NationStates Jolt Archive

The problem for Christians when deciding upon who to vote for in any political situation (British, American, French, Italian etc) is that the core principals of Christianity in terms of practise, not belief are split between Conservatisim and Socialism. In terms of Conservatism there is the element of social moral practise IE the support of family values, the sanctity of life etc where as the Socialistim there is the element of economic moral practise IE helping the poor, giving essential services to those who need them not those who can pay etc. The right refuses to give out help to the poor and the left refuses to enforce moral values. In this respect there is a grave problem for Christians when comming to politics. It seems that no party is willing to attempt to merge right-wing soacial morals with left wing economic morals. Therefore I would like to ask some questions of people here

1. Do people understand what I am saying, can you see the issue's problems?
2. What can be done about this situation from a Christian perspective?

2. What can be done about this situation from a Christian perspective?

You're not talking about a Christian perspective. You're talking about an Avalonian perspective. Most Christians here are liberal and do not want ancient morality impressed on others. So, please, stop speaking like you think you know what the Christian perspective is and that you can represent it.

You're not talking about a Christian perspective. You're talking about an Avalonian perspective. Most Christians here are liberal and do not want ancient morality impressed on others. So, please, stop speaking like you think you know what the Christian perspective is and that you can represent it.

If he's wrong, then fine, but you don't need to pounce on him for that. The last comment was totally unnecessary.

A man named Jesus once commanded Christians to keep their faith in the closet. Forcing it on other people is not keeping it in the closet.

If he's wrong, then fine, but you don't need to pounce on him for that. The last comment was totally unnecessary.

I guess you are unfamiliar with Avalon's usurping of Christianity to be what (s)he claims it is? Stick around for a while, you'll see that the comment was not unwarranted.

If he's wrong, then fine, but you don't need to pounce on him for that. The last comment was totally unnecessary.
No it isn't. Assuming that every Christian alive shares your own perspective to the last little detail is a tad solipsistic, I'd have said.

In this respect there is a grave problem for Christians when comming to politics. It seems that no party is willing to attempt to merge right-wing soacial morals with left wing economic morals.
This is because Religion hasn't been a major factor in the Political process since the Industrial revolution.

If he's wrong, then fine, but you don't need to pounce on him for that. The last comment was totally unnecessary.
Fass has a point. Avalon has a tendency to assume everyone thinks like he does.

I personally feel your statement on right-wing morals is dubious. The only difference between the left and right with regards to morality is Enforcement. What would you rather do; force someone to do exactly what you think they should do or allow them to make the odd mistake, experience the consequences and rectify their behaviour for themselves?

Guess what God does.

I guess you are unfamiliar with Avalon's usurping of Christianity to be what (s)he claims it is? Stick around for a while, you'll see that the comment was not unwarranted.

Oh, alright then, I shall see. (I thought this was like a one time thing)

What would you rather do; force someone to do exactly what you think they should do or allow them to make the odd mistake, experience the consequences and rectify their behaviour for themselves?
I'd hazard a guess as to what Avalon's approach to this would be...

God? Ha! Why would anybody worship a being willing to give Jim Carrey his powers!? It makes no sense!

You're not talking about a Christian perspective. You're talking about an Avalonian perspective. Most Christians here are liberal and do not want ancient morality impressed on others. So, please, stop speaking like you think you know what the Christian perspective is and that you can represent it.

Its a government from a Christian perspective. A government enforces things on people. And all the Christians in my Church, indeed all I have met in my country (Britain) agree that the responability of a Christian party would be to encourage Christian morals in all senses. However they do see that there is a split in the sense that economic morals are championed by socialism and social morals by conservatisim.

God? Ha! Why would anybody worship a being willing to give Jim Carrey his powers!? It makes no sense!

Because He's Morgan Freeman duh! And He's just a legend ;) :p

The problem for Christians when deciding upon who to vote for in any political situation (British, American, French, Italian etc) is that the core principals of Christianity in terms of practise, not belief are split between Conservatisim and Socialism.

In terms of Conservatism there is the element of social moral practise IE the support of family values, the sanctity of life etc where as the Socialistim there is the element of economic moral practise IE helping the poor, giving essential services to those who need them not those who can pay etc. The right refuses to give out help to the poor and the left refuses to enforce moral values. In this respect there is a grave problem for Christians when comming to politics. It seems that no party is willing to attempt to merge right-wing soacial morals with left wing economic morals. Therefore I would like to ask some questions of people here

1. Do people understand what I am saying, can you see the issue's problems?
2. What can be done about this situation from a Christian perspective?
1. Yes I understand what you are saying. Christianity roughly supports socialism.

I question the claim that conservatives support family values. The left supports child benefit money for parents. This means that the mother can stay at home and look after the children while the father works. Many conservatives support extreme capitalism, an enemy of family values. In such a system both parents are forced to work, leaving children to the (usually) inferior system of paid childcare.

A man named Jesus once commanded Christians to keep their faith in the closet. Forcing it on other people is not keeping it in the closet.
That is true. Most politicians, particularly those in America, who claim to represent Christian values remind me of the Pharisees.

Because He's Morgan Freeman duh! And He's just a legend ;) :p
well yeah.. but still... Jim Carrey! Damn Jim Carrey!

1. Do people understand what I am saying, can you see the issue's problems?
2. What can be done about this situation from a Christian perspective?
1. I understand what you're saying, although I don't agree with it.

2. Support private funding of social programs. "Problem" solved. :D

Fass has a point. Avalon has a tendency to assume everyone thinks like he does.

I personally feel your statement on right-wing morals is dubious. The only difference between the left and right with regards to morality is Enforcement. What would you rather do; force someone to do exactly what you think they should do or allow them to make the odd mistake, experience the consequences and rectify their behaviour for themselves?

Guess what God does.

I agree that God allows people to make mistakes but I think that the Bible makes it clear that it would be better if they didnt make the mistakes at all. My point being that left wing ideas of morality basicly say that everyone can do whatever they want as long as it doesnt harm anyone. That is not what the Bible encorages.

I agree that God allows people to make mistakes but I think that the Bible makes it clear that it would be better if they didnt make the mistakes at all. My point being that left wing ideas of morality basicly say that everyone can do whatever they want as long as it doesnt harm anyone. That is not what the Bible encorages.

If it doesn't harm anyone, then why the hell do you care? As long as they're also a productive member of society, leave them alone.

I think you should leave people alone to do what they want to do, not what you want them to do. So long as they don't harm anyone and they continue to be useful members of society, then I say let them do what they want.

I agree that God allows people to make mistakes but I think that the Bible makes it clear that it would be better if they didnt make the mistakes at all. My point being that left wing ideas of morality basicly say that everyone can do whatever they want as long as it doesnt harm anyone. That is not what the Bible encorages.
So it's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do", is it?

Sorry, I don't buy that. There is more to God than the Bible, the church and miracle-waving evangelism, and I sometimes fear that Christians forget that all too often.

Jesus's message was get along with each other with God always there with you. That was it. As long as you hold to those tenants, what exactly is the problem?

1. Do people understand what I am saying, can you see the issue's problems?
Not at all, but my experience with American pseudo-Cheistians is limited, thankfully. In these parts, Christians try to live in accordance with the Bible, and that includes letting people live how they want, sinners & saints alike. Sure, a few are quite vocal about how the Bible says humans should live, but they do not try to force this on others.

