PDA

View Full Version : End of the road for Rudy Giuliani.



chivalrous
Jan 30th 2008, 10:23 PM
Rudy said he's going to drop out of the race for the White House.
Giuliani would never get my vote.
He said he didn't care about abortion.
That's the only thing worse than being pro-choice.

In one of the early debates lighting cut his mic.
He was talking about abortion.

Fenris
Jan 30th 2008, 10:47 PM
Yeah, apparently it was unwise to stake his entire campaign on winning in Florida.

TrustingFollower
Jan 30th 2008, 10:56 PM
John Edwards also dropped out today. Now the Dems are down to two.

Seeker of truth
Jan 30th 2008, 11:14 PM
Now if Hilary would just drop out :lol:

I'm still hanging in there for Huckabee though he may not really be in the running anymore. Hey, stranger things have happened :dunno:

TrustingFollower
Jan 30th 2008, 11:26 PM
Everything could change with Super Tuesday next week.

Seeker of truth
Jan 30th 2008, 11:38 PM
Everything could change with Super Tuesday next week.

I'm keeping this in prayer. I admire the fact Huckabee will stand up and speak out on behalf of our Lord.

theabaud
Jan 30th 2008, 11:39 PM
Now if Hilary would just drop out :lol:

I'm still hanging in there for Huckabee though he may not really be in the running anymore. Hey, stranger things have happened :dunno:That is not entirely true. Huckabee is leading in several southern states, and if he can pick some of the other ones up he migh be able to get closer.

IN the end though, Supertuesday will not provide the momentum he would need to get more support in the later contests because there are SOOOO many there.

Braves27
Jan 31st 2008, 09:46 AM
He was the first mayor I remember, loved him, but I'd never vote for him for president. Sad to see him throw his endorsement (and his votes?) behind McCain...


Yeah, SC was bad for Huck but he's still leading in all the southern states coming up this tuesday. Apparently (depending on how much you trust polls) he's still leading nationally, too.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 01:10 PM
I'm still hanging in there for Huckabee though he may not really be in the running anymore. Hey, stranger things have happened :dunno:

Huckabee can't win. All he's doing by staying in is ensuring that Romney doesn't win either. He's giving the race to McCain by splitting the conservative wing of the party with Romney. In return for future considerations from McCain, perhaps?? :hmm:

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 02:08 PM
Huckabee can't win. All he's doing by staying in is ensuring that Romney doesn't win either. He's giving the race to McCain by splitting the conservative wing of the party with Romney. In return for future considerations from McCain, perhaps?? :hmm:
I have to admit though... he clearly outshined the others in the debate last night. McCain and Romney were childish. I kid you not man... I was waiting for one of them to scream at the other, "yeah but MY DADDY CAN WHUP YOUR DADDY!" It was a sad display for two grown men.

And as to his staying in against Mitt... could be his point. Romney... he gives me the willies. I'd not buy a car from the guy so I figure he'd not be my choice for President. I really do have a sad feeling that for the first time since I've been of voting age... I will have no viable candidate at the end of the day.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 02:24 PM
I have to admit though... he clearly outshined the others in the debate last night. McCain and Romney were childish. I kid you not man... I was waiting for one of them to scream at the other, "yeah but MY DADDY CAN WHUP YOUR DADDY!" It was a sad display for two grown men.Yeah, there was something odd going on there. I think they were both fighting for votes next week. After that it's probably over.


And as to his staying in against Mitt... could be his point. Romney... he gives me the willies. I'd not buy a car from the guy so I figure he'd not be my choice for President. I really do have a sad feeling that for the first time since I've been of voting age... I will have no viable candidate at the end of the day.After Thompson, I thought Romney was the 'least bad' Republican left. McCain is so liberal I don't know if I can pull the lever for him.

I think we're all suffering from 'electile dysfunction'- none of the candidates excite us. :rofl:

Free Indeed
Jan 31st 2008, 02:28 PM
On a personal level, I really like Huckabee. He seems both honest and honorable in his personal dealings, and has a sense of humor that is actually funny, instead of crass, like a certain other Republican leader we all know.

That being said, I could never actually vote for Huckabee. His comments about amending the Constitution so it would be more in line with the Bible are pretty scary. The United States is not a theocracy.

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 02:55 PM
Yeah, there was something odd going on there. I think they were both fighting for votes next week. After that it's probably over.
After Thompson, I thought Romney was the 'least bad' Republican left. McCain is so liberal I don't know if I can pull the lever for him.

I think we're all suffering from 'electile dysfunction'- none of the candidates excite us. :rofl:I hear that quote mentioned yesterday. Thought it funny but yeah... that's probably our biggest problem! :lol:

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 02:56 PM
On a personal level, I really like Huckabee. He seems both honest and honorable in his personal dealings, and has a sense of humor that is actually funny, instead of crass, like a certain other Republican leader we all know.

That being said, I could never actually vote for Huckabee. His comments about amending the Constitution so it would be more in line with the Bible are pretty scary. The United States is not a theocracy.Yeah.. imagine a nation that was ran like the Bible. What a scary thought!

teddyv
Jan 31st 2008, 03:50 PM
Yeah.. imagine a nation that was ran like the Bible. What a scary thought!
Well, there are nations that run on the Koran. How did they work out?

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 03:54 PM
Well, there are nations that run on the Koran. How did they work out?
And did Huckabee mention the Koran?

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 04:03 PM
Hey, I'm a pretty religious person. But I have no desire to see America's laws amended to fit one man's interpretation of the bible.

No religion looks good when it has political power.

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 04:10 PM
Hey, I'm a pretty religious person. But I have no desire to see America's laws amended to fit one man's interpretation of the bible.

No religion looks good when it has political power.
Sure... but then I am speaking clearly from a Christian perspective. Wouldn't it be horrid if the US abided by the Ten Commandments! I would think even you wouldn't disagree with that!

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 04:12 PM
Sure... but then I am speaking clearly from a Christian perspective. Wouldn't it be horrid if the US abided by the Ten Commandments! I would think even you wouldn't disagree with that!You want us to ban idolatry and make honoring one's parents a law?

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 04:27 PM
You want us to ban idolatry and make honoring one's parents a law?
Would that be a bad law?

Clavicula_Nox
Jan 31st 2008, 04:38 PM
Would that be a bad law?

Yes it would when figured in with consequences. If we were going to literally put a judicial ban on idolotry, there are a lot of things that would have to go. More than people realise, I think.

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 04:45 PM
Yes it would when figured in with consequences. If we were going to literally put a judicial ban on idolotry, there are a lot of things that would have to go. More than people realise, I think.
Yeah... that would be horrible! ;)

Free Indeed
Jan 31st 2008, 04:48 PM
Yeah... that would be horrible! ;)

It would, for example, criminalize the practice of Hinduism and Buddhism, and maybe even Islam, depending on how the Supreme Court interpreted the First Commandment. We would in effect have a Christian version of the Islamic kangaroo courts, like the one that sentenced an Afghani to death for converting to Christianity.

Is religious freedom not a virtue?

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 04:51 PM
It would, for example, criminalize the practice of Hinduism and Buddhism, and maybe even Islam, depending on how the Supreme Court interpreted the First Commandment. We would in effect have a Christian version of the Islamic kangaroo courts, like the one that sentenced an Afghani to death for converting to Christianity.

Is religious freedom not a virtue?
Yeah... imagine the horror! I mean come on... making Christ the focus of the nation and all! And no... religious freedom outside of God is not a godly virtue is it? If it is then pass that passage on to me. I've read the Scripture both old and new many, many times. I've missed that Scripture.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 05:42 PM
Yeah... imagine the horror! I mean come on... making Christ the focus of the nation and all!
You want to criminalize Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism and atheism?

Free Indeed
Jan 31st 2008, 06:13 PM
Yeah... imagine the horror! I mean come on... making Christ the focus of the nation and all! And no... religious freedom outside of God is not a godly virtue is it? If it is then pass that passage on to me. I've read the Scripture both old and new many, many times. I've missed that Scripture.

Wow.

I realize that as a liberal I'm in the political minority around here, but I thought that even conservatives supported Constitutional principles and civil liberties, or at least attempted to look like it!

:eek:

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 06:22 PM
I thought that even conservatives supported Constitutional principles and civil liberties
Most of us do. I'm a conservative and I'm as shocked by the above statement as you are.

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 06:57 PM
You want to criminalize Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism and atheism?
I doubt Huckabee would have done anything to illegalize Judaism and doubt even more seriously that this was what he was speaking of... you know that right?

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 06:58 PM
Wow.

I realize that as a liberal I'm in the political minority around here, but I thought that even conservatives supported Constitutional principles and civil liberties, or at least attempted to look like it!

:eek:
Well why does it shock you guys? Is the Bible such a horrible book that it would scare the pudding out of you that Huckabee would want things to be more in line with it? That seems odd for either a Christian or a Jew.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 07:04 PM
I doubt Huckabee would have done anything to illegalize Judaism and doubt even more seriously that this was what he was speaking of... you know that right?
I'm not talking about Huckabee's comments. I'm talking about yours. Specifically, your idea "making Christ the focus of the nation and all!"

Free Indeed
Jan 31st 2008, 07:06 PM
Well why does it shock you guys? Is the Bible such a horrible book that it would scare the pudding out of you that Huckabee would want things to be more in line with it? That seems odd for either a Christian or a Jew.

OK, let's look at it another way. What would you think if a Muslim in public office said we need to make the Constitution to be more in line with the Qu'ran?

Chances are, you'd think of Iran, where that's already happened. Just as I, when I heard Huckabee, thought of the Spanish Inquisition, and the utterly totalitarian Bible-based governments of Calvin's Geneva and Cromwell's England. :thumbsup:

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 07:08 PM
Well why does it shock you guys? Is the Bible such a horrible book that it would scare the pudding out of you that Huckabee would want things to be more in line with it? Actually, yes it would. I don't want a religious person reading the bible and writing our national laws from it. Our nation has fine laws as it is and we don't need to bring religion into the debate.

This is exactly why most Jews are scared of religious Christians. I'm not, mind you, but I understand the sentiment well enough.

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 07:39 PM
I'm not talking about Huckabee's comments. I'm talking about yours. Specifically, your idea "making Christ the focus of the nation and all!"Let's rephrase it then because the point is the same and I'd hate it getting lost simply because of the use of one word. Change it to God. Does that make a difference to you?

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 07:45 PM
OK, let's look at it another way. What would you think if a Muslim in public office said we need to make the Constitution to be more in line with the Qu'ran?

