Are there any non-conservatives/ non-republicians 3D fans? [Archive]

middletree

11-23-2005, 04:55 PM

Just curious.

I know it sounds like an oxymoron to some- but it IS possible to be a Christian and non-conservative/republician.

Are you out there? It's kinda lonely here.

Someone's gonna get upset that you said it's an oxymoron. Hopefully, they'll re-read it and see that you weren't saying you thought that way, but that some do think that way. And you are correct in saying this.

The issues that make one takes sides and typically call one's self a rightie or leftie, such as taxes, immigration, and free enterprise vs. govt control, tend to not be well-defined in the bible. I think that the two issues which get the most press, gay rights and abortion, are mentioned to a great extent in Scripture. But one can certainly be a strong believer and be on the left.

For the record, I have many political opinions that are considered to be on the left, and many on the right. I typically vote Republican, but have no quarrel with someone who votes Democrat and calls themself a believer. I have never voted a straight ticket.

Yippy

11-23-2005, 07:47 PM

For the record, I have many political opinions that are considered to be on the left, and many on the right. I typically vote Republican, but have no quarrel with someone who votes Democrat and calls themself a believer. I have never voted a straight ticket.
I could say the same.

I'm not comfortable identifying closely with any party. I like to think I'm a Christian first, before anything...*gasp* even American. And when I say Christian, I don't mean "American" Christian. :)

oohmercyme

11-23-2005, 07:58 PM

Lemme clarify, I only said "non-republican" because most of the board seems to be American Republican.

I am a Canadian living in England. In Canadian politics I would tend to vote the New Democratic Party which is the more left wing (*gasp* socialist) of the three main parties. If I lived in the states and could vote, I would not vote for either major party (y'all need a middle of the road party! Like pro-life, pro-socialized health care, pro-social safety net, anti-capital punishment, anti-guns, less $ on war and more on health, social care, education, and poverty reduction). I think I'd write myself in. :D Of course not being born in the states, neither Arnold and I are in the same boat.

Since I find myself in complete oppostion to most of the policitcal and hot topic type votes on this site, I was just thinking it's likely cuz the majority of people on the site are American Republicans. But maybe I'm just looking for a fight. :D

Yippy- define "American Christian".

Yippy

11-23-2005, 08:18 PM

Yippy- define "American Christian".
This is off the top of my head because I only have a couple of minutes right now...I would define an American Christian as someone who interprets scripture through the filter of the American Dream. Someone who is "rights" oriented and prosperity minded. While an American Christian prays for safety, prosperity, & healing as they recline in their living rooms channel surfing, Christians in other parts of the world are being martyred for simply being a follower of Christ. An American Christian is largely oblivious to this and wants to make sure the money he/she tithes is returned unto him an hundredfold. This is my definition. I've seen it too often. I've been guilty of it.

Please know that I am not saying that it's wrong to pray for healing, prosperity (of course, God's idea of prosperity can be a lot different than ours), & safety...nor is it wrong to sit in an easy chair and channel surf. It's more of a proud, "I demand my rights as a Christian/American" attitude than a humble "Thank God, He loves me and I am His, how can I be a blessing" one.

Also, I'm not saying that all Christians in America are what I would define as an "American Christian." And you can probably find this attitude in other parts of the world. It's just an opinion.

not#1,butclose

11-23-2005, 08:49 PM

I'm a radical right-wing conservative. I don't think there's any major issue that I disagree with the right on. If there is a right-wing conspiracy like Hillary Clinton and a lot of other people talk about, I'm part of it. Sorry, I just love being passionate, and I'm glad there's a political party I totally agree with here in the U. S. I don't do good with having to pick and choose between which values are more important to me, and which ones am I willing to turn my back on when voting.

Jason

11-23-2005, 08:58 PM

I'm one of those conservative Christians who has a hard time understanding Christians who vote Democrat. I guess that's because the abortion issue usually draws the line for me.

Yh!SlrpSpdr

11-23-2005, 09:09 PM

I'm conservative who votes mostly republican but doesnt like all of the republicans stances on things.

ObiShawn

11-23-2005, 09:26 PM

I have never voted a straight ticket.

Same here. Though I consider myself to be on the right, if I beleive a Democrat will do a better job, he will get my vote. I don't want to lable myself as a Republican . . . but I must say that I have never disagreed with Sean Hannity on anything.

He's a great American.

not#1,butclose

11-23-2005, 09:40 PM

Yes he is!!! He's a patriot, and whatever you say about him, you can't deny that he loves his country.

Trillamum

11-24-2005, 02:58 AM

I would have to classify myself as having mostly republican values. Not that I'll always agree with them on many things, and not that I'll always vote for them, but, basically, a candidate that supports abortion will never get my vote, most democrats do, most republicans don't. Now, that doesn't mean that I'll ignore other issues just on that (before anyone jumps down my throat) but, that's one of the ones that I'm a stickler on. The libertarians also have some pretty good ideas.

kiwimobro

11-24-2005, 03:26 AM

Someone's gonna get upset that you said it's an oxymoron.

Better than calling them a poxy moron though I guess. :D

This is off the top of my head because I only have a couple of minutes right now...I would define an American Christian as someone who interprets scripture through the filter of the American Dream. Someone who is "rights" oriented and prosperity minded. While an American Christian prays for safety, prosperity, & healing as they recline in their living rooms channel surfing, Christians in other parts of the world are being martyred for simply being a follower of Christ. An American Christian is largely oblivious to this and wants to make sure the money he/she tithes is returned unto him an hundredfold. This is my definition. I've seen it too often. I've been guilty of it.