To 99% of all shades of Christians here, what you are asking for (policy based on the Bible) is anathema to their faith. I doubt you'll find many Christians here, who'd call you a Christian. It's not my place to judge, but I wouldn't either.
2. What can be done about this situation from a Christian perspective?
From a Christian perspective? Well... You could start by actually reading the Bible, instead of succumbing to peer pressure from your flock & clergy. False prophets abounds you know ;)
Evangelising isn't something you should do with brute force - that includes outlawing things you consider sins. It's all about helping people realizing themselves & finding God. Man-made laws regarding these things are the exact opposite of what Jesus - your saviour & teacher - tells you to do.

So from a strictly Christian POV, you should probably start voting for the American Commie party.. Or at least not the neo-Cons. The Bible tells you to help others & help others BE HAPPY. It's the CENTRAL POINT OF CHRISTIANITY - which you fallaciously claim to believe in.

From an Atheist pseudo-anarchistic, and pretty militant POV, I recommend you jump off a skyscraper.

In these parts, Christians try to live in accordance with the Bible, and that includes letting people live how they want, sinners & saints alike. Sure, a few are quite vocal about how the Bible says humans should live, but they do not try to force this on others.

To 99% of all shades of Christians here, what you are asking for (policy based on the Bible) is anathema to their faith. I doubt you'll find many Christians here, who'd call you a Christian. It's not my place to judge, but I wouldn't either.

Evangelising isn't something you should do with brute force - that includes outlawing things you consider sins. It's all about helping people realizing themselves & finding God. Man-made laws regarding these things are the exact opposite of what Jesus - your saviour & teacher - tells you to do.

So from a strictly Christian POV, you should probably start voting for the American Commie party.. Or at least not the neo-Cons. The Bible tells you to help others & help others BE HAPPY. It's the CENTRAL POINT OF CHRISTIANITY - which you fallaciously claim to believe in.
Oh, man! There's so much wrong with that I scarce know where to begin!

If you believe the Bible, you're called to help the poor, but voting for those who force everyone to help the poor ( via taxes ) is equivalent to passing laws that forbid abortion or which requre teaching "creationism" in public schools.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Christian faith is personal on all levels for all things, or it requires you to legislate everything the Bible teaches. Make up your mind! :headbang:

force everyone to help the poor ( via taxes )

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

Jesus likes taxes. :p

Oh, man! There's so much wrong with that I scarce know where to begin!

If you believe the Bible, you're called to help the poor, but voting for those who force everyone to help the poor ( via taxes ) is equivalent to passing laws that forbid abortion or which requre teaching "creationism" in public schools.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Christian faith is personal on all levels for all things, or it requires you to legislate everything the Bible teaches. Make up your mind! :headbang:
So much.. So incredibly much.. Still you're right. He should be voting for the anarchists or the libertarians. Sorry, wasn't thinking.

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

Jesus likes taxes. :p
ROFLMAO!!! As IF!

Fass, you're ... impossible! ;)

ROFLMAO!!! As IF!

Fass, you're ... impossible! ;)
- Impossible not to adore you mean :p

ROFLMAO!!! As IF!

Matthew 22:
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute [NKJV: pay taxes] unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute [NKJV: tax] money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Romans 13:
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute [NKJV: taxes] also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due [NKJV: taxes to whom taxes are due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Fass, you're ... impossible! ;)

No, Jesus is.

No, Jesus is.
It doesn't mean he likes taxes. Just that he agrees with paying taxes while under the rule of someone who uses taxation.

It doesn't mean he likes taxes. Just that he agrees with paying taxes while under the rule of someone who uses taxation.
weeeell.. If you're gonna model your life around the stuff he said, your personal interpretations kinda ruin the point, eh?

You're not talking about a Christian perspective. You're talking about an Avalonian perspective. Most Christians here are liberal and do not want ancient morality impressed on others. So, please, stop speaking like you think you know what the Christian perspective is and that you can represent it.

That's true. There is nothing inherently Christian about conservatism. Rather, the political victory of conservatives (in this country, and some others) is that they have convinced Christians that any and all attacks on "traditional values" are by virtue of that very fact attacks on Christian values.

In other words, they imply a slippery slope argument the end result of which is atheism. In fact, this need not be the case. Indeed, in American history many of our most vocal progressive voices have been Christian, e.g. Martin Luther King, Jr.

It is a further victory of the Right that people now identify "values" and "morals" strictly with things like sex, language, and reproduction. I am sure Dr. King would object that "equality," "freedom," and "justice" are perfectly fine moral values.

weeeell.. If you're gonna model your life around the stuff he said, your personal interpretations kinda ruin the point, eh?
I'm a philosopher. Personal interpretations are the way to go. =P

Fass has a point. Avalon has a tendency to assume everyone thinks like he does.

I personally feel your statement on right-wing morals is dubious. The only difference between the left and right with regards to morality is Enforcement. What would you rather do; force someone to do exactly what you think they should do or allow them to make the odd mistake, experience the consequences and rectify their behaviour for themselves?

Guess what God does.

<claps>

I agree that God allows people to make mistakes but I think that the Bible makes it clear that it would be better if they didnt make the mistakes at all. My point being that left wing ideas of morality basicly say that everyone can do whatever they want as long as it doesnt harm anyone. That is not what the Bible encorages.

The left wing supports Wicca?

And yeah, we all know what the bible encourages. War and rape and pillaging and slavery... You don't have to remind us.

A man named Jesus once commanded Christians to keep their faith in the closet. Forcing it on other people is not keeping it in the closet.
do you have scriptural reference for that statement?

<snip>


No, Jesus is.
Mathew 22 is just a matter of interpretation.
Mathew22:18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

I think this makes it obvious that the people talking to jesus is trying to trick him into saying that you shouldn't pay your taxes. I imagine that the Romans wouldn't be too pleased about someone with such a following as Jesus telling people not to pay taxes.
Mathew22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's;and unto God the things that are God's .
It doesn't matter who made the money. It belongs to God.

And as for Romans 13: you've quoted it completely out of context. The passage is about giving money to church. 13:8 continues "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."

do you have scriptural reference for that statement?

I've got some pretty specific references of him telling people to do just the opposite...

I've got some pretty specific references of him telling people to do just the opposite...
You can find pretty specific references for just about anything.
You'll notice, though, that those segments in Matthew and Mark are rather brief, and the message isn't noted at all in Luke or Acts (the external observer's account). I kinda get the feeling Matt and Mark mightn't have been too comfortable about what they wrote, as though it kinda missed the point of what the rest of the Gospel was about. But that's digressing. ^^;

You can find pretty specific references for just about anything.
You'll notice, though, that those segments in Matthew and Mark are rather brief, and the message isn't noted at all in Luke or Acts (the external observer's account). I kinda get the feeling Matt and Mark mightn't have been too comfortable about what they wrote, as though it kinda missed the point of what the rest of the Gospel was about. But that's digressing. ^^;

What do you mean?

Mathew 22 is just a matter of interpretation.

I think this makes it obvious that the people talking to jesus is trying to trick him into saying that you shouldn't pay your taxes. I imagine that the Romans wouldn't be too pleased about someone with such a following as Jesus telling people not to pay taxes.