Chances are, you'd think of Iran, where that's already happened. Just as I, when I heard Huckabee, thought of the Spanish Inquisition, and the utterly totalitarian Bible-based governments of Calvin's Geneva and Cromwell's England. :thumbsup:He ain't Muslim and he wasn't talking about the Qu'ran. He's not talking of the Spanish Inquisition nor Calvin or Cromwell. My question is still not being answered. What is so horribly wrong about the Bible that folks would hate to see our government more in line with it?

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 07:48 PM
Let's rephrase it then because the point is the same and I'd hate it getting lost simply because of the use of one word. Change it to God. Does that make a difference to you?
No, it doesn't. One should serve God because they choose to, not because the government orders them to.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 07:49 PM
What is so horribly wrong about the Bible that folks would hate to see our government more in line with it?
Let me answer your question with a question: What biblical laws would you like to see implemented?

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 07:56 PM
Again... what is so horrible about the Bible that this would scare you or whomever?

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 07:59 PM
Let me answer your question with a question: What biblical laws would you like to see implemented?
In context with what Huckabee was speaking of (and that was where we started all this) he was speaking of stopping abortion and making marriage only legal between man and a woman. I sort of figure everyone wants to be honest and keep things in context here. Mind you folks have taken it all over the place from Idolatry to Budhism. But that isn't what Huckabee was speaking of when he made that comment.

teddyv
Jan 31st 2008, 08:02 PM
Again... what is so horrible about the Bible that this would scare you or whomever?
Nothing is horrible about the Bible, but just look at the arguments that people's interpretation of the Bible results in. Who is the final arbiter? Is everything literal? If I don't accept a literal creation story, am I to be censured as a scientist? It goes on and on.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 08:03 PM
Again... what is so horrible about the Bible that this would scare you or whomever?
The bible can be interpreted by different people in different ways. What's do say it would be done in a way compliant with my understanding of God's word? Or yours? What if he chose to outlaw divorce, as Catholics do?

I also have a difficult time believing a Christian president would stop his legislation at the end of the OT text. And i don't want the government telling me to live under Christian law (whatever that is). There's the real danger of a slippery slope.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 08:07 PM
In context with what Huckabee was speaking of (and that was where we started all this) he was speaking of stopping abortion and making marriage only legal between man and a woman.
Ah. Well, you see, you've already run afoul of the whole interpretation issue.

Religious Jews are pro-life, but believe that abortion is obligated under certain circumstances and optional in others. So now you're going to use government authority to force people of another faith to follow your religious rules. That should bother you...

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 08:07 PM
Nothing is horrible about the Bible, but just look at the arguments that people's interpretation of the Bible results in. Who is the final arbiter? Is everything literal? If I don't accept a literal creation story, am I to be censured as a scientist? It goes on and on.
And you honestly think that is what Huckabee was advocating?

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 08:09 PM
The bible can be interpreted by different people in different ways. What's do say it would be done in a way compliant with my understanding of God's word? Or yours? What if he chose to outlaw divorce, as Catholics do?

I also have a difficult time believing a Christian president would stop his legislation at the end of the OT text. And i don't want the government telling me to live under Christian law (whatever that is). There's the real danger of a slippery slope.
And I'll ask you the same. Do you honestly think that is what Huckabee was advocating?

Come on guys... let's at least talk about this with some intellectual honesty and reasoning!!!

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 08:10 PM
Ah. Well, you see, you've already run afoul of the whole interpretation issue.

Religious Jews are pro-life, but believe that abortion is obligated under certain circumstances and optional in others. So now you're going to use government authority to force people of another faith to follow your religious rules. That should bother you...Um... I'd have no problem with that on the abortion issue. Doesn't bother me at all hence the reason that I will always vote for a pro-life candidate.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 08:12 PM
And I'll ask you the same. Do you honestly think that is what Huckabee was advocating?

It's not clear at all what he was advocating. Or what he would actually do, for that matter.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 08:13 PM
Um... I'd have no problem with that on the abortion issue. Doesn't bother me at all hence the reason that I will always vote for a pro-life candidate.
Ah, interesting.

So you have no problem forcing people of another faith to follow your religious rules. :hmm:

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 08:19 PM
It's not clear at all what he was advocating. Or what he would actually do, for that matter.Sure it was clear. He was speaking of abortion and homosexual unions. That's already been covered pretty well by most press groups out there.

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 08:20 PM
Ah, interesting.

So you have no problem forcing people of another faith to follow your religious rules. :hmm:On abortion... no. If one wants to call that religious rules then fine. Works for me.

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 08:33 PM
Well, I'm glad Roe V Wade still stands, then.

I don't want abortion outlawed in every case and I don't want anyone making new legislation based on the bible.

teddyv
Jan 31st 2008, 09:04 PM
And you honestly think that is what Huckabee was advocating?

As you mentioned it was in relation to same-sex unions and abortion. I don't think what I raised is intellectually dishonest or unreasonable. I think its a legitimate slippery-slope issue.

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 09:27 PM
Well, I'm glad Roe V Wade still stands, then.

I don't want abortion outlawed in every case and I don't want anyone making new legislation based on the bible.
So... you would agree to give up thousands of babies a year in order to keep a law in place that would allow babies to be aborted for the life of a mother and or rape... issues that are very rare and just a very small percentage of abortions anually? Mind you I am just going with your assumption that the law you figure Huckabee would pass (might be) is IN NO CIRCUMSTANCE! He might not be one with that leaning... but he could be too... not sure on that specific and don't feel like hunting it. :lol:

ProjectPeter
Jan 31st 2008, 09:28 PM
As you mentioned it was in relation to same-sex unions and abortion. I don't think what I raised is intellectually dishonest or unreasonable. I think its a legitimate slippery-slope issue.
If that was the context though and you know that... how did censoring scientist come into the discussion?

Fenris
Jan 31st 2008, 09:44 PM
So... you would agree to give up thousands of babies a year in order to keep a law in place that would allow babies to be aborted for the life of a mother and or rape... issues that are very rare and just a very small percentage of abortions anually?
Yes, I would.

I'm more comfortable with women having the choice to have an unjustified abortion than forcing a woman to carry to term when she doesn't have to/shouldn't have to.

I mean really, you would force a woman who was raped to carry to term? That's love?

teddyv
Jan 31st 2008, 09:59 PM
If that was the context though and you know that... how did censoring scientist come into the discussion?

My point is if such a move to a Bible based code of laws came in for abortion and same-sex unions, does it just stop there? What other Biblical laws should then be implemented. That's the point of a slippery slope. My example was merely just that, an example of where such thinking could lead.

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 1st 2008, 12:30 AM
Can we legislate faith? What are the worldly consequences of not doing everything right according to whomever interprets the Biblical rules?

*edit*


No, it doesn't. One should serve God because they choose to, not because the government orders them to.

I can't rep you, because I guess I repped your fairly recently and I don't rep very often.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 01:14 AM
Yes, I would.

I'm more comfortable with women having the choice to have an unjustified abortion than forcing a woman to carry to term when she doesn't have to/shouldn't have to.

I mean really, you would force a woman who was raped to carry to term? That's love?Honestly, while I have no problem with the death of the woman and rape disclaimer personally... if it was an either NO abortion period or abortion on demand... yes I would opt for that. And yes... that is love magnified by the hundreds of thousands to babies aborted. And honestly... it is love towards a lot of women who grow to regret what they have done and Fenris... that number is really great as well. I've dealt with many over the years and we get them in the forum on a regular basis as well.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 01:16 AM
My point is if such a move to a Bible based code of laws came in for abortion and same-sex unions, does it just stop there? What other Biblical laws should then be implemented. That's the point of a slippery slope. My example was merely just that, an example of where such thinking could lead.Well that is one of those who knows questions. I could ask the same on the other end. If we don't legislate this stuff... where does it stop? That is equally a slippery slope is it not? THink about it... both slopes might well have some slick spots on them... but I gotta figure God's way is not the bad one. Not sure how anyone that believes in God would figure that.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 01:17 AM
Can we legislate faith? What are the worldly consequences of not doing everything right according to whomever interprets the Biblical rules?

*edit*



I can't rep you, because I guess I repped your fairly recently and I don't rep very often.No one is speaking of legislating faith though. That's just something that folks toss out in this type discussion... religion and politics combined!

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 01:19 AM
Let me ask it this way too. Do you guys honestly believe that should a man like Huckabee win the presidency... that he would even be able to do any of this? See... I don't think it would happen nor even get close to happening. That would require not only a guy like that get elected but a majority of states putting in someone just like him in both the Senate and the House. That ain't happening. ANd without that... all a President can do is pine away about how it could be.

Ecumaniac
Feb 1st 2008, 01:40 AM
What is so horribly wrong about the Bible that folks would hate to see our government more in line with it?

I think that the subsequent discussion is answer enough to this question. You do not have a problem with constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage; however, many Jews would have a problem with the first, and many Quakers might take issue with the latter. You have asked at least a couple of times:


Do you honestly think that is what Huckabee was advocating?But the thing is, it almost doesn't matter what he's actually advocating — which is why others have been constructing "what if" scenarios related to other divisive issues. The point being made is that what he is advocating is justified largely by his particular interpretation of one religious text, at the expense of all other beliefs. This line of argument is sufficient to you only insofar as you agree with him; but you would immediately see how dangerous it is if one of the aforementioned Jews or Quakers stood for president with a view to enshrining either of these issues as fundamental rights under the Constitution, justified by religious conviction.

So, you see, while other Christians might agree with you that the two specific amendments you propose are reasonable, they are wary because of the ill portents of allowing religious dogmatism to direct public policy.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 01:48 AM
I think that the subsequent discussion is answer enough to this question. You do not have a problem with constitutional amendments to ban abortion and gay marriage; however, many Jews would have a problem with the first, and many Quakers might take issue with the latter. You have asked at least a couple of times:

But the thing is, it almost doesn't matter what he's actually advocating — which is why others have been constructing "what if" scenarios related to other divisive issues. The point being made is that what he is advocating is justified largely by his particular interpretation of one religious text, at the expense of all other beliefs. This line of argument is sufficient to you only insofar as you agree with him; but you would immediately see how dangerous it is if one of the aforementioned Jews or Quakers stood for president with a view to enshrining either of these issues as fundamental rights under the Constitution, justified by religious conviction.

So, you see, while other Christians might agree with you that the two specific amendments you propose are reasonable, they are wary because of the ill portents of allowing religious dogmatism to direct public policy.
I understand fully the concern. But my point earlier is still I think a major sticking point. The slope is slippery on most any side if we want to get down to where the rubber meets the road. If I am taking my pick on a slope... I've gotta side with the side of God. Especially on issues of life and homosexual marriage. If a Jew was running who was against homosexual marriage and pro life with the exception of rape and life of the mom... I'd have no problem with that.

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 1st 2008, 02:33 AM
No one is speaking of legislating faith though. That's just something that folks toss out in this type discussion... religion and politics combined!