Dianne,
Let me know if you ever start a political party. I might just have to join it ... unfortunately you make far too much sense to get very far in polotics though! ;)

For the record I am NOT conservative, NOR am I liberal, and, well I'm not American, Republican or Democrat either and I don't often refer to myself as a Christian - I prefer Follow or Believer as those terms don't have such great biases attached (yet)

Gandalf

11-24-2005, 03:27 AM

ObiShawn

11-24-2005, 03:35 AM

Yeah, and I've heard him rant about President Bush's border control plan too. He isn't totally biased.

Yippy

11-24-2005, 03:36 AM

Better than calling them a poxy moron though I guess. :D

Dianne,
Let me know if you ever start a political party. I might just have to join it ... unfortunately you make far too much sense to get very far in polotics though! ;)

For the record I am NOT conservative, NOR am I liberal, and, well I'm not American, Republican or Democrat either and I don't often refer to myself as a Christian - I prefer Follow or Believer as those terms don't have such great biases attached (yet)
I never thought about it much until I heard Paul Colman talk about the term Christian. He said we all walk around saying we're Christians, when in different parts of the world Christian means different things. We should instead focus on being followers of Christ...Oh, I can't remember what he said exactly, but he pretty much gave us all a spankin' (in love of course). Got me thinking.

kiwisongbird

11-24-2005, 05:40 AM

New Zealanders don't have lines as clear as I percieve Americans to have.......

I think any government that has hidden agendas, whether they be con or lib ,is not Godly - I think that government really isn't how God first wanted it to be.....

If I was anything I'd be wanting to be a servant in a benevolent dictatorship - no democracy, but a leader who wanted the best for His people - and who was totally fit to accomplish that... guess I just have to wait a while longer eh????

MMMmmmm, wouldn't that be awesome - servants in the Kingdom of God..... Him telling us our place, allowing us to grow in the areas we excell in..... mmmmmmm - can kind of get there on earth eh??

:) :) :)

wbthornton

11-24-2005, 05:52 PM

If I lived in the states and could vote, I would not vote for either major party (y'all need a middle of the road party! Like pro-life, pro-socialized health care, pro-social safety net, anti-capital punishment, anti-guns, less $ on war and more on health, social care, education, and poverty reduction).Let me just say that government controlled anything isn't all that it's cracked up to be. America has the best health care system in the world, although it is rife with problems. Not to mention expensive. But that's another discussion. If I were seriously ill, I wouldn't want to go anywhere else in the world for medical care. Now, why would we want to have a totally socialized system and mess up what we have? Hillary and gang tried to take over healthcare a few years back. Trouble is, only a minority want her socialized prescription. It's OK if Canada wants it....but that is one idea that I pray we never import.

oohmercyme

11-24-2005, 06:31 PM

Let me just say that government controlled anything isn't all that it's cracked up to be. America has the best health care system in the world, although it is rife with problems. Not to mention expensive. But that's another discussion. If I were seriously ill, I wouldn't want to go anywhere else in the world for medical care. Now, why would we want to have a totally socialized system and mess up what we have? Hillary and gang tried to take over healthcare a few years back. Trouble is, only a minority want her socialized prescription. It's OK if Canada wants it....but that is one idea that I pray we never import.

Having lived in Canada, the UK, and the states, I would take a socialized system anyday(as a Christian and social worker). The American medical system maybe the best in the world (is it in the pledge of allegience that Americans always have to say "we are the best"? I mean good golly! Cut it out already), but not if you are on medicare/medicaid.

My niece has medical bills totalling into several hundreds of thousand of dollars. Fortunately the state of California pays for children with chromosomal disorders (seems there is an exceptionally high number of children with this problem in the state...hmmm) so her parents don't have to pay for what their insurance doesn't cover. They would be bankrupt if they had to pay those bills themselves.

Neither myself nor anyone I know personally has ever had a problem getting medical care in an emergency or dire situation, plus you get the added benefit of not having a cornary when the bill comes and being able to buy, oh, I dunno, FOOD!.

Oh and on "government controlled anythings isn't all its cracked up to be", at least the Canadian and British governments are overt in their involvement, who knows what your government is up to and where. (I don't recall saying a socialized system is perfect.)

And that wasn't the point of the post.

wbthornton

11-24-2005, 09:23 PM

And that wasn't the point of the post.No, but you opened that door so I thought I would run with it.

Having lived in Canada, the UK, and the states, I would take a socialized system anyday(as a Christian and social worker).Sure, that's your choice. I want no part of it. Nor would I equate a socialized system being consistent with Christian convictions. From my point of view it's exactly the opposite.

The American medical system maybe the best in the world (is it in the pledge of allegience that Americans always have to say "we are the best"? I mean good golly! Cut it out already), but not if you are on medicare/medicaid.Exactly!!! If medicine in the US were socialized, then everyone would be on a system like medicare/medicaid. I can assure you, no one would be happy with that.

My niece has medical bills totalling into several hundreds of thousand of dollars. Fortunately the state of California pays for children with chromosomal disorders (seems there is an exceptionally high number of children with this problem in the state...hmmm) so her parents don't have to pay for what their insurance doesn't cover. They would be bankrupt if they had to pay those bills themselves.Lots of folks run into situations were they run up medical bills that are staggering. Honestly, I'm of the opinion that insurance is one of the largest factors in staggering medical costs. It's a vicious cycle, insurance pays so doctors charge more. But since doctors charge more, insurance companies must charge more in premiums. And on it goes. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a good answer to that dilemna anymore.

Healing Oil

11-25-2005, 01:48 AM

The American medical system maybe the best in the world (is it in the pledge of allegience that Americans always have to say "we are the best"? I mean good golly! Cut it out already), but not if you are on medicare/medicaid. Well, we are pretty good, I must admit :) Anyways, Im just playing, there is no need for you to be offensive over it. Im just as proud of America as you are proud of Canada.

I am personally in agreeance with Jasonmit. Im one of those Christians that can't understand why Christians vote Democrat, but I dont waste my time worrying over it that much either.