It doesn't matter who made the money. It belongs to God.

And as for Romans 13: you've quoted it completely out of context. The passage is about giving money to church. 13:8 continues "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law."

You mean to tell me Bible quotes can be used to prove whatever the hell you want? Get out!

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

Jesus likes taxes. :p
W00t, someone knows their biblical gospel. Yes, since Jesus is a prophet and speaks for God ( Heavenly Father) here we know God too likes Taxes.

So Tax evasion is a big sin (not just a crime).

So did you just remember that or do you know your bible well?


And yeah, we all know what the bible encourages. War and rape and pillaging and slavery... You don't have to remind us.

Actually only when a prophet says it is okay (asks God). Seeing as the only prophet living today is in the Latterday Saint church and they aren't starting wars: it doesn't matter if in the past he encourages it.

Actually it condemns slavery permanent: After the 7th year, you must free them or you are sinning.

Not at all, but my experience with American pseudo-Cheistians is limited, thankfully. In these parts, Christians try to live in accordance with the Bible, and that includes letting people live how they want, sinners & saints alike. Sure, a few are quite vocal about how the Bible says humans should live, but they do not try to force this on others.

To 99% of all shades of Christians here, what you are asking for (policy based on the Bible) is anathema to their faith. I doubt you'll find many Christians here, who'd call you a Christian. It's not my place to judge, but I wouldn't either.

I dont think you understand my postion I am explaining. When I say Christianity in government I dont mean legislating Christian belief IE make it law to belive that Jesus is the way, truth and life. What I mean is that they should legislate in ways to promote Christian moral standards. These standards however have been split across the left wing and the right wing. The left wing have taken the economic morals and the right wing the social ones.

The left wing supports Wicca?

And yeah, we all know what the bible encourages. War and rape and pillaging and slavery... You don't have to remind us.

Ive already explained to you that if you want to discuss the old testement actions of the isralites, make your own thread. In the meantime, look here

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

Oh, man! There's so much wrong with that I scarce know where to begin!

If you believe the Bible, you're called to help the poor, but voting for those who force everyone to help the poor ( via taxes ) is equivalent to passing laws that forbid abortion or which requre teaching "creationism" in public schools.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Christian faith is personal on all levels for all things, or it requires you to legislate everything the Bible teaches. Make up your mind! :headbang:

The Christian faith is personal. But as a Christian politican you must consider what the Bible says when you are legislating.

That's true. There is nothing inherently Christian about conservatism. Rather, the political victory of conservatives (in this country, and some others) is that they have convinced Christians that any and all attacks on "traditional values" are by virtue of that very fact attacks on Christian values.

In other words, they imply a slippery slope argument the end result of which is atheism. In fact, this need not be the case. Indeed, in American history many of our most vocal progressive voices have been Christian, e.g. Martin Luther King, Jr.

It is a further victory of the Right that people now identify "values" and "morals" strictly with things like sex, language, and reproduction. I am sure Dr. King would object that "equality," "freedom," and "justice" are perfectly fine moral values.

I agree. Conservatism does not have a monopoly on Christianity. That is the point I am making. The problem with the Christian ideal is that the ideas have been split with no one group championing all the ideas.

What do you mean?
Matthew 26:47 to 27:66 is, in my NIV, 3 and a half pages long, chronicling Jesus being arrested and crucified. Matthew 28, being only 20 verses long, is barely a page. After having gone into considerable detail throughout the life of Christ, Matthew basically ends with:

"Oh, and Jesus came back to life a few days later like he told us, by the way. He said we should go tell people."

It's a Postscript. Or, at least, that's what it seems like. After charting in great detail what his master said and did, this just seems like he's thrown a little bit afterwards.

Mark is the same. Mark 14:43 to 15:47 is about 4 pages long, while Mark 16 is barely one that reads in a comparatively dry tone to some of the rest of the book (incidentally throwing in a little speech that isn't mentioned anywhere else in the other 3 gospels).

Doesn't that seem a little odd? With something as world shattering as the revival of their slain leader, you'd have thought it would get significantly more attention and be noted with more accuracy than that.

The only obvious explanation is that writing about it made them uncomfortable. Perhaps they were unsure of what they were claiming, perhaps they were simply relaying the tales of their fellow disciples, or perhaps there was a little bit of ad-libbing going on there to make a point. The latter seems unlikely with Mark though; the whole of his Gospel is written in the background of the divine secret, and Jesus appearing at the end requesting the 11 to go and tell everyone seems a massive contradiction.

Matthew 26:47 to 27:66 is, in my NIV, 3 and a half pages long, chronicling Jesus being arrested and crucified. Matthew 28, being only 20 verses long, is barely a page. After having gone into considerable detail throughout the life of Christ, Matthew basically ends with:

"Oh, and Jesus came back to life a few days later like he told us, by the way. He said we should go tell people."

It's a Postscript. Or, at least, that's what it seems like. After charting in great detail what his master said and did, this just seems like he's thrown a little bit afterwards.

Mark is the same. Mark 14:43 to 15:47 is about 4 pages long, while Mark 16 is barely one that reads in a comparatively dry tone to some of the rest of the book (incidentally throwing in a little speech that isn't mentioned anywhere else in the other 3 gospels).

Doesn't that seem a little odd? With something as world shattering as the revival of their slain leader, you'd have thought it would get significantly more attention and be noted with more accuracy than that.

The only obvious explanation is that writing about it made them uncomfortable. Perhaps they were unsure of what they were claiming, perhaps they were simply relaying the tales of their fellow disciples, or perhaps there was a little bit of ad-libbing going on there to make a point. The latter seems unlikely with Mark though; the whole of his Gospel is written in the background of the divine secret, and Jesus appearing at the end requesting the 11 to go and tell everyone seems a massive contradiction.
You do realize they wroite these 10 or 20 years after the fact?

They went by memory: each of them.

Look I doubt I'd remember every detail!

If my friend Mark remembers more than me good for him, but I can't write what he knew(he might ad-lib). I can only write what I know.

That was why each book is different: each person had a different memory(because we are human).

Actually it condemns slavery permanent: After the 7th year, you must free them or you are sinning.
Even in the case of the chap who raped Noah?

The problem for Christians when deciding upon who to vote for in any political situation (British, American, French, Italian etc) is that the core principals of Christianity in terms of practise, not belief are split between Conservatisim and Socialism. In terms of Conservatism there is the element of social moral practise IE the support of family values, the sanctity of life etc where as the Socialistim there is the element of economic moral practise IE helping the poor, giving essential services to those who need them not those who can pay etc. The right refuses to give out help to the poor and the left refuses to enforce moral values. In this respect there is a grave problem for Christians when comming to politics. It seems that no party is willing to attempt to merge right-wing soacial morals with left wing economic morals. Therefore I would like to ask some questions of people here

1. Do people understand what I am saying, can you see the issue's problems?
2. What can be done about this situation from a Christian perspective?


This is what I have been trying to get across to people for the longest time. This has always been the problem that I have had with the Republicans and Democrats. Neither one represents us true Christians and therefore, neither one ever garners my vote nor support. :( That is the main reason why I am an Independent! I vote for either the Peace and Justice Party (Robert Sager) or the Constitution Party (Michael Peroutka). GOD bless!