I don't understand how we could create a legal system defined around interpretation of a religious text, enforce it, and then say that it doesn't combine religion and politics. If we make the 10 Commandments laws that must be followed or else, that is using our faith and pushing it on others.

I'm sorry, but I don't want to have to pay a fine, or some other inane consequence, every time I did not listen to what my parents wanted.

And frankly, if I stopped coveting my neighbor's goods I would quit buying things, and what happens when consumers stop spending money....?

Nihil Obstat
Feb 1st 2008, 06:03 AM
I don't understand how we could create a legal system defined around interpretation of a religious text, enforce it, and then say that it doesn't combine religion and politics. If we make the 10 Commandments laws that must be followed or else, that is using our faith and pushing it on others.

I'm sorry, but I don't want to have to pay a fine, or some other inane consequence, every time I did not listen to what my parents wanted.

And frankly, if I stopped coveting my neighbor's goods I would quit buying things, and what happens when consumers stop spending money....?

I'm confused... you *do* pay a "fine" every time you dishonor your parents and covet...

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 10:38 AM
But the thing is, it almost doesn't matter what he's actually advocating which is why others have been constructing "what if" scenarios related to other divisive issues. The point being made is that what he is advocating is justified largely by his particular interpretation of one religious text, at the expense of all other beliefs. This line of argument is sufficient to you only insofar as you agree with him; but you would immediately see how dangerous it is if one of the aforementioned Jews or Quakers stood for president with a view to enshrining either of these issues as fundamental rights under the Constitution, justified by religious conviction.

So, you see, while other Christians might agree with you that the two specific amendments you propose are reasonable, they are wary because of the ill portents of allowing religious dogmatism to direct public policy.Bravo! I couldn't have said it better myself. :kiss:

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 01:01 PM
I don't understand how we could create a legal system defined around interpretation of a religious text, enforce it, and then say that it doesn't combine religion and politics. If we make the 10 Commandments laws that must be followed or else, that is using our faith and pushing it on others.No one is advocating making the "Ten Commandments" any more a part of our law than they already are. No one is going to pass a law adding the first five commandments. No one ever has and no one really has ever made an attempt at it. But the moral aspects of the Law... the love your neighbor parts of that law... they are pretty much already in the law. That isn't denied even by the Supreme Court itself.

No one is advocating that the nation have a required by law Sunday morning service or Saturday service. No one is advocating nor even implying laws such as everyone must profess Christ. And the fact that those laws are already in our laws... has obviously not been a pushing of our faith on others. Legislating morality yes... that's what lawmakers do.



I'm sorry, but I don't want to have to pay a fine, or some other inane consequence, every time I did not listen to what my parents wanted.Yes... that's what Huckabee is advocating. :rolleyes: Come on guys... this is such a stretch of "what ifs" that you guys really do almost make the Atheist and unbelievers sound like they are right in that the Bible is just some strict archaic book not meant for today.


And frankly, if I stopped coveting my neighbor's goods I would quit buying things, and what happens when consumers stop spending money....?Uh... nothing really much I can even say about this.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 01:09 PM
Yes... that's what Huckabee is advocating. :rolleyes: Come on guys... this is such a stretch of "what ifs" that you guys really do almost make the Atheist and unbelievers sound like they are right in that the Bible is just some strict archaic book not meant for today.
If you're willing to let someone write laws who says they're getting them from the bible, then you have to be prepared for the day when someone of a different faith does the same. Maybe a Muslim? Wouldn't that be exciting.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 01:20 PM
If you're willing to let someone write laws who says they're getting them from the bible, then you have to be prepared for the day when someone of a different faith does the same. Maybe a Muslim? Wouldn't that be exciting.
Tell you what Fenris and seriously... this is where I see folks going in these discussions and it is like folks just forget how the system works in order to post something they think a good line to make their point.

The day, in this country, that a Muslim could change laws in America with their radical ideology (that's what we're talking about here for your point) would be the day that it wouldn't matter anyway for anyone in America. Why? Because one.. a President can't just change laws. It takes Congress, Senate, and if a constitutional change the vast majority of the States. So for a Muslim to enact that sort of law... it is going to be a time when Muslims run both the House and Senate as well as be a majority in the states. If that ever happens that will be because this country has been overrun by Muslims which now rule the land. I also figure when that happens... Senate, Congress, Governors, and all that don't matter anyway. Both Jews and Christian's won't likely have much to worry about how they pass law.

So we can toss out extreme examples like this to try and make your point that it would be horrible for someone to pass laws based on the Bible and all... but I think it is a cheapened argument to try and compare that to Muslims passing laws from the Qu'ran. Tis my opinion anyway for what it's worth! :lol:

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 01:32 PM
Tell you what Fenris and seriously... this is where I see folks going in these discussions and it is like folks just forget how the system works in order to post something they think a good line to make their point.Seeing the long term consequences of government policy is not an invalid approach. You want a government official to pick up a holy book and write law from it. You will lose the right to complain in the future when a government official picks up a different holy book and writes law from it.


The day, in this country, that a Muslim could change laws in America with their radical ideology (that's what we're talking about here for your point) would be the day that it wouldn't matter anyway for anyone in America. Why? Because one.. a President can't just change laws. It takes Congress, Senate, and if a constitutional change the vast majority of the States. So for a Muslim to enact that sort of law... it is going to be a time when Muslims run both the House and Senate as well as be a majority in the states. If that ever happens that will be because this country has been overrun by Muslims which now rule the land. I also figure when that happens... Senate, Congress, Governors, and all that don't matter anyway. Both Jews and Christian's won't likely have much to worry about how they pass law.

So we can toss out extreme examples like this to try and make your point that it would be horrible for someone to pass laws based on the Bible and all... but I think it is a cheapened argument to try and compare that to Muslims passing laws from the Qu'ran. Tis my opinion anyway for what it's worth! :lol:As I said above, you would be allowing a dangerous precedent by writing law from a religion's holy book. Remember this for the future, when maybe Christians are not the majority any longer.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 01:40 PM
Seeing the long term consequences of government policy is not an invalid approach. You want a government official to pick up a holy book and write law from it. You will lose the right to complain in the future when a government official picks up a different holy book and writes law from it.
As I said above, you would be allowing a dangerous precedent by writing law from a religion's holy book. Remember this for the future, when maybe Christians are not the majority any longer.Again though Fenris... okay, let's do it this way since apparently most of what I am saying is just getting read over.

1. How do laws get passed in our government?

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 01:43 PM
State or federal laws get passed in much the same way. The legislature (state or federal) write them. The executive (president or governor) sign them into law. The courts determine their legitimacy, if called upon to do so.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 01:48 PM
State or federal laws get passed in much the same way. The legislature (state or federal) write them. The executive (president or governor) sign them into law. The courts determine their legitimacy, if called upon to do so.
Right.

Now... take for example the laws against sodomy. Most every state had laws against this and even some federal laws against it for guys in the military and such. Where do you think those laws came from?

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 01:52 PM
Right.

Now... take for example the laws against sodomy. Most every state had laws against this and even some federal laws against it for guys in the military and such. Where do you think those laws came from?
Umm It's actually my impression that the supreme court struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional...

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 02:02 PM
Umm It's actually my impression that the supreme court struck down sodomy laws as unconstitutional...
The recent Court has... but mind you there were many here before this recent court that didn't and those laws were on the books in many cases going back to the early founding fathers. ;) So while I know the supreme courts ruling today... the laws were there for many, many years prior to the time this recent court decided all of the past justices and politicians had it all wrong. :lol:

Doesn't change the question because for 100 plus years those laws were in fact on the books in most every state and also federal laws.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 02:07 PM
Doesn't change the question because for 100 plus years those laws were in fact on the books in most every state and also federal laws.
So was slavery...

Courts can be wrong.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 02:10 PM
So was slavery...

Courts can be wrong.
Do you think, according to Scripture, that sodomy is a bad law?

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 02:17 PM
Do you think, according to Scripture, that sodomy is a bad law?
I know that God abhors the act of sodomy. He describes it as an abomination.

Since it is a victimless crime, I do not think that it should be illegal. Let God take it up with them in the hereafter.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 02:31 PM
So your answer is exactly what? It is a bad law or not a bad law because God abhors it... but bad because it ain't anyone's business therefore........? You really didn't answer the question.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 02:38 PM
Bad law. What people do in the bedroom is not the government's business.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 02:41 PM
So then as a Jew... I suppose you figure Moses really messed all that stuff up? This really is interesting although getting a little off the Rudy issue. :lol:

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 02:45 PM
No, Moses didn't write the bible. God did. And He wrote it for a theocratic government of one group of people who were all the same religion, not a representative pluralistic democracy of many religions...

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 03:02 PM
No, Moses didn't write the bible. God did. And He wrote it for a theocratic government of one group of people who were all the same religion, not a representative pluralistic democracy of many religions...
So then because of the way our government is set up... it is your thinking that God would be against us having such a law as a sodomy law?

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 03:07 PM
So then because of the way our government is set up... it is your thinking that God would be against us having such a law as a sodomy law?
Because of the way our country is, it would cause more problems than it will solve. Yes, I think God would disapprove of it.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 03:14 PM
Because of the way our country is, it would cause more problems than it will solve. Yes, I think God would disapprove of it.
That's interesting really. Help me wrap my mind around this thinking. We have an ungodly act... yet God would rather us not make a law against that ungodly act because we are a nation of multiple religions. For God to disapprove of that then how does this not mean that God approves of an ungodly act as long as it is done in say America (since that is what we are talking about)?

That is in essence saying that God would disprove of us having laws against homosexuality, bestiality, etc. I'm figuring you'd have a hard time proving that point using Scripture. Call it a hunch on my part.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 03:26 PM
God would rather us be a functioning nation where the rights of minorities are protected than a nation where the police kick down the door in the middle of the night trying to catch people in the act of sodomy (since it's the act itself that's forbidden, not being a homosexual person).

I am always leery of giving the government more power, especially over individuals behavior where there's no obvious victim.

Furthermore, you're going to the bible only when it supports your contention. I don't see you calling for the establishment of a Sanhedrin to try cases of sodomy, nor for the punishment to be the biblical one.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 03:33 PM
God would rather us be a functioning nation where the rights of minorities are protected than a nation where the police kick down the door in the middle of the night trying to catch people in the act of sodomy (since it's the act itself that's forbidden, not being a homosexual person).

I am always leery of giving the government more power, especially over individuals behavior where there's no obvious victim.

Furthermore, you're going to the bible only when it supports your contention. I don't see you calling for the establishment of a Sanhedrin to try cases of sodomy, nor for the punishment to be the biblical one.
During the times of those laws... did we have an over abundance of cops kicking in the doors to see what folks were doing in their bedroom? I'm nearing 50 now and I don't recall any times like that at all.