DareDevil

11-25-2005, 04:14 PM

What is "conservative"? Do you think that it requires full support for all those values that are generally assigned to Bush or do you mean a political attitude that stresses so called "old"/conservatives values like the right to live your own life, a pro buisness attiude and so on? If you mean the first option then I am definetly not a conservative. This does not mean that I would reject everything Bush did and does either but even if I was an American then I would still not support Bush in everything what he says and does.

Still, I have much more sympathies for conservatism than I have for the other extreme. People like Michael Moore and such are simply a bad joke and cannot be taken seriously. All he can do is talk and spread cheap lies.

larryl

11-25-2005, 06:01 PM

(y'all need a middle of the road party! Like pro-life, pro-socialized health care, pro-social safety net, anti-capital punishment, anti-guns, less $ on war and more on health, social care, education, and poverty reduction).

wow,,,,,i am totally against that entire stance. i happily pay for my insurance each month. i HATE the social safety net....wouldn't even take the money when i needed it for a while. we need MORE capital punishment. the gov't should stay out of health care, social care, and poverty reduction.

don't even get me started on guns.

(in case you are wondering....i am anti-abortion, but not pro-life)

oohmercyme

11-25-2005, 07:35 PM

Nor would I equate a socialized system being consistent with Christian convictions. From my point of view it's exactly the opposite. I have heard that said before, socialized systems are not Christian, though I have never heard anyway give a reasonable (or Biblical) explanation of why they believe that too be true. Interestingly, I have never heard a British or Canadian Christian say that it was unChristian (perhaps we are all blind to it), though I have heard American Christians say if often. Amazing we all read the same Bible isn't it?

Exactly!!! If medicine in the US were socialized, then everyone would be on a system like medicare/medicaid. I can assure you, no one would be happy with that.I think you already said that some people in the states wanted it. Out of curiosity, are you speaking from personal experience of having lived in a country with a more socialized system?

Well, we are pretty good, I must admit Anyways, Im just playing, there is no need for you to be offensive over it. Im just as proud of America as you are proud of Canada. I have yet to meet anyone who doesn't love their country. On a purely andectodal note, when I worked with refugees from various African countries, time and time again they spoke of how they loved their countries even though their own governments were trying to kill them. There's a considerable difference between being proud and having to "one up" everyone else. (Saying "stop tooting your own horn" is hardly offensive).

i happily pay for my insurance each month. How very fortunate you are to be able to pay for insurance.

we need MORE capital punishment. And that would help how? More hangings in the town square! (It used to be great family entertainment too!)

the gov't should stay out of health care, social care, and poverty reduction. Then who should? Lemme guess- no one, people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

i am totally against that entire stance. That's quite alright- you'll notice the post was aimed at the minority view. (I had the same "wow- knock me over with a feather" reaction to a post that said the death penalty should be conducted in public and painfully.)

(in case you are wondering....i am anti-abortion, but not pro-life)I wasn't wondering, but since you brought it up, what does that mean? Anti-abortion but pro-death sentence?

Healing Oil

11-25-2005, 09:13 PM

I have yet to meet anyone who doesn't love their country. On a purely andectodal note, when I worked with refugees from various African countries, time and time again they spoke of how they loved their countries even though their own governments were trying to kill them. There's a considerable difference between being proud and having to "one up" everyone else. (Saying "stop tooting your own horn" is hardly offensive).
Ive talked with many Americans who've travelled through Canada, France, etc, and have expressed in great disapointment how arrogant, snotty, and rude many of them were to American tourists. I could say that is trying to be "one up" or "tooting their horns". There is nothing wrong with being overtly proud of your country.

There is really no point in getting so offended and/or defensive over who is better or not.

oohmercyme

11-25-2005, 09:20 PM

There is really no point in getting so offended and/or defensive over who is better or not.
And there is a point to saying to an international audience "we are better than you" and then wondering why others are rude, snotty, or arrogant?

(You will note I did say that there is nothing wrong with being proud of your country).

ObiShawn

11-25-2005, 11:03 PM

And there is a point to saying to an international audience "we are better than you" and then wondering why others are rude, snotty, or arrogant?

(You will note I did say that there is nothing wrong with being proud of your country).Like a typical liberal, you have gotten your facts wrong and have blown things way too far out of proportion. NO ONE has said in this thread that America is better than anyone. Now wbthorton did say -

America has the best health care system in the world, although it is rife with problems. Not to mention expensive. But that's another discussionBut that is far different than you are making it out to be. Tell you what, prove him wrong first, then rebuke us/him for making that statement, because there is a huge difference in stating a fact and bragging.

You've turned it into a blanket statement, basically saying, " America is better than every one at everything and we don't even look at the little people we had to step on to get there."

Get your facts straight before you pick a fight.

labrousse

11-25-2005, 11:46 PM

I'm *mostly* conservative, although I don't think I'll ever agree with one party on everything. I tend to agree with the Republicans more than I do the Democrats. But, as others have said, I don't vote a straight ticket, either.

In regards to which country is better, let me say this: different states choose different governmental systems for a reason. The United States chose a federalist republic for a reason, just like Canada and the UK chose a parliamentary system for a reason. Neither choice is better than the other. They're just different.

And if you really think about it, you'll find that a benevolent dictatorship would actually be the best system. Now why would I say that? Well, when Christ returns, do you think He'll be taking a vote to see who wants Him in charge? Somehow, I doubt it.

Oh, and about guns? I'll just part with this old thought: "Gun Control: Hitting your target."

Yh!SlrpSpdr

11-25-2005, 11:50 PM

Oi! I wish we were better than everyone else!

Just becuase some americans toot their own horn, that doesn't mean we all do it. My horn has been untooted for a while (until about now that is...) I try not to behave like im better than other people, just becuase I'm from America doesn't mean I'm smarter, faster, stronger than anyone else (probably just fatter...) But when other countries look down on everyone from the States just becuase we're from the States. ESPECIALLY when MOST intelligent people from here realizes that other places have things that theyre better at than us.

