Jesus: A problem for the Christian Right

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&domai...

Top 44. Jan 22, 2005 1:43 PM

» _Boanerges_ - Re: hypocrites

In response to hypocrites posted by plox:

I don't think media-Christians like Falwell, etc. have ever publicly railed against the use of depleted uranium in munitions...which causes horrific birth defects.

Actually, many have. The question is, when will [you] begin to listen to them... ....I know..

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Top 45. Jan 22, 2005 1:43 PM

» ArthurRuger - Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote...

In response to Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote... posted by _Boanerges_:

So ... there is willingness to stay within a safe zone of morally whining about homosexuality and discussing it in a context of civil and human rights and/or "evil" ... but an apparent unwillingness to go beyond that seemingly "safe" area where mainstream Christian thought has built a fortress from which to hurl thundering denunciations of internationalized liberal left wing criticism regarding "our Christian in the White House."

Does that sum it up?

If you have a concession from me that homosexuality is a valid issue around which morality may be discussed; a recognition, if you will, that some folks genuinely believe that homosexuality is fundamentally evil and something about which God has spoken and condemned, would you then willing return to the subject of the article itself?

Having seen now ample time and wordage on homosexuality and gay-marriage, can we agree to disagree about gay-marriage and the struggle for gay-rights for the moment and move back to that which you may or may noy have been prepared to speak: the morality of war, killing and destruction as a more significant evil in our lives today?

I think it is disingenuous but skillful to pounce on the molehill while the mountain of death has erupted and threatens to engulf all of us. Individually we may not be physically harmed by the killing but individually and collectively we are even now spiritually harmed because or our identity as a nation and our national identity is tied to that Christian in the White House.

Wendell, a simpler request might be this: Why do you think Dobson's obsession with homosexuality is more important both to the country and to God than the morality behind the killing?

Why should we expend our energy on the lesser at the expense of the greater?

-- posted by ArthurRuger

Top 46. Jan 22, 2005 4:37 PM

» _Boanerges_ - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote...

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote... posted by ArthurCRuger:

Wendell, a simpler request might be this: Why do you think Dobson's obsession with homosexuality is more important both to the country and to God than the morality behind the killing?

Hi Arthur.. A good question actually. Hmmm.. Perplexing, is it not? I would venture to guess that each, proclaim their battles. For you, it is the war, for others it is civil rights. Yet, even others it is pro-choice.

So, do I agree with you about our 'Christian' in the White House? Maybe you would take a look into my 'Daily News' thread to find that answer... Your article presents good arguments, which cannot be denied... However, the labeling should stop and the branding of people (such as myself for example - right wing fundamentalists) will not help your cause. Maybe next time you will deal with just the issue and not put [us] in the same box, in which you create, as this works against your argument, which has merit, but the merit is overshadowed by the branding and labeling rhetoric. If you would leave those out, I would return in kind. Otherwise, we have nothing but division and as well, false assumtions based upon rhetoric.

Why should we expend our energy on the lesser at the expense of the greater?

Ahh.... that is the question...

As for issues on homosexuality, for example, my arguments are not based on morality. They are based upon law... Now, do I think it is an immoral sexual lifestyle? Yes, personally, being a homosexual, indeed I believe that.. I can share with you the destruction of such a lifestyle. Do I proclaim that homosexuals should be peresecuted and locked up? (laughing) Of course not.. Have you ever thought about how many times I have been assaulted? I suppose not. My only issue is the right to marriage, equal to that of a man and women. That is my only argument and position...

Now, as for your apparant spiritual collapse of 'our' America based upon the merits of the war, I would ask that #1 you retitle your thread to that which is productive for discussion, #2 present your argument based upon merit and not attempt to falsely classify something as 'our Christian president' declaring war in the name of Jesus. The only ones who buy this label are you folks.

If you cannot by now see that the Democratic party was completely rejected because of this labeling and branding, then you will find that the division of this country along with these issues, will only deepen. I feel you have overstepped your intentions in presenting 'what is the problem' by placing Christians into a phoney box, created by the Liberal left. Hopefully, you will lose the title branding and simply address the issues.