My point isn't establishing Sanhedrin, or any such thing as that. It isn't even in writing into Law all of the various laws of Moses. I am simply talking about a couple of moral issues which again, in context, that is exactly what Huckabee is doing. You guys are the ones that keep going to the n'th degree here as if one person would have the power to get into the White House and declare the Bible as our new form of law. You know it wouldn't happen nor could it happen. But you want someone to park their religious belief out on the White House lawn and by gosh... don't dare bring that into your moral belief and the passing of laws!!! I mean the Bible? OH MY! ;)

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 03:37 PM
During the times of those laws... did we have an over abundance of cops kicking in the doors to see what folks were doing in their bedroom? I'm nearing 50 now and I don't recall any times like that at all.Um yes, here in NY that's exactly what was happening.


My point isn't establishing Sanhedrin, or any such thing as that. It isn't even in writing into Law all of the various laws of Moses. I am simply talking about a couple of moral issues which again, in context, that is exactly what Huckabee is doing. You guys are the ones that keep going to the n'th degree here as if one person would have the power to get into the White House and declare the Bible as our new form of law. You know it wouldn't happen nor could it happen. But you want someone to park their religious belief out on the White House lawn and by gosh... don't dare bring that into your moral belief and the passing of laws!!! I mean the Bible? OH MY! ;)Because we're afraid of where it will lead. You view government as a benign way to enforce morality. I view it as a necessary evil. Why give the necessary evil more power?

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 03:53 PM
Um yes, here in NY that's exactly what was happening.Hmmm.. must have missed that huge event on the news.



Because we're afraid of where it will lead. You view government as a benign way to enforce morality. I view it as a necessary evil. Why give the necessary evil more power?Government is there to enforce the laws against evil. That's what they are supposed to do isn't it? And government wasn't something that God was against... even God established one for the Israelites. So evil? Could be... doesn't have to be. Up to those within that government.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 04:00 PM
Government is there to enforce the laws against evil. That's what they are supposed to do isn't it?
No. Representative government is here to protect individual's rights.



So evil? Could be... doesn't have to be. Up to those within that government.

Ah, so it comes back to my point. Do you want elected officials writing law from holy books? Because if you say yes, don't complain when they use one you might not like...

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 04:10 PM
No. Representative government is here to protect individual's rights.



Ah, so it comes back to my point. Do you want elected officials writing law from holy books? Because if you say yes, don't complain when they use one you might not like...Again hoss... they've already written many a law from that book. ;) Even this current Supreme Court recognizes that fact.

And my point isn't that they write it from Shakespeare, or whatever other book be it "holy" or not. I'm talking the Bible. It is only recent ideology that says "if you use yours then you have to use mine." ;)

Free Indeed
Feb 1st 2008, 04:13 PM
Fenris,

Come out from among them, oh my people, and join me in the Obama camp!

:thumbsup:

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 04:14 PM
Fenris,

Come out from among them, oh my people, and join me in the Obama camp!

:thumbsup::lol:

Ah, my brother. I'd rep you again if I could. Best laugh I've had in a while.

Free Indeed
Feb 1st 2008, 04:16 PM
I'm talking the Bible. It is only recent ideology that says "if you use yours then you have to use mine." ;)

Not at all. People were using "scriptures" to base laws around long before out Bible was composed and compiled...and they always argued on interpretation.

Personally, though, I think all this is pretty straightforward. We either believe in individual liberty, or we don't. If we believe in freedom, we have to say that what consenting adults do in privacy is none of government's business. If we don't believe in freedom, we should admit it, and drop the whole "our duty to spread freedom throughout the middle east" facade.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 04:17 PM
Again hoss... they've already written many a law from that book. ;) Even this current Supreme Court recognizes that fact.

And my point isn't that they write it from Shakespeare, or whatever other book be it "holy" or not. I'm talking the Bible. It is only recent ideology that says "if you use yours then you have to use mine." ;)Be that as it may. I do not view government in general as benevolent and I don't want to give it more power than it presently has. Certainly not by commingling religious law with criminal law.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 04:27 PM
Knight Templar, Obama believes in a different kind of big, intrusive government.

His doesn't kick down your bedroom door.

His decides what doctor you can go to and what king of surgery you are allowed to get (socialized medicine). His reaches into your wallet and takes money away from you (redistribution of wealth with socialist policies).

I find his idea of government just as bad.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 04:34 PM
Fenris,

Come out from among them, oh my people, and join me in the Obama camp!

:thumbsup:Ha... I'd not vote first. No way that anyone can convince me that any Christian would be able to cast that vote and still be a true Christian.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 04:36 PM
Not at all. People were using "scriptures" to base laws around long before out Bible was composed and compiled...and they always argued on interpretation.

Personally, though, I think all this is pretty straightforward. We either believe in individual liberty, or we don't. If we believe in freedom, we have to say that what consenting adults do in privacy is none of government's business. If we don't believe in freedom, we should admit it, and drop the whole "our duty to spread freedom throughout the middle east" facade.We don't have to say that at all. There are things folks do, even privately, that are the business of society. Last time I went to the Mall... I didn't see an open to the public meth lab. Matter of fact... all you ever hear of are those done privately, in their own home or property.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 04:37 PM
Be that as it may. I do not view government in general as benevolent and I don't want to give it more power than it presently has. Certainly not by commingling religious law with criminal law.Yeah... imagine a nation being told to not do things ungodly. The horror of it all! :lol:

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 04:39 PM
Yeah... imagine a nation being told to not do things ungodly. The horror of it all! :lol:
Then Sharia law is fine by you?

Free Indeed
Feb 1st 2008, 04:40 PM
Knight Templar, Obama believes in a different kind of big, intrusive government.

His doesn't kick down your bedroom door.

That's a start!


His decides what doctor you can go to and what king of surgery you are allowed to get (socialized medicine). His reaches into your wallet and takes money away from you (redistribution of wealth with socialist policies).

I find his idea of government just as bad.

I'm not opposed to certain kinds of socialism. We already have socialized education, socialized fire and police departments, socialized libraries, socialized military, etc.


We are the only advanced western democracy without public health care, and are now in a crisis because of it. Personally, I support instituting a single-payer system, which is *more* socialist, and further to the left, than either Obama's or Hillary's plans.
Even though I don't think Obama's of Hillary's plans go far enough, it's at least a step in the right direction. Obama's plan would open up the Congressional plan to those who want to buy into it, while those who like the coverage they already have can keep it. Both Hillary and Obama would supply subsidies for the public plan to those who couldn't afford it, and pay for it by rolling back the bush tax cuts on wealthiest 1%. The major difference is that Hillary would mandate coverage, and Obama would not.

I still would like to see a single-payer system, but their plans would offer quick and immediate assistance to the uninsured, whereas with my plan, it would take me several years of fighting a war with the insurance companies.

Free Indeed
Feb 1st 2008, 04:42 PM
Ha... I'd not vote first. No way that anyone can convince me that any Christian would be able to cast that vote and still be a true Christian.

What's a "true Christian"? Is Obama not a "true Christian"? Is Hillary a "fake Christian"?

Please explain.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 04:44 PM
I'm not opposed to certain kinds of socialism. We already have socialized education, socialized fire and police departments, socialized libraries, socialized military, etc.The only things the government should are the things that onlythe government can do. Like armies, or police, or courts.


We are the only advanced western democracy without public health care,So what?


and are now in a crisis because of it. What crisis?

Free Indeed
Feb 1st 2008, 04:49 PM
So what?

Well, that would open a question: why is this the case, and who is doing better?



What crisis?

The crisis concerning the fact that millions of Americans are uninsured, and the millions who *are* insured are often denied claims. The crisis which arises when the elderly have to choose whether or not to buy food or buy medicine. The crisis that arises when a working family has to sell their home to pay for a child's cancer treatments.

As mentioned, we are the only advanced western democracy where a family has to have bake sales to raise money for their kids' leukemia treatments. This strikes me as absolutely absurd.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 05:03 PM
Well, that would open a question: why is this the case, and who is doing better?Those countries doing better have substantially higher tax rates. They also tend to use medical procedures and innovations and medicines developed in the American free-market system.



The crisis concerning the fact that millions of Americans are uninsured, and the millions who *are* insured are often denied claims. So why does this necessitate government intervention?

How about a making health insurance payments a tax-deduction? Or does the government need everyone's tax dollars so much?


The crisis which arises when the elderly have to choose whether or not to buy food or buy medicine.If you want government price controls of drugs, you can have them. Then watch as new drug patents dry up. You see, it costs about 365 million dollars to get a drug from conception stage to market stage. Why do drug companies invest so much money in R&D? Because they know they can make a profit on their discovery. Remove the profit motive, you remove the new drugs.


The crisis that arises when a working family has to sell their home to pay for a child's cancer treatments.Then have insurance payments tax-deductible.


As mentioned, we are the only advanced western democracy where a family has to have bake sales to raise money for their kids' leukemia treatments. This strikes me as absolutely absurd.We're also more prosperous than any other nation.

The elderly are covered my Medicare. The poor are covered by Medicaid. We just have to get the exceptions covered. I vehemently reject overhauling and probably breaking a working system for such small gain.

Ecumaniac
Feb 1st 2008, 05:13 PM
No way that anyone can convince me that any Christian would be able to cast that vote and still be a true Christian.

What? :confused Do you mean that literally, or are you being humorously hyperbolic?

Free Indeed
Feb 1st 2008, 05:56 PM
Those countries doing better have substantially higher tax rates.

And substantially lower, if not outright eliminated, insurance premiums.


They also tend to use medical procedures and innovations and medicines developed in the American free-market system.

I would argue that this is not the general rule; procedures and innovations come from everywhere. And that in many instances, when they originate in the USA, they are results are federally funded projects.



How about a making health insurance payments a tax-deduction?

Well, even that would be better than what we have now. However, I would say it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. For example, the working poor usually do not make enough for a tax deduction to be of any really help. Further, it doesn't address the problem of insurance companies denying claims for people who do have insurance, and pay their premiums.


Or does the government need everyone's tax dollars so much?

I could counter by asking "Do the insurance corporations need everyone's premium profits so much?"...but, of course, I wouldn't. :wave:

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 06:08 PM
And substantially lower, if not outright eliminated, insurance premiums.I'd rather pay of insurance than give my money to the government who does God knows what with it, but that's just me.




I would argue that this is not the general rule; procedures and innovations come from everywhere. And that in many instances, when they originate in the USA, they are results are federally funded projects.
If it helps you to make your point, go on believing that.



Well, even that would be better than what we have now. However, I would say it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. For example, the working poor usually do not make enough for a tax deduction to be of any really help. Further, it doesn't address the problem of insurance companies denying claims for people who do have insurance, and pay their premiums.Well, does everyone have the right to expensive surgery?