Personally I'm all for socialized healthcare for people who cant afford it. And anyone with half a brain can figure out which people can afford something and when they can't.

Oh, and about guns? I'll just part with this old thought: "Gun Control: Hitting your target."

Me likey... :D

larryl

11-26-2005, 01:24 AM

How very fortunate you are to be able to pay for insurance.

i know. it's one of the prices i pay for being able to live my own life.

And that would help how? More hangings in the town square! (It used to be great family entertainment too!)

works for me. yes. i am serious.

Then who should? Lemme guess- no one, people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

no. the church should handle those things. and other non-gov't groups.

That's quite alright- you'll notice the post was aimed at the minority view. (I had the same "wow- knock me over with a feather" reaction to a post that said the death penalty should be conducted in public and painfully.)

I wasn't wondering, but since you brought it up, what does that mean? Anti-abortion but pro-death sentence?

yes. also pro-war, at times......to be truly pro-life, one would have to be against both

larryl

11-26-2005, 01:26 AM

Oh, and about guns? I'll just part with this old thought: "Gun Control: Hitting your target."

beautiful.

oohmercyme

11-26-2005, 02:11 PM

no. the church should handle those things. and other non-gov't groups.
So how are we doing on that church!?!

works for me. yes. i am serious.
I have no doubt that those who say that ARE serious- that's what I find alarming.

ObiShawn

11-26-2005, 02:39 PM

I had the same "wow- knock me over with a feather" reaction to a post that said the death penalty should be conducted in public and painfully.

You know, God seemed to make pretty good use of at least one pubilc execution . . . .

oohmercyme

11-26-2005, 03:00 PM

You know, God seemed to make pretty good use of at least one pubilc execution . . . .
The death and resurrection of our Lord has a direct benefit to me and all who follow him- eternal life! Please explain the comparision to modern day capital punishment. (Getting a chair cuz I'm sure this explaination will make my knees weak).

If you don't mind my question, what is it that you have against capital punishment? It was originally initiated by God himself, and Jesus never taught against it.
There are many laws in the Bible that were initated by God that Jesus did not teach against that we no longer follow. How does one decide that capital punishment is one of those we should keep and others we should let go? Plus, as on the other thread, mistakes are made, the judical procress is human, there is no reversing a booboo there. It does not appear that capital punishment is a deterrant and I don't know that it gives the victims or their families a feeling of justice or relief. The arguement of saving the taxpayers money doesn't work either as people tend to stay on death row for years and years and no doubt the financial costs of "death row" are far greater than in the "regular" prison population.

ObiShawn

11-26-2005, 03:18 PM

You know, God seemed to make pretty good use of at least one pubilc execution . . . . The death and resurrection of our Lord has a direct benefit to me and all who follow him- eternal life! Please explain the comparision to modern day capital punishment. (Getting a chair cuz I'm sure this explaination will make my knees weak).My point was about public executions, while related, its still different than capital punishment.

But to address what you asked of me, the comparison is that capital punishment was far more brutal (thereby making if far more effective) 2000 years ago. Certain groups came in and said, "Oh no! Killing people is so inhumane! You have to do it politely, . . . . give them a lethal injection." There's the difference.

There's no suffering involved. People fear the suffering of death far more than actually being dead. You have all kiinds of people that have different views of the afterlife. To some, when we die, we just die. That's it, then end. To some, we get 70 virgins. For us, we know there is a home waiting. So based on everyone's expectations of the afterlife, not many are really that scared of death itself, they are sacred of the suffering of death.

That is what made public executions so effective. People knew the agony they would have to endure before it ended. That was the motivation in obeying the law (for those that didn't have Christ as their motivation).

Yippy

11-26-2005, 03:19 PM

And that would help how? More hangings in the town square! (It used to be great family entertainment too!)

works for me. yes. i am serious.
larryl, please tell me you're serious about the capital punishment part and not the town square, family entertainment part. Reminds me of throwing Christians to the lions for entertainment. I saw a picture of a man in a gay pride parade carrying a sign that said "So many Christians, so few lions." And that gave me the shivers. So does this kind of mentality.

I can see the argument for and against capital punishment, and they're both flawed.

Obishawn, your comment only proves against capital punishment (by the killing of an innocent man). Except for Jesus, we haven't benefited from any other innocent person's execution...that I know of anyway. And Jesus laid his life down, so it doesn't count.

Howlin' Wolf

11-26-2005, 03:34 PM

The death and resurrection of our Lord has a direct benefit to me and all who follow him- eternal life! Please explain the comparision to modern day capital punishment. (Getting a chair cuz I'm sure this explaination will make my knees weak).

wow!! i have seen crappy isogesis around here, but this one may take the cake. kudos to you, canuck Gomer!!!

seriously, the death and resurrection has nothing to do with government instituted policies. eternal life does not mean that your body will never die, which is the conclusion you seem to make by directly corralating it with capital punishment.

once again, i'll echo malletkat gomer and say that Christ never taught against capital punishment. on the contrary, he and Paul both taught that we are to be in submission to authorites because they are instituted by God with the authority to rule by the sword.

Yippy

11-26-2005, 03:35 PM

No judicial system is perfect I'll admit, but the whole purpose of a judge and jury are to guard against that. The cases that are unjust are few and far between.

Unless they involve a celebrity in CA... ;)

oohmercyme

11-26-2005, 03:50 PM

it's your kind of people that keep them there I have no words.

wow!! i have seen crappy isogesis around here, but this one may take the cake. The poster compared the death of Christ to capital punishment and that we benefited from that death so why not others. (I got the whole "your body does die thing" thanks)

we are to be in submission to authorites because they are instituted by God So, I guess the whole thread bashing Hilary Clinton and the now deleted thread comparing her to a horse's a** where a fine example of Christians submission to governmental authority? Thanks! All cleared up now.