I voted for Bush, not because he is a 'proclaimed' Christian but because I did not agree with Kerry's worldview, that of globalization and being subjugated to other countries and their laws. An example of this would be the thought that we went against the world to overthrow Saddam. Actually, it is quite clear that Germany, Russia and the UN all had their hands in the cookie jar and were profiting from his oil program (among other things, such as nuclear reactors, etc). Now, that is a start. If they were not 'in bed' with Saddam, war would have been easily avoid by the will of the world, and not that of corruption (look at all the UN resolutions for exmaple). These are some opening thoughts concerning your issue with America fighting a war in Iraq. If the UN had some teeth, and not just 'talk' then all this would have been avoided. It appears though that those 'other nations' had their own agenda's....

and move back to that which you may or may noy have been prepared to speak: the morality of war, killing and destruction as a more significant evil in our lives today?

You, Arthur, brought up homsexuality.. not me.. How many times do I need to remind you of this? But, I appreciate you allowing the dialog!...

...W

-- posted by _Boanerges_

Top 47. Jan 22, 2005 5:42 PM

» Pinky102 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote...

In response to Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote... posted by _Boanerges_:

Wendell writes: ".. I am a homosexual. Albeit, non practicing."

What? Is it like the twelve steps of an alcoholic?

-- posted by Pinky102

Top 48. Jan 22, 2005 6:42 PM

» plox - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote...

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote... posted by ArthurCRuger:

The focus of attention clearly differs between your post #2, and the reply to it, #3.

But to return to the point you were making:
I imagine it is easier to keep a gratifying self-image of Christian righteousness by thinking about sinful homosexuals, even imaginary cartoon ones, than about real people killed by real bombs.

-- posted by plox

Top 49. Jan 22, 2005 7:42 PM

» Pinky102 - Haven't You Heard?

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote... posted by plox:

The latest slogan is, W.W.J.B?.
Who Would Jesus Bomb?

-- posted by Pinky102

Top 50. Jan 23, 2005 8:06 AM

» hawknut - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote...

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote... posted by _Boanerges_:

that of globalization

Do you not see globalization being put into action by Bush right now?

being subjugated to other countries and their laws

Step into another nation's moccasins for just a minute. Don't other nations resent this too... countries the US has invaded, bombed, occupied, extorted through sanctions, etc.?

Actually, it is quite clear that Germany, Russia and the UN all had their hands in the cookie jar and were profiting from his oil program (among other things, such as nuclear reactors, etc).

What is quite clear to me that you don't know your history. The US has had more control in the Middle East than any other country, and has consistently and intentionally fostered (if not created) unrest in that region for decades. The US (and other countries with US approval), has been providing them with the very technology and weapons that we now demand they stop producing. Let me repost a couple of links for you...

How Did Iraq and the United States Become Enemies?
http://hnn.us/articles/1066.html

Arming Iraq and the Path to War, by John King
http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagi...

If the UN had some teeth, and not just 'talk' then all this would have been avoided. It appears though that those 'other nations' had their own agenda's.

Certainly, other nations had their own best interests in mind. But it appears you are unfamiliar with the US's postion in the UN, and its role in Iraq. It was the US's oil agenda being served, as always, and Euorpean UN members finally mustered the courage to oppose us.

http://www.harpers.org/TheUNIsUs.html
The U.N. is Us
Exposing Saddam Hussein’s silent partner
Harper's Magazine, Joy Gordon, Dec. 2004
Snippet: "Ironically, if it is true that Saddam Hussein’s government smuggled and skimmed such vast amounts [$6 billion], much of the blame can be laid at the feet of the United States. For over a decade U.S. representatives have dominated decisions and actions regarding Iraq by the Security Council and its fifteen-member 661 Committee. The committee operated by consensus, effectively giving each member veto power, a power the United States has made liberal use of. The United States is also on record as the committee member that most consistently and actively scrutinized Iraq’s dealings under the Oil for Food Programme. Scrutiny of the country’s physical borders—both land and sea—has also been dominated by the United States since the last Gulf War. Indeed, since then, no country has been in a better position to evaluate and control Iraq’s business."

-- posted by hawknut

Top 51. Jan 23, 2005 8:33 AM

» hawknut - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote...

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote... posted by hawknut:

Sorry. Correct link to Arming Iraq and the Path to War is http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/armI...

-- posted by hawknut

Top 52. Jan 23, 2005 8:55 AM

» Pinky102 - Voting In Iraq

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote... posted by hawknut:

How would the people of Iraq vote on the question of how long American troops should remain on their soil?

If you thought the vote in the 2000 Florida and the 2004 vote in Ohio were strange, wait until you hear the vote in Iraq. Wanna bet that the Bush Babies won't win?

-- posted by Pinky102