I could counter by asking "Do the insurance corporations need everyone's premium profits so much?"...but, of course, I wouldn't. :wave:

Well, one way to lower medical costs would be to put a cap on how much trial lawyers can hit up doctors for in malpractice cases.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 06:43 PM
Then Sharia law is fine by you?I explained that in great detail back a few post ago. Add to that the fact I am not talking Islam here nor their book. I'm talking God. You know the one... Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's God.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 06:51 PM
What's a "true Christian"? Is Obama not a "true Christian"? Is Hillary a "fake Christian"?

Please explain.No I wouldn't have them in my church. Anyone that is pro-choice as radically as they are... they've got problems!

Anyone that is pro-homosexual relationships as they are... they've got problems! They certainly have problems with the God of the Bible.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 06:53 PM
What? :confused Do you mean that literally, or are you being humorously hyperbolic?As literal as can be.

Fenris
Feb 1st 2008, 06:54 PM
I explained that in great detail back a few post ago. Add to that the fact I am not talking Islam here nor their book. I'm talking God. You know the one... Abraham, Isaac and Jacob's God.So only Christians and Jews can make use of their biblical laws?

Free Indeed
Feb 1st 2008, 06:55 PM
No I wouldn't have them in my church.

All I can say is....wow.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 07:05 PM
So only Christians and Jews can make use of their biblical laws?Moral laws... keep that in mind but sure. That works for me just fine and it worked for the founding fathers. We can argue that they were Christian, Theist, etc... there was some of all that and even some that probably didn't believe much of anything. But what one cannot do is deny the fact that the nation founders and forefathers certainly built much of this nation and laws of this nation based on Judeo-Christian values. Not Islamic... budha, Hindu, etc. There is no way that one can say the constitution was tainted with those other values in mind. As to Judeo-Christian values... that is a very strong case.

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 07:11 PM
All I can say is....wow.
Really? You think they are a Christian for being contrary to the gospel of God? Not sure how that can be... perhaps you can explain how it is that one can be contrary to the gospel and yet still be a Christian?

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 1st 2008, 07:16 PM
Really? You think they are a Christian for being contrary to the gospel of God? Not sure how that can be... perhaps you can explain how it is that one can be contrary to the gospel and yet still be a Christian?

I have never met anyone who didn't sin.

Nihil Obstat
Feb 1st 2008, 07:21 PM
I have never met anyone who didn't sin.

There is a *major* difference between those who are weak and sincere, and those who purposefully set their hearts against Jesus!

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 07:43 PM
I have never met anyone who didn't sin.Um... I think this would be one of them strong cases of them "practicing sin" in a major way. ;)

ProjectPeter
Feb 1st 2008, 07:44 PM
There is a *major* difference between those who are weak and sincere, and those who purposefully set their hearts against Jesus!
That's exactly right. Every day they stay in the party and stand on that platform... they practice it pure and simple.

Nihil Obstat
Feb 2nd 2008, 05:20 AM
Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Ezekiel 43
7 And He said to me, "Son of man, this is the place of My throne and the place of the soles of My feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel forever..."

Matthew 25
31 When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. ... 40 And the King will answer and say to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren [the Jews], you did it to Me." ... 46 And these [nations on His left] will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous [nations] into eternal life.

Revelation 19
15 ... And [Jesus] Himself will rule [the nations] with a rod of iron...

Zechariah 14
16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came up against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain. 18 If the family of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. 19 This shall be the punishment of all the nations that do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles.

Isaiah 2
2 Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it. 3 Many people shall come and say, "Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths." For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 He shall judge between the nations, and rebuke many people; they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Isaiah 11
1 There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. 2 The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of council and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD. 3 His delight is in the fear of the LORD, and He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes, nor decide by the hearing of His ears; 4 but with righteousness He shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth; He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness shall be the belt of His loins, and faithfulness the belt of His waist.

Fenris
Feb 3rd 2008, 06:45 PM
We can argue that they were Christian, Theist, etc... there was some of all that and even some that probably didn't believe much of anything. But what one cannot do is deny the fact that the nation founders and forefathers certainly built much of this nation and laws of this nation based on Judeo-Christian values.
Yah, I can't argue that point.

ProjectPeter
Feb 3rd 2008, 06:50 PM
Yah, I can't argue that point.
And I personally like the fact that they did. ;) So yeah... I would have no problem with them sticking to that and figure they would have to if they were strict constitutionalist. Reason why... it was those values instituted when they wrote the Constitution. Not Islam, or any other value.

Free Indeed
Feb 4th 2008, 02:58 PM
Really? You think they are a Christian for being contrary to the gospel of God? Not sure how that can be... perhaps you can explain how it is that one can be contrary to the gospel and yet still be a Christian?

I didn't say that one can be contrary to the Gospel and remain a Christian. But you said that Obama and Hillary cannot be Christians. I could frame the exact same argument that the Republicans can't be Christians because their actions and policies are contrary to the Gospel.

Does this mean I would bar a Republican from coming to church? Of course not. To keep a seeker out of church is probably the most anti-Christian thing imaginable.

ProjectPeter
Feb 4th 2008, 05:36 PM
I didn't say that one can be contrary to the Gospel and remain a Christian. But you said that Obama and Hillary cannot be Christians. I could frame the exact same argument that the Republicans can't be Christians because their actions and policies are contrary to the Gospel.

Does this mean I would bar a Republican from coming to church? Of course not. To keep a seeker out of church is probably the most anti-Christian thing imaginable.
Um... I didn't say they couldn't. Said they weren't and as long as they are tied to that platform... they aren't going to be.

As to the Republican policy... show me the distinct anti-Christian part of their platform and I will agree with you as well.

And why is it anti-Christian to bar someone that claims to be a Christian and yet stands for aborting babies and also stands proud to their ideology that homosexuals have the absolute right to marriage and rearing children? Those things would certainly be contrary to the gospel of God would they not?

Free Indeed
Feb 4th 2008, 07:58 PM
As to the Republican policy... show me the distinct anti-Christian part of their platform and I will agree with you as well.

I seem to recall somebody somewhere saying something to effect of "Love your enemies, do good unto them that harm you, if you are smoted, turn the other cheek".

Now, there's no need to argue that we should defend ourselves, as I would probably agree. But we are fooling ourselves if we think that such response is "Christian". It's actually opposed to what Christ taught.

And that's just in regard to defense; it says nothing about attacking first.


And why is it anti-Christian to bar someone that claims to be a Christian and yet stands for aborting babies and also stands proud to their ideology that homosexuals have the absolute right to marriage and rearing children? Those things would certainly be contrary to the gospel of God would they not?

I don't think *anybody* "stands for aborting babies". Everyone knows this is a problem that should be dealt with humanely, with compassion, and with respect to the law.

Also, of course, neither Hillary nor Obama (the two we were talking about) have ever taken the position that homosexuals have "the absolute right to marry". Therefore, what you have presented is a straw man argument.

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2008, 01:25 PM
I seem to recall somebody somewhere saying something to effect of "Love your enemies, do good unto them that harm you, if you are smoted, turn the other cheek".

Now, there's no need to argue that we should defend ourselves, as I would probably agree. But we are fooling ourselves if we think that such response is "Christian". It's actually opposed to what Christ taught.

And that's just in regard to defense; it says nothing about attacking first.Love your enemies has nothing to do with them being in the church. That is unless you want to totally discount much of the writing in the Epistle's in how the church is to operate and function. Love your enemies has been made into an excuse to tolerate things within the Church that the church ain't got any business tolerating.


I don't think *anybody* "stands for aborting babies". Everyone knows this is a problem that should be dealt with humanely, with compassion, and with respect to the law.How does one humanely abort a baby? If you have ever seen how that process is done... there is nothing humane about the mess. Folks like to think Sally is being treated humanely because she can have an abortion and not be tied down with little Junior and ruin her life. In some reasoning... that is humane. It isn't for the girl and it dang sure isn't for the baby.


Also, of course, neither Hillary nor Obama (the two we were talking about) have ever taken the position that homosexuals have "the absolute right to marry". Therefore, what you have presented is a straw man argument.Hillary certainly has and folks are going to soon find out that Obama is possibly even more liberal than she is. Not sure where he stands on the homosexual marriage issue... but if he's not for their having that right... I would be shocked and awed. So far he's gotten away from those type hard questions... but they'll come up on the national scene. But yes... Hillary certainly has. One might say she's said this and said that but then Hillary has a habit of switching her speeches up depending on whom she is speaking to.

Free Indeed
Feb 5th 2008, 03:05 PM
Love your enemies has nothing to do with them being in the church. That is unless you want to totally discount much of the writing in the Epistle's in how the church is to operate and function. Love your enemies has been made into an excuse to tolerate things within the Church that the church ain't got any business tolerating.

I didn't mean in the church. I meant our enemies whom we are engaged in war with. According to Christ, we are to do good unto our enemies instead of fight back. Since the Republicans did not "turn the other cheek", their actions were opposed to what Christ taught.

I'm not saying that we should have done nothing, I'm only poking a hole in your theory that somehow the Republicans are pro-Christ while the Democrats are anti-Christ. The fact of the matter is that while both parties have policies that contradict Christ's teachings, I find that the Democrats contradict them less than the Republicans.



How does one humanely abort a baby?

How does one humanely drop a bomb on a baby?



Hillary certainly has and folks are going to soon find out that Obama is possibly even more liberal than she is. Not sure where he stands on the homosexual marriage issue... but if he's not for their having that right... I would be shocked and awed.

Obama and Hillary's position are pretty much identical. They support civil unions for homosexuals, not marriage.

This is also a major problem I have with Republican politics. To me, homosexual marriage is a non-issue. It doesn't affect *my* marriage and it doesn't affect yours. Why are you so concerned about what *other* people do?

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2008, 05:30 PM
I didn't mean in the church. I meant our enemies whom we are engaged in war with. According to Christ, we are to do good unto our enemies instead of fight back. Since the Republicans did not "turn the other cheek", their actions were opposed to what Christ taught.

I'm not saying that we should have done nothing, I'm only poking a hole in your theory that somehow the Republicans are pro-Christ while the Democrats are anti-Christ. The fact of the matter is that while both parties have policies that contradict Christ's teachings, I find that the Democrats contradict them less than the Republicans.Babies get killed in war and that's a sad reality of it. But that isn't sin and if it is sin then God ordained sin because there were times, in war, that God told them to wipe all of them out. Men, women, dogs, cats, cows, sheep, and younguns. It happens. Like I said to someone just a second ago about trying to compare the border laws of this country to the worship of an idol is like trying to compare an apple to an okra.