Unless they involve a celebrity in CA... Or money in general.

And as an aside, if you are against guns, then you are completley ignoring the fact that the more guns in the citizenry, the less crime there is. Please provide me with proof/documentation that a society that has the "right to bear arms" has less crime than societies that do not.

No judicial system is perfect I'll admit, but the whole purpose of a judge and jury are to guard against that. The cases that are unjust are few and far between. I'm sure those who died by mistake will be greatly comforted by the fact that their cases are few and far between. Oops sorry! You're dead, my bad.

You tell me, you're the one that wants to strike down capital punishment. I don't live in a country that has capital punishment.

Howlin' Wolf

11-26-2005, 03:59 PM

oohmercyme

11-26-2005, 04:02 PM

If you will be patient, I will. But in the meantime, look at London's crime rate. No guns, mucho crime.
Pretty sure I didn't promote London as a crime free city.

Life is not fair. Your emotional stance of "everybody's gotta be happy" doens't work in the real world. Actually laughing out loud here. Big difference between everyone has to be happy and oops yer dead, life's unfair.

Sad to say both my work and personal life have had huge doses of REAL WORLD unhappiness. I find no shame in saying I find life an emotinal business.

Yippy

11-26-2005, 04:07 PM

oohmercyme

11-26-2005, 04:11 PM

i never bashed hillary clinton. you ask how anyone could possibly a christian and not a republican and then you gripe about people bashing hillary.
well i am not a republican and i have no problems being a christian. you however, claim to be a republican, and your republican man of God president is renown for his usage of capital punishment. it must suck to be a walking contradiction

youre against something your party is a proponent of and then wonder how anyone not of your party can be a christian

Mr. Tulip- I think you may want to reread my posts.
1. I am not an American (you did call me Canuck gomer in your last post)
2. I am not republican (I said I am slightly left of centre and vote that way, though in Canada we do not call the parties republican and democrat)
3. I never accused you of bashing Hilary, I pointed out a thread that did in response to your comment about Christians needing to submit to God's appointed authorites)
4. The original post was about finding others on the board who are Christians and NOT republicans. I said people think democratic Christian is an oxymoron, but in my opinion it is not.
5. I am not a fan at all of George Bush nor do I promote capital punishment.

Take a deep breath, eat some prunes, and note that everything you said above cannot be attributed to me. (and yes, I imagine being a walking contradiction does suck).

Howlin' Wolf

11-26-2005, 04:12 PM

Who are you talking to??? :confused:
i was talking to the canadian british Gomer that is asking how one can be a christian and not be a conservative republican. i just realized that this person isnt even american, and i wonder why their opinion on american policy even matters now

Col. Mustard

11-26-2005, 04:17 PM

aww, come on guys, i think we should be able to have a good clean talk about this, especially since this is a christian site. im not pointing fingers, but we shouldn't be telling eachother that thier not christian, thats not the point of these boards, and we shouldn't be trying to make enimies. :(
i really hate to see us gomers (and board members) fightin.

Yippy

11-26-2005, 04:23 PM

i was talking to the canadian british Gomer that is asking how one can be a christian and not be a conservative republican. i just realized that this person isnt even american, and i wonder why their opinion on american policy even matters now
Umm..you might want to read the post just before yours... :)

aww, come on guys, i think we should be able to have a good clean talk about this, especially since this is a christian site. im not pointing fingers, but we shouldn't be telling eachother that thier not christian, thats not the point of these boards, and we shouldn't be trying to make enimies. :(
i really hate to see us gomers (and board members) fightin.
Ah, they're not fightin'. :) I don't recall anyone saying that someone's not a Christian...did I miss something? :confused:

Col. Mustard

11-26-2005, 04:27 PM

Umm..you might want to read the post just before yours... :)

Ah, they're not fightin'. :) I don't recall anyone saying that someone's not a Christian...did I miss something? :confused:
im sry, your right, its not really fighting, maybe i read through to quickly, or am reading it in the wrong way

ObiShawn

11-26-2005, 06:16 PM

Obishawn, your comment only proves against capital punishment (by the killing of an innocent man).No, not really. My comment was that God made pretty good use of at least one pubilc execution, that doesn't support a position against capital punishment at all. Yes, in the situation I'm referring to, an innocent man did die and He used a public execution to do it, but that was God's plan.

larryl, please tell me you're serious about the capital punishment part and not the town square, family entertainment part. Reminds me of throwing Christians to the lions for entertainment. I saw a picture of a man in a gay pride parade carrying a sign that said "So many Christians, so few lions." And that gave me the shivers. So does this kind of mentality. I can understand you being opposed to it if people were using public executions as "family entertainment." But come on, do you really think that was the case? Sure, there were bound to be some nut-jobs in the crowd, but the purpose of public executions wasn't for entertainment.

The fact that you have the view of people that are for public executons for the purpose of entertaiment and that a gay pride parade with hateful signs reminds you of that just proves you have a narrowminded view of the whole thing. You have not looked at this from other perspectives, just the one that supports your cause.

Public executions were not hate crimes, they were not family entertainment. To believe that is to be biased and blind.

oohmercyme

11-26-2005, 07:08 PM

i wonder why their opinion on american policy even matters now
To clarify- no one outside of the US should have an opinion on American policy specifically. Or no one should have an opinion about any other countries polices in general?

larryl

11-26-2005, 07:32 PM

larryl

11-26-2005, 07:34 PM

another example of crime and guns being related.......new york city... guns are illegal, but lot's of crime, much of it involving (shock!!) guns......

i live in an area where almost everyone has a gun.....our houses aren't robbed....we aren't car-jacked....

i see the relationship...

Yippy

11-26-2005, 11:30 PM

No, not really. My comment was that God made pretty good use of at least one pubilc execution, that doesn't support a position against capital punishment at all. Yes, in the situation I'm referring to, an innocent man did die and He used a public execution to do it, but that was God's plan.

