much content in a worthless fathers character.