Killing any human stinks. But wars happen and that ain't murder during the course of that war. Killing babies out of the mother's womb just because they don't want them or they are going to be somehow inconvenienced... that's murder.



How does one humanely drop a bomb on a baby? Bombs hit the ground and they make a huge explosion and now and again it meets with a horrible result. But there's a big difference in dropping a bomb in a war when they aren't aiming them at kids and a lady getting into a car, driving directly to the abortion clinic for one sole purpose and that is to get that baby sucked out of their womb. Their intent is to kill the baby. Period.

This sort of far-reaching to make a point never ceases to amaze me.


Obama and Hillary's position are pretty much identical. They support civil unions for homosexuals, not marriage.Again... Obama we'll see. Hillary has in fact made statements that she would support it. Mind you it could have been to just the right audience but it's been made public.


This is also a major problem I have with Republican politics. To me, homosexual marriage is a non-issue. It doesn't affect *my* marriage and it doesn't affect yours. Why are you so concerned about what *other* people do?Then you haven't read the many post I have in this thread already.

1. Doesn't matter what sinners do... sinners sin. Not for me to judge them. THat doesn't alleviate the fact that my vote is not a vote for me because I am an ambassador for Christ. You would have a very difficult time convincing me that Christ would cast a vote for anything to do contrary to the gospel of God. That is contrary to that gospel therefore we should have nothing to do with voting the pro side of that.

2. You think it doesn't concern you. But read the Bible and read some history. There is a moral pit that a nation can get themselves into that will mark the end of their nation. This nation is getting very close as it is. Make it easier... we have no hope. I have nothing at all to fear about it affecting my marriage or anyone else's for that matter. It's sin. And not the marriage part but the very homosexual act itself. Empower that sin... that would be silly for any Christian to do.

Free Indeed
Feb 5th 2008, 07:00 PM
Killing any human stinks. But wars happen and that ain't murder during the course of that war. Killing babies out of the mother's womb just because they don't want them or they are going to be somehow inconvenienced... that's murder.

I have to disagree with your relativistic position on murder. A skunk by any other name....


Again... Obama we'll see. Hillary has in fact made statements that she would support it.

Where did she make these statements? Can you provide a link?

ProjectPeter
Feb 5th 2008, 07:45 PM
I have to disagree with your relativistic position on murder. A skunk by any other name....



Where did she make these statements? Can you provide a link?
So... God was a murderer? You can't have it both ways.

And no... I don't off hand have a link nor am I going to go hunting for one. Don't have the time in all honesty nor the wherewithal.

Ecumaniac
Feb 9th 2008, 09:58 AM
Peter, the more I read the more convinced I am that allowing people to change laws to match their religious convictions is a dangerous precedent.

You have already proposed several things which I consider not only incorrect, but in one case absolutely 101% contrary to Christ's gospel. No doubt, you believe I am just as wrong. I could go into specifics about which things you said that I disagree with and why, but this is a debate about who to vote for, so I don't want to go off-topic. (Also, the ensuing discussions would take more time than I can possibly devote to them.) Rather, I will observe that the fact that you and I, both Christians, can disagree so fundamentally about something which you (by your own admission) consider it perfectly reasonable to enshrine in law is proof enough to me that I should be horrified by the possibility of maverick religious prerogatives being considered sufficient justification for interfering with the lives of myself, my family, other families across the country, and even the people of other nations.

You have every right to support whatever laws you want to support, for whatever reasons you want to support them; but based on what you've said so far, I am grateful that your countrymen have the same right, and even more so that they disagree. One day we will have theocracy, under Christ Himself, and then I will joyfully submit to His government. But I do not trust mere men to govern me by presuming to interpret His words on my behalf. The difference between God and men on most scales would probably yield a number in the aleph-series.

So until Christ returns for his flock, I would prefer to "render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Which, to me, means voting on matters of state according to the measure of matters of state, while living my life according to His Word.

ProjectPeter
Feb 9th 2008, 01:18 PM
Peter, the more I read the more convinced I am that allowing people to change laws to match their religious convictions is a dangerous precedent.

You have already proposed several things which I consider not only incorrect, but in one case absolutely 101% contrary to Christ's gospel. No doubt, you believe I am just as wrong. I could go into specifics about which things you said that I disagree with and why, but this is a debate about who to vote for, so I don't want to go off-topic. (Also, the ensuing discussions would take more time than I can possibly devote to them.) Rather, I will observe that the fact that you and I, both Christians, can disagree so fundamentally about something which you (by your own admission) consider it perfectly reasonable to enshrine in law is proof enough to me that I should be horrified by the possibility of maverick religious prerogatives being considered sufficient justification for interfering with the lives of myself, my family, other families across the country, and even the people of other nations.

You have every right to support whatever laws you want to support, for whatever reasons you want to support them; but based on what you've said so far, I am grateful that your countrymen have the same right, and even more so that they disagree. One day we will have theocracy, under Christ Himself, and then I will joyfully submit to His government. But I do not trust mere men to govern me by presuming to interpret His words on my behalf. The difference between God and men on most scales would probably yield a number in the aleph-series.

So until Christ returns for his flock, I would prefer to "render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." Which, to me, means voting on matters of state according to the measure of matters of state, while living my life according to His Word.
You know what... folks think they would gratefully submit to Christ's theocracy. It makes me chuckle when I read that because you know... I doubt it seriously. Folks like them there "rights" way too much to gratefully submit... look at the church today and this thread is a great starting place. Folks can't even take a stand now for the right of an unborn baby... I mean hey. And you know... I love it that the liberal folk in the church shudder at what I say. If they didn't then I figure I ain't saying the right thing. ;)

Ecumaniac
Feb 10th 2008, 08:39 PM
You know what... folks think they would gratefully submit to Christ's theocracy. It makes me chuckle when I read that because you know... I doubt it seriously. Folks like them there "rights" way too much to gratefully submit...

We will see.


look at the church today and this thread is a great starting place. Folks can't even take a stand now for the right of an unborn baby... I mean hey.

The question is not whether you are right, but whether the nation should be subdued to obey your beliefs at the expense of anyone else's.


And you know... I love it that the liberal folk in the church shudder at what I say. If they didn't then I figure I ain't saying the right thing. ;)

Your assuredness is precisely why I shudder: many others, myself included, are absolutely certain that you are incorrect, but you are willing to completely disregard our objections because you believe you are right.

The prospect of a theocracy led by fallible men with neither doubt nor compunction chills me to the core, and elected representatives who make decisions based on faith alone is a significant step in that direction. Fortunately, as you have alluded, the US political system is robust enough to resist such efforts at least for a few terms but a lot rests on the wisdom of voters. The spirited resistance shown in this thread heartens me: perhaps people have learned the danger of dictatorial ethics.

I'm sorry, Peter, but it seems that we disagree completely on this issue.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2008, 04:07 AM
We will see.



The question is not whether you are right, but whether the nation should be subdued to obey your beliefs at the expense of anyone else's.



Your assuredness is precisely why I shudder: many others, myself included, are absolutely certain that you are incorrect, but you are willing to completely disregard our objections because you believe you are right.

The prospect of a theocracy led by fallible men with neither doubt nor compunction chills me to the core, and elected representatives who make decisions based on faith alone is a significant step in that direction. Fortunately, as you have alluded, the US political system is robust enough to resist such efforts at least for a few terms but a lot rests on the wisdom of voters. The spirited resistance shown in this thread heartens me: perhaps people have learned the danger of dictatorial ethics.

I'm sorry, Peter, but it seems that we disagree completely on this issue.I don't just believe I am right... I know it. It has nothing to do with dictatorial ethics but hey... call it what you will. Sad thing is... many are deceived and this thread shows just that.

Ecumaniac
Feb 11th 2008, 06:55 AM
I don't just believe I am right... I know it.

Eerily enough, the very last words I wrote were going to be, verbatim: "The most dangerous people in the world are those who know they're right." I removed them because I suspected the implication would be too subtle, and thought it sounded perhaps a little too personal, so I admit I am somewhat spooked to have them so dramatically vindicated! :)

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2008, 11:49 AM
Eerily enough, the very last words I wrote were going to be, verbatim: "The most dangerous people in the world are those who know they're right." I removed them because I suspected the implication would be too subtle, and thought it sounded perhaps a little too personal, so I admit I am somewhat spooked to have them so dramatically vindicated! :)
Color me spooky then. There are issues that I figure there is no backing off. Those issues are the ones spoken of in this thread. There is no way that I'd ever vote for anyone that didn't adhere to what I believe. And suffice it to say... I'm not going to be convinced that God would get bunched up because a country decided you know... that there is a pretty good book and we're going to follow it. I know that comes as a shock to some folks... that follow Scripture talk usually does just that. But again... color me spooky.

theabaud
Feb 11th 2008, 12:47 PM
Eerily enough, the very last words I wrote were going to be, verbatim: "The most dangerous people in the world are those who know they're right." I removed them because I suspected the implication would be too subtle, and thought it sounded perhaps a little too personal, so I admit I am somewhat spooked to have them so dramatically vindicated! :)
Hey, I am with PP, though I don't agree with him on things, I think we had better be assured of some things, and it is perfectly fine to believe we are right. I would feel a person to be indecisive or a fool who did not believe themselves to be right. Indecisive because they will never do anything, or a fool because they will attack life without knowing why they are doing it for certain. Sounds scarier.

Ecumaniac
Feb 11th 2008, 04:32 PM
Oh, I know what's right. The difference is, I'm not going to use the government as a tool to force people to obey the rules I know exist.

Why? Because I know that some of the things PP believes are 100% wrong. I'm not going to argue with him about those things, because who's right or wrong doesn't matter; what matters is that even though we disagree, PP wants to strong-arm me and everyone else who disagrees with him into obeying his rules.

I would be pretty unhappy living under Sharia law, as I suspect would PP. He would probably be unhappy living under all of the rules which govern my life, too (they're not easy rules to live by, just so you know). But the clerics who institute Sharia law know that it is correct, as do I know that I am correct. PP argues, like those clerics, that I should obey his rules, because he knows that they are right; I argue that it's enough that I know what's right and wrong, without compelling other people to obey my dictates; so long as I can tell other people what's right, that's quite sufficient.

In the end, I'm going to go with a government which allows people the greatest latitude to develop their conscience without interference, instead of forcing them to follow someone else's conscience. It should be enough that I tell someone that something is wrong, and explain why, for them to stop; I'd rather change someone's heart by convicting them of the truth, not convicting them to a jail sentence!

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 11th 2008, 05:14 PM
Oh, I know what's right. The difference is, I'm not going to use the government as a tool to force people to obey the rules I know exist.

Why? Because I know that some of the things PP believes are 100% wrong. I'm not going to argue with him about those things, because who's right or wrong doesn't matter; what matters is that even though we disagree, PP wants to strong-arm me and everyone else who disagrees with him into obeying his rules.