I can understand you being opposed to it if people were using public executions as "family entertainment." But come on, do you really think that was the case? Sure, there were bound to be some nut-jobs in the crowd, but the purpose of public executions wasn't for entertainment.

The fact that you have the view of people that are for public executons for the purpose of entertaiment and that a gay pride parade with hateful signs reminds you of that just proves you have a narrowminded view of the whole thing. You have not looked at this from other perspectives, just the one that supports your cause.

Public executions were not hate crimes, they were not family entertainment. To believe that is to be biased and blind.
This is so absolutely funny to me, because I don't even have a cause. How you came up with that conclusion baffles me. I'm not against capital punishment at all, nor do I rabidly endorse it. I can assure you that I have looked at it from all perspectives. Maybe you're narrowminded in your reading of posts. :confused:

BTW, I only said that oohmercyme's comment about capital punishment & family entertainment reminded me of that sign I saw. I didn't equate it with it. What alarmed me about the sign is that there are people, lots of people, who endorse that kind of thinking. You are so off the mark, it's too funny. I also didn't seriously think that larryl equated public execution with family entertainment either, his post just didn't clarify that and I was being somewhat sarcastic. I don't know how you would think that public executions as entertainment is such a remote possibility...history is full of it. Thank goodness we have forensics now...imagine how many innocent people have been executed without the ways and means we have now.

And regarding your comment on the crucifixion, I was only giving another point of view. Sheesh.

Yippy

11-26-2005, 11:39 PM

to clarify....i don't feel like going back and quoting.....

i think capital punishment should be swift and sure.....no, i don't think it should be "family entertainment"......the reason it was in the town square was to remind people of the consequnces of their actions....much like in rome (not comparing anything to jesus) they crucified people on a public hillside, with a sign over them stating their crime.....i think that work work quite well today.....the reason capital punishment is no longer a deterrent is that it takes 20 years, and is painless when, and if, it ever comes.....

Good point. But back then criminals were crucified for stealing. Imagine the streets of LA if we publically hanged/crucified thieves. I don't care to see a public execution on my way to Target. :eek:

I also don't understand why it should take 20 years for punishment when the criminal has been proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

larryl

11-27-2005, 12:17 AM

Good point. But back then criminals were crucified for stealing. Imagine the streets of LA if we publically hanged/crucified thieves. I don't care to see a public execution on my way to Target. :eek:

make you think twice before shoplifting wouldn't it? (not saying you would shoplift, of course.....) no, i don't think we need capital punishment for theft. but you saw my point, so i am happy. :D

I also don't understand why it should take 20 years for punishment when the criminal has been proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

appeals........apparently once you are convicted, you have all these rights....

ObiShawn

11-27-2005, 02:50 AM

Maybe you're narrowminded in your reading of posts. :confused: You could very well be right.

BTW, I only said that oohmercyme's comment about capital punishment & family entertainment reminded me of that sign I saw. I didn't equate it with it. What alarmed me about the sign is that there are people, lots of people, who endorse that kind of thinking. You are so off the mark, it's too funny. I also didn't seriously think that larryl equated public execution with family entertainment either, his post just didn't clarify that and I was being somewhat sarcastic. I don't know how you would think that public executions as entertainment is such a remote possibility...history is full of it. Thank goodness we have forensics now...imagine how many innocent people have been executed without the ways and means we have now.Ok, see, reading this post, I have no arguments. I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say in your other post. To me it sounded like you were holding the view that hate crimes (or statements) were the same as public executions for mere entertainment. I'm sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way.

Gandalf

11-27-2005, 04:50 AM

To clarify- no one outside of the US should have an opinion on American policy specifically. Or no one should have an opinion about any other countries polices in general?
My suspicion is that he meant more that the opinions of those in foreign countries aren't what decides how the USA is governed; it's only US citizens who vote in US elections, etc... What an Australian may think of a highway bill in Congress is rather irrelevant; what Americans think of it is somewhat relevant.

Certainly, I think anyone can have whatever opinion he chooses. I personally wouldn't expect my opinion of French or German politics to carry any weight there, but I could form one if I wanted to. I am guessing that's what he was getting at.

oohmercyme

11-27-2005, 03:28 PM

Highway bills.
Captial punishment.
Almost in the same category.

the opinions of those in foreign countries aren't what decides how the USA is governed; it's only US citizens who vote in US elections, etc. Certainly, I think anyone can have whatever opinion he chooses. I personally wouldn't expect my opinion of French or German politics to carry any weight there.
Ergo, neither the US government nor its citizenry have the right to form an opinion or take action regarding the laws of other countries?

larryl

11-27-2005, 10:24 PM

Highway bills.
Captial punishment.
Almost in the same category.

Ergo, neither the US government nor its citizenry have the right to form an opinion or take action regarding the laws of other countries?

nicely done....i see the corner you are trying to back someone into
:D

Healing Oil

11-28-2005, 04:12 AM

Like a typical liberal, you have gotten your facts wrong and have blown things way too far out of proportion. NO ONE has said in this thread that America is better than anyone. Now wbthorton did say -

But that is far different than you are making it out to be. Tell you what, prove him wrong first, then rebuke us/him for making that statement, because there is a huge difference in stating a fact and bragging.

You've turned it into a blanket statement, basically saying, " America is better than every one at everything and we don't even look at the little people we had to step on to get there."

Get your facts straight before you pick a fight.I agree.

5. I am not a fan at all of George BushWhat Canadian is? I haven't met many.

And Im happy to report that there has been no break-ins in my house and/or neighborhood in years. I'd like to think this has something to do with the sign in the window of the front of our house that reads "Forget the dog, Beware of owner" with a nice little picture of a hand gun. In fact, the last time there was a break in in my neighborhood, the crook broke into a house where unfortunately (for him) a police officer lived, and of course, owned many guns. The man was shot (not killed) and the police officer's wife, children and GRANDchildren were unharmed! All were home at the time.