You do realize they wroite these 10 or 20 years after the fact?

They went by memory: each of them.

Look I doubt I'd remember every detail!

If my friend Mark remembers more than me good for him, but I can't write what he knew(he might ad-lib). I can only write what I know.

That was why each book is different: each person had a different memory(because we are human).
This isn't some random Saturday afternoon we're talking about here. This is your best friend for the last couple of years walking in the door after you explicitly saw him killed in front of a huge gathering. I'd have thought the speech he gave would burn itself into your memory. Those sorts of experiences you just don't forget.

Plus, you may note that John, written looong after the others, seems to have no problem coming up with a few other details.

This isn't some random Saturday afternoon we're talking about here. This is your best friend for the last couple of years walking in the door after you explicitly saw him killed in front of a huge gathering. I'd have thought the speech he gave would burn itself into your memory. Those sorts of experiences you just don't forget.

Plus, you may note that John, written looong after the others, seems to have no problem coming up with a few other details.
Maybe he wrote it under duress or was drunk?

Even in the case of the chap who raped Noah?
Old Testament! Background to the Jewish culture of Jesus's time! Not Christian! ><;

Maybe he wrote it under duress or was drunk?
"Yeah, dude, then he... erm... went fishing! Yeah, it was totally awesome. He had a massive haul. Then... him and Pete went off for a bit, said some stuff about how he was gonna do loads of crazy shit... oh, and they were totally talking about me, but I was cool with it... And yeah, he did all sorts of other stuff, but it's only one book, man! Pass me another one of these things..."
"Umm... I think you've had enough..."
"No way, man! I haven't told you about the whole apocalypse thing yet!"

Jesus said that Christians should give money to the poor etc., but all the examples were on a personal level i.e.: giving money to charity, giving to the bum on the street, and the like.

He said nothing about what the government should do. Even if christians were torn between conservativism and socialism, most socialists nations reject religion, the original comment is not really valid anyway.


I hate it when people use the argument "Why aren't christians liberal so the government gives money to poor people like Jesus said?" Jesus never said anything about the government, dipwads.

Oh and whoever said that Jesus commanded people to keep their faith in the closet knows as much about Christianity as Howard Dean. I think what he actually said was to "go out unto the earth" and spread christianity.

Old Testament! Background to the Jewish culture of Jesus's time! Not Christian! ><;
Tell these bloody fundamentalists to start quoting the beautitudes rather than the ten commandments all the time, then...

I think a definition of morals is necessary.

mor·al (môr'əl, mŏr'-)
adj.
Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.
n.
The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin mōrālis, from mōs, mōr-, custom.]

Note that Morals encompass a lot of DIFFERENT beliefs. Morals is not just the New Testament.

Tell these bloody fundamentalists to start quoting the beautitudes rather than the ten commandments all the time, then...
I do! Regularly! With excessive quantities of exclamation marks!

I do! Regularly! With excessive quantities of exclamation marks!
My bad then: carry on.

do you have scriptural reference for that statement?
Not off the top of my head. It was part of the passage where he condemned those that prayed in public.

Why don't Christians understand how dangerous it is for them to bring religion into politics? What goes up must come down...
Set the precedent for bringing religion into our government and watch the future of our nation come into the hold of some fundamentalist that views Christianity negatively. You'd be setting yourself up to get knocked down.

Jesus said that Christians should give money to the poor etc., but all the examples were on a personal level i.e.: giving money to charity, giving to the bum on the street, and the like.

He said nothing about what the government should do. Even if christians were torn between conservativism and socialism, most socialists nations reject religion, the original comment is not really valid anyway.


I hate it when people use the argument "Why aren't christians liberal so the government gives money to poor people like Jesus said?" Jesus never said anything about the government, dipwads.

Oh and whoever said that Jesus commanded people to keep their faith in the closet knows as much about Christianity as Howard Dean. I think what he actually said was to "go out unto the earth" and spread christianity.


Yes, Jesus said people, and the government is also comprised of people. Unless you know of some current governments run by apes or what have you! ;)

Yes, Jesus said people, and the government is also comprised of people. Unless you know of some current governments run by apes or what have you! ;)
Is that another diss of Bush?

Not off the top of my head. It was part of the passage where he condemned those that prayed in public.
oh that. He wasn't talking about keeping your faith secret, he was speaking against praying on the street corner so that you "look religious". That is not what prayer is for. In fact I have scriptural reference about how your faith should be in every aspect of your life and how we are supposed to go out into the world and share the gospel with every nation.

I dont think you understand my postion I am explaining. When I say Christianity in government I dont mean legislating Christian belief IE make it law to belive that Jesus is the way, truth and life. What I mean is that they should legislate in ways to promote Christian moral standards. These standards however have been split across the left wing and the right wing. The left wing have taken the economic morals and the right wing the social ones.
I understood you perfectly. You do not want a theocracy, you simply want to force people to abide by all but the first commandmend by law.

As I already said, I doubt anyone in my corner of the world would consider you a Christian, and they would certainly not consider you to be promoting Christian values. The point is that such things aren't meant to be forced on people. If you want to help people live sinless lives, you have to demonstrate for them it's in their own best interest to do so, without threatning them with arrests or criminalizing their behaviour.

Regardless of how offended you are by some behaviour, your religion does not promote that you should legilsate such things. On the contrary, you need to convince people to find Jesus. It's His job to deal with sins & sinners, not yours.

Sure, the Bible commands you to help the poor, but as someone pointed out, that's not something you should seek to force on people either. A Christian will always seek to do this on his/her own accord, because that's what you guys are supposed to be doing.

Your problem is that you live in a world where private cherity is so inefficient it's a joke, and where you feel people have a legal right to kill eachother. I'm not a professional, so I probably shouldn't be saying this, but in my opinion, you need help. Desperately.
It seems to me you've been thoroughly brainwashed by a clergy that hates humans & hates everything Jesus taught. I can't even begin to understand how it must feel to realize you're semi-fascist & hated by legions of your fellow countrymen, while you firmly believe you're doing them a favour...

The point is that such things aren't meant to be forced on people. If you want to help people live sinless lives, you have to demonstrate for them it's in their own best interest to do so, without threatning them with arrests or criminalizing their behaviour.

Regardless of how offended you are by some behaviour, your religion does not promote that you should legilsate such things. On the contrary, you need to convince people to find Jesus. It's His job to deal with sins & sinners, not yours.

Sure, the Bible commands you to help the poor, but as someone pointed out, that's not something you should seek to force on people either. A Christian will always seek to do this on his/her own accord, because that's what you guys are supposed to be doing.


:D somebody gets it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

:D somebody gets it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D
Well.. Other than Americans, I'm certain pretty much everyone does. I even have a feeling most Americans gets it as well ;)

Well.. Other than Americans, I'm certain pretty much everyone does. I even have a feeling most Americans gets it as well ;)
Well, the thing about America is the "I don't want to force my beliefs on others" mentality has developed into a sort of low grade apathy. Since no one really wants to speak up, it's consequently left with rule by the loudest.

Well, the thing about America is the "I don't want to force my beliefs on others" mentality has developed into a sort of low grade apathy. Since no one really wants to speak up, it's consequently left with rule by the loudest.
Isn't that true of American socio-political views in general though?