I would be pretty unhappy living under Sharia law, as I suspect would PP. He would probably be unhappy living under all of the rules which govern my life, too (they're not easy rules to live by, just so you know). But the clerics who institute Sharia law know that it is correct, as do I know that I am correct. PP argues, like those clerics, that I should obey his rules, because he knows that they are right; I argue that it's enough that I know what's right and wrong, without compelling other people to obey my dictates; so long as I can tell other people what's right, that's quite sufficient.

In the end, I'm going to go with a government which allows people the greatest latitude to develop their conscience without interference, instead of forcing them to follow someone else's conscience. It should be enough that I tell someone that something is wrong, and explain why, for them to stop; I'd rather change someone's heart by convicting them of the truth, not convicting them to a jail sentence!

This is what I was trying to get at. I also disagree with "barring people who live unchristian-like lifestyles from church." Why? How many of us lived Christian lifestyles before we were saved?

theabaud
Feb 11th 2008, 07:09 PM
Why? Because I know that some of the things PP believes are 100% wrong.
If I believe that the unborn are living, would you expect me to not try to defend them as I would any other human life? If I wouldn't I would be a pretty foul person in my eyes.

I am fairly libertarian, but on at least that issue, I don't think you should expect us to take the stance that this is a "to each his own issue."

theabaud
Feb 11th 2008, 07:14 PM
This is what I was trying to get at. I also disagree with "barring people who live unchristian-like lifestyles from church." Why? How many of us lived Christian lifestyles before we were saved?
I certainly did not, and even after I was saved I had some old hold backs, but the process of "churching" a person is for the habitual and unpenitent people who persist in an Ungodly lifestyle. We shouldn't be little-g gods deciding who is good enough and who is not, but at the same time church discipline is for church members who do not even attempt to live Godly.

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2008, 10:25 PM
Oh, I know what's right. The difference is, I'm not going to use the government as a tool to force people to obey the rules I know exist.

Why? Because I know that some of the things PP believes are 100% wrong. I'm not going to argue with him about those things, because who's right or wrong doesn't matter; what matters is that even though we disagree, PP wants to strong-arm me and everyone else who disagrees with him into obeying his rules.

I would be pretty unhappy living under Sharia law, as I suspect would PP. He would probably be unhappy living under all of the rules which govern my life, too (they're not easy rules to live by, just so you know). But the clerics who institute Sharia law know that it is correct, as do I know that I am correct. PP argues, like those clerics, that I should obey his rules, because he knows that they are right; I argue that it's enough that I know what's right and wrong, without compelling other people to obey my dictates; so long as I can tell other people what's right, that's quite sufficient.

In the end, I'm going to go with a government which allows people the greatest latitude to develop their conscience without interference, instead of forcing them to follow someone else's conscience. It should be enough that I tell someone that something is wrong, and explain why, for them to stop; I'd rather change someone's heart by convicting them of the truth, not convicting them to a jail sentence!Do you obey the laws of the government that we have out there now?

ProjectPeter
Feb 11th 2008, 10:28 PM
This is what I was trying to get at. I also disagree with "barring people who live unchristian-like lifestyles from church." Why? How many of us lived Christian lifestyles before we were saved?
And yet you have know problem marching to the beat of the UCMJ. ;) That system works well in truth and they have it for a reason and while not everyone follows it... they will or they will be put out. Without those rules... there is no standard but only chaos. Look at the way society here is going now and why? Because they are messing with the rules more and more.

Ecumaniac
Feb 13th 2008, 12:09 PM
If I believe that the unborn are living, would you expect me to not try to defend them as I would any other human life? If I wouldn't I would be a pretty foul person in my eyes.

I am fairly libertarian, but on at least that issue, I don't think you should expect us to take the stance that this is a "to each his own issue."

Of course you should do everything you can to reduce the number of abortions. But if you vote for someone who will put everything she has behind making abortions illegal on the basis of faith, you will reap what you sew when she (or some future candidate) starts pushing just as heavily for laws that you don't want, or when people start going to jail or dying because of unsafe, illegal abortions. So the point remains that candidates who vote purely on faith are a dangerous precedent, not to mention that making hard-line decisions on contentious issues is dangerous at best.

On a side note, I believe that prevention is better than cure when it comes to abortion. I think you will have more success in reducing the number of abortions if you make a concerted effort to teach young people accurate information, encourage them to take pride in self-restraint and instil in them the confidence self-esteem to say "No!" to unwanted advances or unwise situations. The word "pride" has largely been appropriated by gay rights advocacy, but it seems that it would be a valuable ally in cultivating the virtue of responsibility. This is far beyond the scope of the current issue, so I'll leave off there.

Ecumaniac
Feb 13th 2008, 12:15 PM
Do you obey the laws of the government that we have out there now?

Yes, albeit with occasional dissatisfaction.

I doubt that you thought I would answer otherwise, so I assume that this is a rhetorical lead-up to a more adventurous line of enquiry? If so, I shall be especially cautious. :D

ProjectPeter
Feb 13th 2008, 03:14 PM
Yes, albeit with occasional dissatisfaction.

I doubt that you thought I would answer otherwise, so I assume that this is a rhetorical lead-up to a more adventurous line of enquiry? If so, I shall be especially cautious. :D
The point is that you are already following dictates which are mandated by the government and many of those mandates came from Judeo Christian values. Mind you... some have now been taken off the books or basically ignored.... but out of all those years imagine the fact that no one went totally ape with those mandates because of the checks and balances that our government was set up with.

I assume that you know how the government works with the Congress, Senate, and Supreme Court. Do you honestly think that a president is going to get into office and declare total biblical law and that actually have a chance at passing?

But let's say a President does believe abortion murder, and most evangelicals do... why would he or she not do everything in their power to change something that they believe and know is wrong? You would rather have a person in office that is willing to whore their own value system? You don't figure if they are that loose with what they believe... they'd be loose in a lot of places? I figure the person that would whore what they believe deep down is a person that no one can really trust.

theabaud
Feb 13th 2008, 05:10 PM
Of course you should do everything you can to reduce the number of abortions. But if you vote for someone who will put everything she has behind making abortions illegal on the basis of faith, you will reap what you sew when she (or some future candidate) starts pushing just as heavily for laws that you don't want, or when people start going to jail or dying because of unsafe, illegal abortions. So the point remains that candidates who vote purely on faith are a dangerous precedent, not to mention that making hard-line decisions on contentious issues is dangerous at best.

On a side note, I believe that prevention is better than cure when it comes to abortion. I think you will have more success in reducing the number of abortions if you make a concerted effort to teach young people accurate information, encourage them to take pride in self-restraint and instil in them the confidence self-esteem to say "No!" to unwanted advances or unwise situations. The word "pride" has largely been appropriated by gay rights advocacy, but it seems that it would be a valuable ally in cultivating the virtue of responsibility. This is far beyond the scope of the current issue, so I'll leave off there.

If I am reading this right, your position is that the policy of the government is ultimately responsible for the poor decisions people make. According to the Guttenburg foundation, Risky and irresponsible (IMO ungodly) behavior accounts for around 95% of all unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion. Is this to say that the government should have educated all of these people better? If these people make an even more risky decision in using a clothes hangar or a street doc then the government is at fault for that?

I apologize for sounds like a straw man argument, but this would seem to be the implication of saying we have to have legal abortions so that people don't do crazy things.

ProjectPeter
Feb 13th 2008, 05:36 PM
If I am reading this right, your position is that the policy of the government is ultimately responsible for the poor decisions people make. According to the Guttenburg foundation, Risky and irresponsible (IMO ungodly) behavior accounts for around 95% of all unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion. Is this to say that the government should have educated all of these people better? If these people make an even more risky decision in using a clothes hangar or a street doc then the government is at fault for that?

I apologize for sounds like a straw man argument, but this would seem to be the implication of saying we have to have legal abortions so that people don't do crazy things.
That's exactly right and it is a reality of that position. Imagine how bad things would be if folks actually had to learn their lessons even the hard way.

Clavicula_Nox
Feb 14th 2008, 07:51 PM
And yet you have know problem marching to the beat of the UCMJ. ;) That system works well in truth and they have it for a reason and while not everyone follows it... they will or they will be put out. Without those rules... there is no standard but only chaos. Look at the way society here is going now and why? Because they are messing with the rules more and more.

I also volunteered to enlist in the military. Nobody forced me. Accepting UCMJ is part of that, and I don't see what that has to do with what we're talking about.

Ecumaniac
Feb 17th 2008, 11:45 PM
The point is that you are already following dictates which are mandated by the government and many of those mandates came from Judeo Christian values. Mind you... some have now been taken off the books or basically ignored...

My argument isn't with Judaeo-Christian values in general, since many (do not murder, do not steal, do not extort etc.) are almost universally accepted and without them people would be less free to follow their conscience, not more. My problem is with a narrow interpretation of Biblical ethics being used by government officials as a sufficient basis to change the law, especially when those "ethics" are used to restrict individual freedoms. Can you imagine if you still had legal slavery based on the "justifications" that apologists managed to derive from the Bible?


[O]ut of all those years imagine the fact that no one went totally ape with those mandates because of the checks and balances that our government was set up with.

Actually, I'd say that laws against sodomy were precisely that. Like Fenris said, it is a victimless crime, and making it illegal is an imposition on personal freedom.


I assume that you know how the government works with the Congress, Senate, and Supreme Court. Do you honestly think that a president is going to get into office and declare total biblical law and that actually have a chance at passing?

Of course not; see my earlier post. It will take years of groundwork to set up an ideological coup.


But let's say a President does believe abortion murder, and most evangelicals do... why would he or she not do everything in their power to change something that they believe and know is wrong?

Again, see my earlier post. What does "everything in their power" mean? Does he explicitly declare his intention to make abortion illegal before the election? Would he sneakily exploit every avenue to pursue this agenda? Would he make a massive (and here, I mean absolutely staggeringly colossal) effort to ensure that children who would otherwise be aborted would have the best possible quality of life, or does his concern for their well-being disappear after they are born, many of them heading for a life of poverty, discontentment and crime? Finally, what other points of faith does he consider sufficiently important to drive public policy?

A president who votes on faith without foresight or restraint would be a dangerous man indeed. He has every right to run, as much as any other dangerous politician, and you have every right to vote for him but I would not.


You would rather have a person in office that is willing to whore their own value system?

I cannot recall ever saying this, unless your definition of the word "whore" is extremely unorthodox. Could you elaborate on what you mean and where I confirmed my preference?