Guns do not kill people, people do.

Teresa79

11-28-2005, 04:15 AM

Just curious.

I know it sounds like an oxymoron to some- but it IS possible to be a Christian and non-conservative/republician.

Are you out there? It's kinda lonely here.

Me!!! I'm a Democrat.

Teresa79

11-28-2005, 04:19 AM

I have never voted a straight ticket.

Me neither, I vote for who I think will do the best job.

Teresa79

11-28-2005, 04:23 AM

5. I am not a fan at all of George Bush

Me neither!

larryl

11-28-2005, 09:32 AM

who knows why, but i think i will todd a derek webb quote in here.......

"there are two great lies that i've heard: ‘the day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die’ and that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class republican and if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him"

middletree

11-28-2005, 10:29 AM

no break-ins in my house and/or neighborhood in years. I'd like to think this has something to do with the sign in the window

I'd like to think it was God protecting you.

Guns do not kill people, people do.

Actually, bullets do.

Yippy

11-28-2005, 12:44 PM

I'm sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way.
All is well. :)

nicely done....i see the corner you are trying to back someone into
:D
:)

oohmercyme

11-28-2005, 02:45 PM

What Canadian is? My mother and father and sister (though she is married to an American and lives in the states)! And lots of people from the West (Alberta is a lot like Texas) So you know this nut has fallen far from the tree :)

***
Welcome Okie_girl!

***
nicely done....i see the corner you are trying to back someone into
Ta! But I think they got themselves into that corner all by their lonesome.
***
On the antecdotal evidence theme...

24 years in countries where the average citizen does not bear arms, no crimes against my person or property. Here in the UK, the cops don't even carry! Though given the rise in violent crimes committed using guns, they maybe rethinking that. (One attempt against my property was made, but I outsmarted him with brain power, not gun power. But I must confess, the criminal fell into "world's dumbest criminal" fame as when I caught him casing the joint, he promptly handed over a flyer with his name, phone number, and OH JOY, fingerprints all over it. I promptly called the police, he was promptly arrested...:) )

10 years in Michigan, 2 crimes against property. Crime 1 comitted with a gun, some yahoo decided drive around campus and shoot out the windows of 20 odd Japanese cars bearing Canadian plates, mine being one. Crime 2, someone tried to break into my house, we had a gun in the house, not mine of course. Although, criminal number two maybe almost as smart as above mentioned winner as in the 30 minutes it too the nice folks at 911 to figure out whos jurisdiction I was in, the drunken burgler went around the back of the house where he passed out and was arrested as well.

Our next door neighbour had his pickup stolen from the back of his house. Ya, the one with the gun rack and the big NRA sticker on it. :)

Correlations?
***
Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class republican and if you wanna be saved you have to learn to be like Him"
Has anyone read Why the Right gets it Wrong and the Left doesn't Get it? (http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=558288&p=1010575#details) I have not read it yet, but saw an article advertised in my churches magazine. That comment made me think of the book.

wbthornton

11-28-2005, 03:09 PM

But that is far different than you are making it out to be. Tell you what, prove him wrong first, then rebuke us/him for making that statement, because there is a huge difference in stating a fact and bragging.I wasn't even intending to brag. Simply making a statement about one thing.

You've turned it into a blanket statement, basically saying, " America is better than every one at everything and we don't even look at the little people we had to step on to get there."Where did I say that? I made one statement that the U.S. healtcare system is the best in the world.

Get your facts straight before you pick a fight.
Get my facts straight? Where would you choose to go for your medical care?

The medical system the U.S. has right now, flawed though it may be, is the best in the world. I'm talking overall here. However, the more socialized our system becomes, ie. Medicare, medicaid, etc., the worse the system will get. The actually treatment may or may not change, but accesibility, cost and the like will go down the drain.

oohmercyme

11-28-2005, 03:13 PM

As promised.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html

I looked up your link and thought that an article provided by "The Webring for the Right to Bear Arms" is probably not going to be really objective. If you look only at the page you provide, there is very little information other than stats with no description of methodology or interpretation.

If you go the the Bureau of Justice Stats link on that page, you will see that while nonviolent and property crimes are higher in England (the country in this example), violent crimes and crimes with fiarearms are much much higher in the US. (All on page 4)
*The US murder rate in 1996 being nearly 6 times that of England
*Firearms are used in 68% if US murders and 7% of English murders; 41% of US robberies and 5% of English ones
*Although unfortunately the gap is closing quickly between England and the US, the US murder rate is still 5.7 times that of England; rape 3 times that of England, and robbery 1.4 times that of England.
*According to the article, crime for England has risen in all other areas
On page 40 (I only skimmed, as it was 49 pages long!), the article goes on to say that it is not clear whether increased punitiveness is or is not a deterent to crime.

The intial article you provided does nothing to explain your statement that a country where the citizenry bear arms has less crime than a country where they do not. It just throws up a few stats and lets the casual observer make what they want out of it.

And who are GunsandCrime.org? There is no information about the orgainzation or their manadate except: This site is for people who care enough about violence, life, death, liberty and slavery to put in the effort to get the facts about guns—and then understand them. If you don't care enough to learn, please have the decency to avoid doing things that might eliminate the ability of others to protect themselves, their families, their neighbors, and you—or might steal the liberty of our descendants.

And Although much of what you will find on this site will look superficially like what you can find on other sites, the information is different. It all results from GunsAndCrime.org thoroughly researching and analysing each issue addressed.

Learn what? Facts about guns? It has not provided any. What they have provided is superficial and shows no analysis.

