Jesus: A problem for the Christian Right
Read the article this discussion is about
- hawknut
- _Boanerges_
- plox
- Pinky102
- plox
- badactor
- Pinky102
- plox
- hawknut
- Pinky102
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »
» hawknut - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote...
In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote... posted by _Boanerges_:Hawknut, hope your battle with that storm proved successful...
Machines work better than shovels. 
Yep, the very Liberal you quote, indeed, was the founder of the beginning Republican party. But, not to be confused with the modern day Republicans.
I agree... they have strayed very far from the original philosophies of the first republicans. As a result, they have strayed very far from the original intent of Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Maybe one day soon, the Democratic party will get back to it's traditional roots of representing the American people, as it once was..
I hope the same for BOTH parties - the Constitution requires it of them.
As you have clearly seen.. the vast majority of Americans prefer, traditional values than that of progressive liberalism
"Traditional values' is a catch-all phrase. Who's traditions? Who's values? For the melting pot of the world (USA), these are found in our Constitution. You know... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All (wo)men equal under the flag. Yes, I'd agree that Americans prefer those. To insist that Americans prefer Christian values exclusively is insisting that the US has a national religion. ~That~ is not what the framers of our Constitution had in mind at all. And ~that~, imo, is the argument between Fundamentalists and Liberals. Just my opinions, of course.
-- posted by hawknut
» _Boanerges_ - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote...
In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Arthur wrote... posted by hawknut:Just my opinions, of course.
and a good opinion, in my opinion....
I have already asked the questions necessary for debate, and the attempt to bring each party back the 'center'.. We have extremes on each side...
It appears by Phil's last message that this will not happen here, as the division is too great for debate, as Arthur suggested, and I agree. So I suppose all has been said... I will leave you all to divise your strategy with like minded people. No harm in that I suppose. It looks as if division is the result. Should you care to discuss the issues which seperate us, then you know where I will be As for me, nothing was accomplished in this thread other than knowing there will be no attempt to bring to the table the issues which have divided this nation. I see no hope in this. But.. one never can tell..
[Jesus: A problem for the Christian Right]
Personally, I am an Independent... WWJD? Well, He already told us.. Blessed be the peace makers.
<----- Elvis has [left] the bldg...
-- posted by _Boanerges_
» plox - Re: Time For A New Thread???
In response to Time For A New Thread posted by Pinky102:I don't know that the thread has "drifted" as far as you think it has. But perhaps the vague concept of Christian religio-political rightwing solidified in the person of one participant.
Point: Jesus did not advocate warfare. But Christians who support a president who starts wars of choice are advocating warfare.
Point: Jesus valued children. But Christians who approve of starting wars are showing they do not value children.
Point: Jesus did not feel the need to punish sinners. But Christians who put hatred of gays higher on their list of priorities than ousting a warmonger are proving that punishing sinners is the most important need they have.
-- posted by plox
» Pinky102 - Re: Re: Time For A New Thread???
In response to Re: Time For A New Thread??? posted by plox:"I don't know that the thread has "drifted" as far as you think it has."
No, it hasn't; but, it is about to do just that.
-- posted by Pinky102
» plox - Re: Re: Re: Time For A New Thread???
In response to Re: Re: Time For A New Thread??? posted by Pinky102:If I look back, I see that my underlying theme in many discussions has been my belief that no one calling himself a Christian can preach/follow the Old Testament and not be a hypocrite.
-- posted by plox
» badactor - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WWII
In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: WWII posted by BrotherJones:rom 12: 19 niv
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
-- posted by badactor
» Pinky102 - Post # 70 Above, Plox
.Post # 70 above is loaded with references to various aspects of the underlying problems regarding the issue we have up for issue.
The ideas of Marcionism that you have connoted in your reference to hypocracy, Plox, threatened the ability of Christianity to be a viable religion over the long haul. It was causing a split in the Judeo/Christian religion that had been developing. It would have destroyed Judaism outright which was already deeply embedded in the main thrust of Christianity. That's one of the main reasons why Constatine sought for a single set of scriptures upon which his adopted religion would be based. If you read the history of Constatine, you soon learn he was no friend of loving one's neighbor or in dispensing justice.
-- posted by Pinky102
» plox - Re: Post # 70 Above, Plox
In response to Post # 70 Above, Plox posted by Pinky102:Ancient history is interesting in it's own right, but to be relevant to everyday talk, one must see how it applies to living people.
Constantine is long dead but Dobson, Falwell or even Boarurges are not.
-- posted by plox
» hawknut - Re: Re: Re: Re: Time For A New Thread???
In response to Re: Re: Re: Time For A New Thread??? posted by plox:
-- posted by hawknut
» Pinky102 - Re: Re: Post # 70 Above, Plox
In response to Re: Post # 70 Above, Plox posted by plox:History is not a dead issue.
And the facts of the problem addressed in the article this thread regards are based on the actions of Constatine. He is the one who ordered the Bible pe cannonized, is he not? Until that time, there were several branches of Christianity vying for power over the people. Constatine realized the importance of using religion to rule the people in his empire. That was when the Old Testament was authenticated as part of the Bible, that is, the infallible Word of God. Christians are forced to live with that today according to the Evangelicals and or Fundamentalists. Dobson, Falwell and Leahy are all governed by that cannonization. And, that seems to be what Ruger is addressing in his paper.
-- posted by Pinky102
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.