Well, the thing about America is the "I don't want to force my beliefs on others" mentality has developed into a sort of low grade apathy. Since no one really wants to speak up, it's consequently left with rule by the loudest.
I'll readily accept that explanation. It quite accurately describes the Americans I know (who aren't anarchists).

Actually only when a prophet says it is okay (asks God). Seeing as the only prophet living today is in the Latterday Saint church and they aren't starting wars: it doesn't matter if in the past he encourages it.

Actually it condemns slavery permanent: After the 7th year, you must free them or you are sinning.

And this is supposed to make it all better because...?

I dont think you understand my postion I am explaining. When I say Christianity in government I dont mean legislating Christian belief IE make it law to belive that Jesus is the way, truth and life. What I mean is that they should legislate in ways to promote Christian moral standards. These standards however have been split across the left wing and the right wing. The left wing have taken the economic morals and the right wing the social ones.

And I think legislation should promote Discordian morals. Now what?

Ive already explained to you that if you want to discuss the old testement actions of the isralites, make your own thread. In the meantime, look here

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

You say "actions of the israelites" as if god hadn't commanded them to do those thing.

The Christian faith is personal. But as a Christian politican you must consider what the Bible says when you are legislating.

And as a discordian politician, I must consider the Principia. Hot dog buns are hereby outlawed!

Matthew 26:47 to 27:66 is, in my NIV, 3 and a half pages long, chronicling Jesus being arrested and crucified. Matthew 28, being only 20 verses long, is barely a page. After having gone into considerable detail throughout the life of Christ, Matthew basically ends with:

"Oh, and Jesus came back to life a few days later like he told us, by the way. He said we should go tell people."

It's a Postscript. Or, at least, that's what it seems like. After charting in great detail what his master said and did, this just seems like he's thrown a little bit afterwards.

Mark is the same. Mark 14:43 to 15:47 is about 4 pages long, while Mark 16 is barely one that reads in a comparatively dry tone to some of the rest of the book (incidentally throwing in a little speech that isn't mentioned anywhere else in the other 3 gospels).

Doesn't that seem a little odd? With something as world shattering as the revival of their slain leader, you'd have thought it would get significantly more attention and be noted with more accuracy than that.

The only obvious explanation is that writing about it made them uncomfortable. Perhaps they were unsure of what they were claiming, perhaps they were simply relaying the tales of their fellow disciples, or perhaps there was a little bit of ad-libbing going on there to make a point. The latter seems unlikely with Mark though; the whole of his Gospel is written in the background of the divine secret, and Jesus appearing at the end requesting the 11 to go and tell everyone seems a massive contradiction.

Interesting theory.

And as a discordian politician, I must consider the Principia. Hot dog buns are hereby outlawed!
I note you ignore the fundamental tenet of Discordianism. Ignore all tenets of Discordianism. :p

You say "actions of the israelites" as if god hadn't commanded them to do those thing.
Again, Not Christian. It's Jewish. The Old Testament is background to the religious and social context that Jesus came into. It's just what they believed at the time. Most Christians would say that Jesus was the personification of the God that the old Testament Misquotes.

Old Testament! Background to the Jewish culture of Jesus's time! Not Christian! ><;

It's the same god, is it not?

It's the same god, is it not?
I believe there was a sex change involved. New Testament is Post-Op.

Not off the top of my head. It was part of the passage where he condemned those that prayed in public.

Praying in public to show off your faith != preaching. Jesus did a lot of the latter.

It's the same god, is it not?
Most Christians would say that Jesus was the personification of the God that the old Testament Misquotes.
Just because it's the same God doesn't mean the descriptions of the Old are fairly applicable to the New. It's similar to the Allah-Jehovah thing. Same being, different interpretations.

I note you ignore the fundamental tenet of Discordianism. Ignore all tenets of Discordianism. :p

Yeah, so all the population could get illegal hot dog buns like they're supposed to. And we can play cops and robbers on the streets every friday.

Again, Not Christian. It's Jewish. The Old Testament is background to the religious and social context that Jesus came into. It's just what they believed at the time. Most Christians would say that Jesus was the personification of the God that the old Testament Misquotes.

Was it a different god that commanded those thing?

I believe there was a sex change involved. New Testament is Post-Op.

Probably.

Just because it's the same God doesn't mean the descriptions of the Old are fairly applicable to the New. It's similar to the Allah-Jehovah thing. Same being, different interpretations.

I'm not trying to apply the Old to the New, whatever that means. I'm saying your god promotes violence and slavery. If he changed at some point, certainly he can change back.

I'm not trying to apply the Old to the New, whatever that means. I'm saying your god promotes violence and slavery. If he changed at some point, certainly he can change back.
Numero uno, I'm not a Christian. What you perceive as the Christian God and my God aren't the same thing as such, although the God that Christianity is inspired by could be.

Secondly, the thing is that God isn't just what is attributed to him. The Jewish people in Jesus's time worshipped the God that was described to them in human stories of nationalistic oppression and racial superiority; these stories being the Old Testament. They're human in origin. The God they described is not the same as the New Testament God; they are a human invention that may or may not be based in reality (rather like some people view Paul's Jesus).

However, the Jewish people had an origin for this faith. That origin, to a Christian, is the God that Christianity worships. Christianity views the actions of the Old Testament rather like modern Agnosticism views the Crusades; the misguided actions and fables of a group of people who acted under the advice of those who claimed to be acting under the advice of God.

Yes, I know, the Irony isn't lost.

Anyway, the Gods, though the same in principle, are different in practice. The Christian God did very few of the things attested to him in the Old Testament, because No God did the things in the Old Testament.

Any clearer? Probably not. How about a summary:

Anywhere someone says "God did it", what they really mean is either "We did it" or "Nobody did it; we just want to sound more authoritative".

Praying in public to show off your faith != preaching. Jesus did a lot of the latter.
Preaching =/= to forcing your religion down other people's throats. Last I checked, Yeshua was against that sort of evangelism.

"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"

Jesus likes taxes. :p

LOL :p

That butchering of scriptures is almost as bad as the use of the parable of the talents, and right wingers claiming that talents = cash, and that in their eyes, its perfectly ok to exploit another person - god only knows how they made that giant leap.

Its funny how one hears the right-wing spin on parables, using it to justify everything from crappy pay and conditions, to why they shouldn't have to give a damn about the poor - its humorous and yet sad at the same time.

Numero uno, I'm not a Christian. What you perceive as the Christian God and my God aren't the same thing as such, although the God that Christianity is inspired by could be.

Oh. Sorry.

Secondly, the thing is that God isn't just what is attributed to him. The Jewish people in Jesus's time worshipped the God that was described to them in human stories of nationalistic oppression and racial superiority; these stories being the Old Testament. They're human in origin. The God they described is not the same as the New Testament God; they are a human invention that may or may not be based in reality (rather like some people view Paul's Jesus).

However, the Jewish people had an origin for this faith. That origin, to a Christian, is the God that Christianity worships. Christianity views the actions of the Old Testament rather like modern Agnosticism views the Crusades; the misguided actions and fables of a group of people who acted under the advice of those who claimed to be acting under the advice of God.

Yes, I know, the Irony isn't lost.