ProjectPeter
Feb 18th 2008, 12:15 AM
My argument isn't with Judaeo-Christian values in general, since many (do not murder, do not steal, do not extort etc.) are almost universally accepted and without them people would be less free to follow their conscience, not more. My problem is with a narrow interpretation of Biblical ethics being used by government officials as a sufficient basis to change the law, especially when those "ethics" are used to restrict individual freedoms. Can you imagine if you still had legal slavery based on the "justifications" that apologists managed to derive from the Bible?Yeah... imagine that all "fundamentalist" Christian folk are narrow minded in their interpretation of the Bible. :rolleyes: If they are fundamental Christians then that should automatically rule them out as a viable candidate for the President because hey... they actually believe that stuff in the Bible. And to think... they have the audacity to call themselves believers!


Actually, I'd say that laws against sodomy were precisely that. Like Fenris said, it is a victimless crime, and making it illegal is an imposition on personal freedom.That's not the point. Do you suppose God's up there and would get all in an uproar because some pinhead down here on earth decided they were going to make it against the law... what with Him not being all that fond of sodomy?

[/quote]Of course not; see my earlier post. It will take years of groundwork to set up an ideological coup.[/quote]Years? It ain't never going to happen. Never could happen... never will happen. Especially in America. America loves it's immorality way too much to elect the folks that would be required to make such a leap.



Again, see my earlier post. What does "everything in their power" mean? Does he explicitly declare his intention to make abortion illegal before the election? Would he sneakily exploit every avenue to pursue this agenda? Would he make a massive (and here, I mean absolutely staggeringly colossal) effort to ensure that children who would otherwise be aborted would have the best possible quality of life, or does his concern for their well-being disappear after they are born, many of them heading for a life of poverty, discontentment and crime? Finally, what other points of faith does he consider sufficiently important to drive public policy?

A president who votes on faith without foresight or restraint would be a dangerous man indeed. He has every right to run, as much as any other dangerous politician, and you have every right to vote for him but I would not.Yeah... those crazy believers.


I cannot recall ever saying this, unless your definition of the word "whore" is extremely unorthodox. Could you elaborate on what you mean and where I confirmed my preference?Sell their values for a vote or a term as President.

Ecumaniac
Feb 18th 2008, 06:51 AM
If I am reading this right, your position is that the policy of the government is ultimately responsible for the poor decisions people make.

No, that's not my position; the government is not absolutely responsible for everything that people do. That's an extreme extrapolation of what I do believe: that to some extent, the government can influence how people think about things and what choices they make. See, for example, Milgram's studies into the nature of authority; his sombre lesson to us is that the only difference between the people who did not protest and even participated in the atrocities of the Nazi regime in Germany and us is that we didn't live in the Wiemar Republic.

Abortion is a difficult issue. People are divided over whether or not it should be permitted, and if it should, in what circumstances. If someone presumes to answer that question on behalf of the whole nation because her faith makes the answer clear, and her position gives her unique latitude to influence public policy, it would be naive not to worry what her next act of presumption might be. That's why I suggested a course of action which I suspect would have far more popular support.

For almost every divisive issue it is possible to construct a scenario in which someone believes they have a definite answer, the only safe answer, because of her faith. There's abortion, warfare, gay rights, social security, economic policy... My fear is not of strong principles. Nor is it that a law will come to pass which reduces the number of people murdered each year. It is that allowing a person into office who will vote on issues of enormous public import and disagreement purely on the basis of faith, with no though about their practicality or the will of the people, is both a risky individual and a perilous precedent.


I apologize [if this] sounds like a straw man argument[.]

Thank you for making that concession, I appreciate it. :)

Ecumaniac
Feb 18th 2008, 07:21 AM
Yeah... imagine that all "fundamentalist" Christian folk are narrow minded in their interpretation of the Bible. :rolleyes:

I did not say that. I can almost see how you would get it if you were reading my words with a preconception about what I believe or was trying to say, but if you read me again I honestly didn't say that.


If they are fundamental Christians then that should automatically rule them out as a viable candidate for the President because hey... they actually believe that stuff in the Bible.

I certainly did not say that, and this time I can't see how you could possibly have extracted such a meaning from my words!


And to think... they have the audacity to call themselves believers!

What? :confused Where did this come from?


That's not the point. Do you suppose God's up there and would get all in an uproar because some pinhead down here on earth decided they were going to make it against the law... what with Him not being all that fond of sodomy?

That's precisely the point. To recall what I said earlier, if someone is doing something wrong they need to be convicted in their hearts, not convicted to a jail sentence. God does not want us to start putting people in prison when they have not hurt anyone but themselves, although it sounds like you believe differently.




Of course not; see my earlier post. It will take years of groundwork to set up an ideological coup.Years? It ain't never going to happen. Never could happen... never will happen. Especially in America. America loves it's immorality way too much to elect the folks that would be required to make such a leap.

Oh, I didn't say that the laws they produced would be moral, although I'm sure people would convince themselves that the laws are moral. Remember my previous example, slavery.


Yeah... those crazy believers.

What? I said that a specific type of president would be dangerous, not that all believers are crazy. I'm... I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding some of these comments, Peter.


Sell their values for a vote or a term as President.

That's a little clearer. Well, let me correct you. I am not suggesting that a president should "sell" their values at all. I am saying that a president should have a certain attitude regarding the office and responsibilities of president to begin with. You do not believe that this attitude is the right one, which is where we disagree.

ProjectPeter
Feb 18th 2008, 12:42 PM
I did not say that. I can almost see how you would get it if you were reading my words with a preconception about what I believe or was trying to say, but if you read me again I honestly didn't say that.Sounds a whole lot like what you think and or believe.



I certainly did not say that, and this time I can't see how you could possibly have extracted such a meaning from my words!Sure you didn't say it because as you said... anyone can run if they want to. But hey... you'd think them dangerous as is obvious by the majority of your post in this thread.



What? :confused Where did this come from?My keyboard. ;)


That's precisely the point. To recall what I said earlier, if someone is doing something wrong they need to be convicted in their hearts, not convicted to a jail sentence. God does not want us to start putting people in prison when they have not hurt anyone but themselves, although it sounds like you believe differently.Ever read the Bible? ;) And I'll repeat... morality is legislated already and was legislated even times more by our nations founding fathers. You know the ones.... guys who did things like write the Constitution and all. Nothing wrong with that.



Oh, I didn't say that the laws they produced would be moral, although I'm sure people would convince themselves that the laws are moral. Remember my previous example, slavery.In an of itself there is nothing sinful about slavery. Where slavery turns sinful is in the way the owners treat the slaves.



What? I said that a specific type of president would be dangerous, not that all believers are crazy. I'm... I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding some of these comments, Peter.Well... your specific example is the fundamental type. Come on... that's about as obvious as the day is long. ;)


That's a little clearer. Well, let me correct you. I am not suggesting that a president should "sell" their values at all. I am saying that a president should have a certain attitude regarding the office and responsibilities of president to begin with. You do not believe that this attitude is the right one, which is where we disagree.An attitude that goes against their moral belief? Yeah... that's the sort of person I want as President!!! Like I said... that would be one that simply whored their belief.

Ecumaniac
Feb 26th 2008, 02:57 PM
Sounds a whole lot like what you think and or believe.

You are guessing at what I think or believe.


Sure you didn't say it because as you said... anyone can run if they want to.

Thank you.


But hey... you'd think them dangerous as is obvious by the majority of your post in this thread.

Quite.



What? :confused Where did this come from?
My keyboard. ;)

I'll reiterate: how did it relate to what I wrote?


Ever read the Bible? ;)

To what specifically are you referring?


And I'll repeat... morality is legislated already and was legislated even times more by our nations founding fathers. You know the ones.... guys who did things like write the Constitution and all. Nothing wrong with that.

Historical precedent for bad ideas is not a good reason to continue entertaining them.


In an of itself there is nothing sinful about slavery. Where slavery turns sinful is in the way the owners treat the slaves.

Slavery was only explicitly permitted as part of the Mosaic Law, and in prescribed circumstances. No where in the New Testament is racial slavery justified.


Well... your specific example is the [fundamentalist] type. Come on... that's about as obvious as the day is long. ;)

No, it's the politically dangerous type. Fundamentalist religious beliefs do not necessarily imply tyrannical political aspirations. I don't know how I can make this more clear.


An attitude that goes against their moral belief? Yeah... that's the sort of person I want as President!!! Like I said... that would be one that simply whored their belief.

You don't seem to see that believing X, and wanting to inflict that belief in X upon an entire country regardless of its beliefs, are two different and separate things. I would happily vote for someone who believes that the Sabbath is on Saturday, and goes to church on that day, if their policies were reasonable. I would not vote for someone who wanted to make it illegal not to go to church every Saturday. Surely you can see the distinction?

Ecumaniac
Feb 26th 2008, 03:12 PM
It's becoming rapidly clear that you see government as a tool to align the population with correct moral beliefs, whereas I see it as little more than a way of helping people live together. So long as we hold our separate beliefs it's impossible for us to meet agreement.

Here's the thing: you can punish people all you want for sinning on earth, but unless they're willing to receive the Holy Spirit, it is a complete waste of time. Maybe fewer people will commit adultery if there is a jail term associated with it, but it won't save them. Christ's mission was to free people from the bonds of sin, not put them in prison. And that, in short, is why I believe that legal sentencing is a legitimate resort only when a person poses a real danger to other people.

PP, do you believe a theocracy (along Old Testament lines) could eventually be established on earth? And whether or not it could be done, do you believe we should try to head in that direction?

ProjectPeter
Feb 26th 2008, 03:13 PM
You don't seem to see that believing X, and wanting to inflict that belief in X upon an entire country regardless of its beliefs, are two different and separate things. I would happily vote for someone who believes that the Sabbath is on Saturday, and goes to church on that day, if their policies were reasonable. I would not vote for someone who wanted to make it illegal not to go to church every Saturday. Surely you can see the distinction?And um... is that what you honestly think Mike Huckabee would do? Goodness gracious I think that is just silly truth be told. :rolleyes:

As to all the other stuff... I don't even remember what we were talking about and haven't the time right now to go back and try to recall. :lol:

ProjectPeter
Feb 26th 2008, 03:20 PM
There will be a theocracy one day sure enough. Until then... I thought a Republic was working pretty good. Mind you folks wouldn't know what that means today looking at our democratic form of government. But hey... it's the little things.

And no... theocracy is silly and even God made that point when Israel asked for a king.

Ecumaniac
Feb 27th 2008, 05:14 AM
And um... is that what you honestly think Mike Huckabee would do? Goodness gracious I think that is just silly truth be told. :rolleyes:

What? Read what I was responding to again. You've lost the context which is excusable, but in this case it seems to have led you to a formidable misapprehension. :)


As to all the other stuff... I don't even remember what we were talking about and haven't the time right now to go back and try to recall. :lol:

Tell me about it!