Anyway, the Gods, though the same in principle, are different in practice. The Christian God did very few of the things attested to him in the Old Testament, because No God did the things in the Old Testament.

Any clearer? Probably not. How about a summary:

Anywhere someone says "God did it", what they really mean is either "We did it" or "Nobody did it; we just want to sound more authoritative".

By this principle, what's to say that the christian god is any more real than the jewish god? One is based on the other, and this "other" didn't exist...

Preaching =/= to forcing your religion down other people's throats. Last I checked, Yeshua was against that sort of evangelism.

Agreed, but the line between preaching and pushing is a lot thinner than the one between praying and preaching.

Agreed, but the line between preaching and pushing is a lot thinner than the one between praying and preaching.

The line isn't that thin; Jesus went around, and those who wished to attend his sermon on the mount, were quite happy to join.

The Christian fundamentalists, however, walk around like a mob, ganging up on anyone who don't believe in their narrow minded view of morality.

So yes, there is a HUGE difference; one is like selling tickets for a concert, the other is like having a solder with an AK47 in his hands, jabbing it into your back whilst screaming, "YOU WILL BELIEVE!"

I'm a Buddhist; I don't preach, if people want resources or information, and they approach me, I'll be quite happy to redirect them to the appropriate places - that is the difference.

Maybe Christians should do like wise; keep your beliefs hidden and only tell those who are willing to approach you.

The line isn't that thin; Jesus went around, and those who wished to attend his sermon on the mount, were quite happy to join.

The Christian fundamentalists, however, walk around like a mob, ganging up on anyone who doesn't believe in their narrow minded view of morality.

So yes, there is a HUGE difference; one is like selling tickets for a concert, the other is like having a solder with an AK47 in his hands, jabbing it into your back whilst screaming, "YOU WILL BELIEVE!"
I do wonder how many baptists, on reaching fourteen and being in line to get baptised actually say: "no ta, I'd rather not"? I doubt it happens all that much.

By this principle, what's to say that the christian god is any more real than the jewish god? One is based on the other, and this "other" didn't exist...
I have other sources for God myself, which makes this a moot point on my front, but the thing is to a Christian, his God exists independantly of the Jewish scripture. Their God isn't based on the Jewish God; it's an entity in itself that it claims the Jewish people would be worshipping if not for all the stories they'd erected about him.

In fact, very little is actually held as canon about the Christian God. The only reliable source they have is Jesus and the idea of the Spirit. Beyond the gospel accounts of Jesus's experiences of God, he's pretty open-ended. Nonetheless, Christians believe in his existence due to personal spiritual encounter. It just so happens that a lot of Christians follow Paul's example by picking and choosing bits from Jewish mythology and applying those to fill the gaps of actually explaining this spirituality, but that part of it really is just human interpretation. The Christian God doesn't require such attributations in order to be such; it's just what is put in as an explanation by people after the discovery.

"Yeah, dude, then he... erm... went fishing! Yeah, it was totally awesome. He had a massive haul. Then... him and Pete went off for a bit, said some stuff about how he was gonna do loads of crazy shit... oh, and they were totally talking about me, but I was cool with it... And yeah, he did all sorts of other stuff, but it's only one book, man! Pass me another one of these things..."
"Umm... I think you've had enough..."
"No way, man! I haven't told you about the whole apocalypse thing yet!"
:D

That was pretty good. Hey, you never know John was on that island he was banished to for many years.


Was it a different god that commanded those thing?

Actually I'd blame Moses for not repeating the exact words from Jesus.
Maybe Moses decided that Jesus was too nice and added extra harser punishments and orders.
Moses was prophet so it wasn't like Jesus was gonna kill/replace him. He was kinda needed as Moses and Jesus talked face to face (Moses had a lot of faith to allow this)

(Yes, in my Religion: Jehovah=Jesus, Elohim =Heavenly Father)

I do wonder how many baptists, on reaching fourteen and being in line to get baptised actually say: "no ta, I'd rather not"? I doubt it happens all that much.
you know we baptists don't generally line people up to get baptised, the whole point of being a baptist is that we believe that people should get baptised because they want to obey God, not because the church pressures them into it.

Maybe Christians should do like wise; keep your beliefs hidden and only tell those who are willing to approach you.
Just for the record, I completely agree with your entire post, but...

Christians can't do it this way. They're supposed to spread the word & give a shit about their fellow human beings. So simply believing isn't quite enough for them. They have to actively seek out people & make sure they know there is this saviour bloke, a nice heaven, eternal undeath, watered wine & whatnot. If nothing else, then they have to at least tell people about it so people don't end up in hell out of ignorance.

But keeping this on topic, it still has fuck-all to do with politics. According to the Bible, Jesus wasn't big on forcing & judging. The Conservative shit about family/Christian values is completely against what he preached.

you know we baptists don't generally line people up to get baptised, the whole point of being a baptist is that we believe that people should get baptised because they want to obey God, not because the church pressures them into it.

Baptism by immersion for remission of their sins? Or do you practice Sprinkling like the Catholic?

you know we baptists don't generally line people up to get baptised, the whole point of being a baptist is that we believe that people should get baptised because they want to obey God, not because the church pressures them into it.
I know that's the theory, but does it always work that way in practise? If so, fair enough. I wouldn't suggest that there's any deliberate pressure, but if everyone else in the community has been baptised, that could lead to some people bottling out of mentioning that they'ce decided it isn't an idea they're very taken with.

The line isn't that thin; Jesus went around, and those who wished to attend his sermon on the mount, were quite happy to join.

The Christian fundamentalists, however, walk around like a mob, ganging up on anyone who don't believe in their narrow minded view of morality.

So yes, there is a HUGE difference; one is like selling tickets for a concert, the other is like having a solder with an AK47 in his hands, jabbing it into your back whilst screaming, "YOU WILL BELIEVE!"

I'm a Buddhist; I don't preach, if people want resources or information, and they approach me, I'll be quite happy to redirect them to the appropriate places - that is the difference.

Maybe Christians should do like wise; keep your beliefs hidden and only tell those who are willing to approach you.

When you put it that way...

I have other sources for God myself, which makes this a moot point on my front, but the thing is to a Christian, his God exists independantly of the Jewish scripture. Their God isn't based on the Jewish God; it's an entity in itself that it claims the Jewish people would be worshipping if not for all the stories they'd erected about him.

In fact, very little is actually held as canon about the Christian God. The only reliable source they have is Jesus and the idea of the Spirit. Beyond the gospel accounts of Jesus's experiences of God, he's pretty open-ended. Nonetheless, Christians believe in his existence due to personal spiritual encounter. It just so happens that a lot of Christians follow Paul's example by picking and choosing bits from Jewish mythology and applying those to fill the gaps of actually explaining this spirituality, but that part of it really is just human interpretation. The Christian God doesn't require such attributations in order to be such; it's just what is put in as an explanation by people after the discovery.

You're making them sound all reasonable. My personal experience tells me they aren't.

Most Christians here are liberal and do not want ancient morality impressed on others.

Have you done a poll on that FASS or are you just shooting from the hip?

Baptism by immersion for remission of their sins? Or do you practice Sprinkling like the Catholic?
baptists don't believe that baptism in itself is anything more than a symbol of your willingness to follow Christ. Getting dunked doesn't save you. (and yes immersion) We believe that you should make a concious choice to follow Christ and follow up with baptism as a sign of obedience and that is why we don't baptise babies.

I know that's the theory, but does it always work that way in practise? If so, fair enough. I wouldn't suggest that there's any deliberate pressure, but if everyone else in the community has been baptised, that could lead to some people bottling out of mentioning that they'ce decided it isn't an idea they're very taken with.
I have been southern baptist all my life and haven't ever seen a high pressure baptism line, I have seen a lot of pressure in other denominations, but since we don't believe that baptism saves you, it is more of a "do it when you feel ready to" kind of thing.

you know we baptists don't generally line people up to get baptised, the whole point of being a baptist is that we believe that people should get baptised because they want to obey God, not because the church pressures them into it.

Dunno about baptists, but jehovah's witnesses definitely pressure teens to get baptized, making them feel like they're not truly part of the congregation until they do. Nobody's ever gonna spell it out for you, but if you're there, you feel it.

I want to start a religion where when you're baptized, the priest (me) holds you under water until you stop struggling and accept the light of the Lord.

baptists don't believe that baptism in itself is anything more than a symbol of your willingness to follow Christ. Getting dunked doesn't save you. (and yes immersion) We believe that you should make a concious choice to follow Christ and follow up with baptism as a sign of obedience and that is why we don't baptise babies.

Agreed, but I believe (and my church does) that the age of accountability is age 8. After that you can choose a religion and are accountable for sin.

I have been southern baptist all my life and haven't ever seen a high pressure baptism line, I have seen a lot of pressure in other denominations, but since we don't believe that baptism saves you, it is more of a "do it when you feel ready to" kind of thing.

And, as a baptist, you obviously wouldn't tell us if it weren't so...

God? Ha! Why would anybody worship a being willing to give Jim Carrey his powers!? It makes no sense!

It is good to see you base your views on God on a movie writen by those who aren't believers anyway.

Agreed, but I believe (and my church does) that the age of accountability is age 8. After that you can choose a religion and are accountable for sin.

Why 8? Why not 9? Why not 7?

It is good to see you base your views on God on a movie writen by those who aren't believers anyway.

Now I'm confused. Are you joking or are you truly unable to recognize even the most obvious sarcasm?

Why 8? Why not 9? Why not 7?
Revelation from the Prophet on 18XX (forget exact date) but it was 18 something.

I thought you'd ask what happens to your sin before than if you die befire 8? I was so ready to answer :D

Have you done a poll on that FASS or are you just shooting from the hip?
Assuming Fass is speaking about Sweden, then he is indeed overwhelmingly correct, though only from an American definition of what Liberals are.

Revelation from the Prophet on 18XX (forget exact date) but it was 18 something.

I thought you'd ask what happens to your sin before than if you die befire 8? I was so ready to answer :D

Gosh, so much faith, so much joy to spread truth and hope... :)

I might be sick.

You're making them sound all reasonable. My personal experience tells me they aren't.
Okay. The underlying principle is plausible, but the execution tends to leave much to be desired. How does that sound?

Agreed, but I believe (and my church does) that the age of accountability is age 8. After that you can choose a religion and are accountable for sin.
I believe that the age of accountability is different for everyone, it depends on how much you understand. A slow child may not be capable of understanding at 8, and a gifted child may be able to understand much earlier.

And, as a baptist, you obviously wouldn't tell us if it weren't so...
you are implying that I would lie?

Okay. The underlying principle is plausible, but the execution tends to leave much to be desired. How does that sound?

Much more realistic.

you are implying that I would lie?

I am saying, not implying, that people can't have an objective, unbiased view of a group they're part of.

I am saying, not implying, that people can't have an objective, unbiased view of a group they're part of.
I believe I can, just curious what would stop me from having an unbiased view?

Much more realistic.
Excellent. In a faith where the only tenates are to love your deity and to act in a manner beneficial to mankind, and what your deity is can be flexible, any religious mismatching is entirely due to the individual's leanings. And we can therefore deduce that the problem for Christianity in politics is... Well, I reckon Gandhi said it best:

I don't reject your Christ, I love your Christ.It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Topic solved. Can I have my five marks please?

I believe I can, just curious what would stop me from having an unbiased view?

I can't speak for you, so I have to use my own experience to exemplify.

As a JW student, I was welcomed to the congregation with open arms, and I loved that. As time passed and I remained a student, I started feeling that there were "levels" to this nice club I joined. The people who had made bigger commitments were in inner circles, while I wasn't. So I started going on field service, and what a change that was. I wasn't just some student anymore, I was a publisher!! What joy. But, after some time, I came to realize there were still more "levels of commitment" to get to, if I wanted to continue being seen as someone who's trying to please god, I must do my best to make progress. So I got baptized.

I would've never have admitted to you that I looked down on people who were "just students". It's not something I ever did on purpose, if I had been able to realize it, I'd have tried to stop. But it's much in the same way that an adult feels superior/smarter/stronger than a child, and the child wants to grow up to be an adult. It's natural behavior. It's not right, but it's natural.

Looking back on it, I'd say I was pressured to be baptized. But I'd never be able to see it if I was still involved. I don't know if/how this applies to baptists, but I wouldn't put elitist behavior out of possibility for any religion, it's normal for humans to do that.

Excellent. In a faith where the only tenates are to love your deity and to act in a manner beneficial to mankind, and what your deity is can be flexible, any religious mismatching is entirely due to the individual's leanings. And we can therefore deduce that the problem for Christianity in politics is... Well, I reckon Gandhi said it best:



Topic solved. Can I have my five marks please?

Those aren't the "only" tenets so much as the most important ones.

Would all Jews be socialists by the way?

Judaism (particularly Zionism, and I'm not sure whether you could find an anti-Zionist Jews these days...) and Socialism have had a pretty strong connection through the past 150 years or so.

From Theodor Herzl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl) to the Kibbutz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz), the two have always gone together...

I can't speak for you, so I have to use my own experience to exemplify.

As a JW student, I was welcomed to the congregation with open arms, and I loved that. As time passed and I remained a student, I started feeling that there were "levels" to this nice club I joined. The people who had made bigger commitments were in inner circles, while I wasn't. So I started going on field service, and what a change that was. I wasn't just some student anymore, I was a publisher!! What joy. But, after some time, I came to realize there were still more "levels of commitment" to get to, if I wanted to continue being seen as someone who's trying to please god, I must do my best to make progress. So I got baptized.

I would've never have admitted to you that I looked down on people who were "just students". It's not something I ever did on purpose, if I had been able to realize it, I'd have tried to stop. But it's much in the same way that an adult feels superior/smarter/stronger than a child, and the child wants to grow up to be an adult. It's natural behavior. It's not right, but it's natural.

Looking back on it, I'd say I was pressured to be baptized. But I'd never be able to see it if I was still involved. I don't know if/how this applies to baptists, but I wouldn't put elitist behavior out of possibility for any religion, it's normal for humans to do that.

I have never seen any pressure to be anything more than what you are in the Baptist church.

There are three ways to join a southern baptist church.
profession of faith
letter from another baptist church
or baptism if you were a member of a non-baptist church

there is no hierarchy after that, we are all members of the body, with different spiritual gifts, and different talents, it takes all of us to function.

I have never seen any pressure to be anything more than what you are in the Baptist church.

There are three ways to join a southern baptist church.
profession of faith
letter from another baptist church
or baptism if you were a member of a non-baptist church

there is no hierarchy after that, we are all members of the body, with different spiritual gifts, and different talents, it takes all of us to function.

That exactly the same as JWs say, but that's not what it feels like from the inside.

That exactly the same as JWs say, but that's not what it feels like from the inside.
I have a friend who is in the JW church, well she was, she left because of the high pressure to be perfect. The church she was in wouldn't let her talk to her friends or family that wasn't JW and even pressured her to leave her husband who wasn't a JW. From the outside there seems to be a lot of pressure associated with that church to begin with. She brought me a book once, before she left the church, it was about how God wanted you to keep your house organized, she said that if people from the church came over and her kids toys were in the living room that they prayed for her, because she was sinning by having a dirty house. I always assumed that she got into a bad church though.

I have a friend who is in the JW church, well she was, she left because of the high pressure to be perfect. The church she was in wouldn't let her talk to her friends or family that wasn't JW and even pressured her to leave her husband who wasn't a JW. From the outside there seems to be a lot of pressure associated with that church to begin with. She brought me a book once, before she left the church, it was about how God wanted you to keep your house organized, she said that if people from the church came over and her kids toys were in the living room that they prayed for her, because she was sinning by having a dirty house. I always assumed that she got into a bad church though.

No, that's pretty normal to JWs, I think...

I do wonder how many baptists, on reaching fourteen and being in line to get baptised actually say: "no ta, I'd rather not"? I doubt it happens all that much.

True, and it doesn't help that they're closed minded to the point that they never actually investigate any other religion.

In theory, the choice at 14 is nice, but it isn't an educated choice if all they know is the own religion, and no one elses.

I wonder how many would actually choose not to get baptised if they investigated other religions.

Just for the record, I completely agree with your entire post, but...

Christians can't do it this way. They're supposed to spread the word & give a shit about their fellow human beings. So simply believing isn't quite enough for them. They have to actively seek out people & make sure they know there is this saviour bloke, a nice heaven, eternal undeath, watered wine & whatnot. If nothing else, then they have to at least tell people about it so people don't end up in hell out of ignorance.

But keeping this on topic, it still has fuck-all to do with politics. According to the Bible, Jesus wasn't big on forcing & judging. The Conservative shit about family/Christian values is completely against what he preached.

Well, there is nothing wrong with them ACTING in a Christian way; helping the poor, its the old song of, "they know we are Christians by our love" - one doesn't actually need to do the Jesus dance to say that they believe in god or what have you.

As for their 'need to tell' - considering that Christianity is a bastardised fusion of Roman Paganism with a sprinkling of Judaism for good measure, I'd say that Christianity is the last on my list of "religions I'd like to try before I die".

Have you done a poll on that FASS or are you just shooting from the hip?

He's trying to be optimistic; I gave that up long ago; sometimes its just worth facing reality and realising that there are alot of f*cking ignorant and arrogant people out there who claim to have some sort of monopoly on morality and truth.

I have been southern baptist all my life and haven't ever seen a high pressure baptism line, I have seen a lot of pressure in other denominations, but since we don't believe that baptism saves you, it is more of a "do it when you feel ready to" kind of thing.

I find that hard to believe; the homobashers on the US; the kings of hypocracy, the bible bashers of the broad land of America - believe me, there is pressure, you're just too naive not to see it.

Try stepping out of line for a second, possibly indulge in a little smogasboard religion, and see how accepting your friends at the Southern Baptist church is.

I agree that God allows people to make mistakes but I think that the Bible makes it clear that it would be better if they didnt make the mistakes at all. My point being that left wing ideas of morality basicly say that everyone can do whatever they want as long as it doesnt harm anyone. That is not what the Bible encorages.
If it is better that they did not make mistakes why did god choose the path he did by allowing them to make them? maybe because he knows that freedom was more important then imposing on them

I think this is a time where humans should follow his lead ... unless you think he was wrong

Yes, Jesus said people, and the government is also comprised of people. Unless you know of some current governments run by apes or what have you! ;)


Hey, what do know? Someone I can actually agree with! :p

I find that hard to believe; the homobashers on the US; the kings of hypocracy, the bible bashers of the broad land of America - believe me, there is pressure, you're just too naive not to see it.

Try stepping out of line for a second, possibly indulge in a little smogasboard religion, and see how accepting your friends at the Southern Baptist church is.
actually I was kinda misleading saying that I was Southern Baptist my whole life, what I really meant was that I grew up in a Southern Baptist church.

I actually did "step out of line" for a few years, I ended up addicted to crack, and even tried satanism for a while, and although my behavior was not accepted they still loved me, and tried to help me, and when I was ready to stop doing drugs, I got nothing but support. I never felt like they were judging me (well, not all of them, there are always those 2 or 3 really old people that judge you no matter what)

Believe me, I am anything but naive.

Have you done a poll on that FASS or are you just shooting from the hip?

I haven't, but polling companies and newspapers have. Most Christians here, i.e. Sweden, are socially liberal - a majority support the decision of the church to bless gay couples, they support gay marriage, they support women priests, they support the "message of love" above others, they support sex-ed and are opposed to "abstinence only" crap, they support contraceptives, they are pro-choice and so on and so forth.

Bishops have been speakers at pride parades, and I know several openly gay priests. K.G. Hammar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._G._Hammar), the leader of the Swedish Church, supported ecce homo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29), and has been a GLBT champion. The Church has a huge annual GLBT service that draws many people, and so on and so forth...

Here Christians are simply mostly not scary, but are actually the nice people they are supposed to be.

I haven't, but polling companies and newspapers have. Most Christians here, i.e. Sweden, are socially liberal - a majority support the decision of the church to bless gay couples, they support gay marriage, they support women priests, they support the "message of love" above others, they support sex-ed and are opposed to "abstinence only" crap, they support contraceptives, they are pro-choice and so on and so forth.

Bishops have been speakers at pride parades, and I know several openly gay priests. K.G. Hammar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._G._Hammar), the leader of the Swedish Church, supported ecce homo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29), and has been a GLBT champion. The Church has a huge annual GLBT service that draws many people, and so on and so forth...

Here Christians are simply mostly not scary, but are actually the nice people they are supposed to be.


Now if I could only find a techology job over there ...

I agree that God allows people to make mistakes but I think that the Bible makes it clear that it would be better if they didnt make the mistakes at all. My point being that left wing ideas of morality basicly say that everyone can do whatever they want as long as it doesnt harm anyone. That is not what the Bible encorages.

Please note that God gave us free will. If someone decided to take away that free will (by legislating in certain values of fundamentalist Christianity, let's say), then they would be attempting to subvert and overrule God.

Please note that nowhere in this post did I say that "Avalon II is stoopid, God is a lye, Science will konker the yooniverse! GWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" So please stop whining that I am just dismissing your beliefs out of hand.

Number III

Please note that nowhere in this post did I say that "Avalon II is stoopid, God is a lye, Science will konker the yooniverse! GWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" So please stop whining that I am just dismissing your beliefs out of hand.

Number III
It seems to be what he does instead of making a coherent argument.