Whew! That's enough reading all that! I feel like I'm back in school.

wbthornton

11-28-2005, 03:15 PM

Ergo, neither the US government nor its citizenry have the right to form an opinion or take action regarding the laws of other countries?
Sort of reminds me of American courts quoting precedence from foreign courts. I'm sure most foreign constitutions don't resemble ours in the least. ;)

oohmercyme

11-28-2005, 03:17 PM

Get my facts straight? Where would you choose to go for your medical care?

I think he means me :)
(And I have recieved the healthcare I needed in Canada just fine).

wbthornton

11-28-2005, 03:22 PM

I have heard that said before, socialized systems are not Christian, though I have never heard anyway give a reasonable (or Biblical) explanation of why they believe that too be true. Interestingly, I have never heard a British or Canadian Christian say that it was unChristian (perhaps we are all blind to it), though I have heard American Christians say if often. Amazing we all read the same Bible isn't it?The function of government and the church are two different things. I think that's where the confussion is occuring.

I think you already said that some people in the states wanted it. Out of curiosity, are you speaking from personal experience of having lived in a country with a more socialized system?But very few people in the US have lived under a socialized system. Most of those that want such a system, I suspect, have no clue as to how it will play out in reality.

wbthornton

11-28-2005, 03:23 PM

I think he means me :)
(And I have recieved the healthcare I needed in Canada just fine).
Hmmmm......he was quoting me.....but anywho

Alrighty, fine by me. But I'll take what I have. ;)

oohmercyme

11-28-2005, 03:38 PM

Most of those that want such a system, I suspect, have no clue as to how it will play out in reality.
The reality of trying to implement a socialized system in the US at this stage of the game, given its population, among other things, would not be easy.

The function of government and the church are two different things.
Agreed, but if the church is not meeting that need, then who does?

And you said earlier: Originally Posted by wbthornton. Nor would I equate a socialized system being consistent with Christian convictions. From my point of view it's exactly the opposite.
How is it the complete opposite?

wbthornton

11-28-2005, 04:01 PM

The reality of trying to implement a socialized system in the US at this stage of the game, given its population, among other things, would not be easy.No doubt about that. But Hillary and others wanted to do that very thing. And it was a monster.

Agreed, but if the church is not meeting that need, then who does?In my opinion, the church stopped when the government stepped in. I seriously doubt the clock can be turned back, but I love seeing churches being heavily involved, and especially for refusing government funds.

And you said earlier:
How is it the complete opposite?Meaning, that the source of social welfare should be from the church and not the government. The American government was never intended to take money from one person and give it to another. In fact, it never happened until the 1900s. Income taxes are a fairly new thing in the U.S. There are some many problems with the government being the provider that I can't even scratch the surface here. But let me just mention one: enforced paganism. The religion of our land is secular humanism and is practically enforced by the government.

That's enough from me for now. I'll try to check this discussion out later. :)

larryl

11-28-2005, 09:57 PM

there is no more threatening sound on earth than a pump shotgun action.

i will not apologize.... i feel much safer with a gun here.

also....note that most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally

ObiShawn

11-28-2005, 10:21 PM

most guns used in crimes are obtained illegallyExactly. And if some bill is passed to do away with guns, all that is going to do is stop honest people from having them. The thugs, or terrorists, or whoever will still have their guns. So what can the public do at that point to defend themselves?

larryl

11-29-2005, 03:50 AM

Exactly. And if some bill is passed to do away with guns, all that is going to do is stop honest people from having them. The thugs, or terrorists, or whoever will still have their guns. So what can the public do at that point to defend themselves?

lifetime NRA member that i am.....you can guess how they will have to take my guns. i promise i will not go turn them in.

Healing Oil

11-29-2005, 04:23 AM

I'd like to think it was God protecting you. :rolleyes: I know that, no need to take that statement so literally.

Actually, bullets do. Do you always have to challenge everything? I mean, everything?

Really, there is no need to. There are more important posts in here to address.

ObiShawn

11-29-2005, 04:52 AM

lifetime NRA member that i am.....you can guess how they will have to take my guns. i promise i will not go turn them in.I can just see the "made-for-tv" movie about your life afterwards. They'll play Steven Curtis Chapman's "I will not go quietly" as your theme song. :D

How does the old saying go? They can have my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hand?

Guns do not kill people, people do. Actually, bullets do.I'm reminded of the epic and classic King of the Hill in which Dale proclaims, "Gun's don't kill people, the government does!"

kiwisongbird

11-29-2005, 06:39 AM

To clarify- no one outside of the US should have an opinion on American policy specifically. Or no one should have an opinion about any other countries polices in general?

Just cruising through here to catch up on what I've been missing - um, ahem ahem (she says excuse me in a little New Zealander's voice)........... when you live in the country that affects the rest of the world as much as America does - you have to expect people from other countries to take an interest in your politics and policies..... be real peoples!!!!! :D :eek: :) :)

oohmercyme

11-29-2005, 10:52 AM

Gunsandcrime.org wouldn't have been my first choice, but I didn't want to spend an afternoon on Google looking for a better presentation.
But that is the one you posted to support your argument that "the right to bear arms" reduces crimes.

Pardon me for saying so, but duh. When guns are easy to get and use, of course they will be the weapon of choice for a criminal.
No problem- may I equally say, duh :)

I'd like to know though if those stats you posted are proportionate to the difference between the populations of the US and Great Britain.
The stats are from the article you posted, so hopefully you would know.

If you wade through the Bureau of Justice site, it shows the crimes in actual numbers, given the population difference, the US's is obviously very much higher. The stats I posted appear to be percentages (taking population into consideration) and not actual number of crimes.

oohmercyme

11-29-2005, 05:41 PM

In my opinion, the church stopped when the government stepped in.
So the church should do it but isn't (and you don't feel the clock can be turned back on that) and the state shouldn't do it.

Then the solution is...

oohmercyme

11-29-2005, 05:43 PM

Just cruising through here to catch up on what I've been missing - um, ahem ahem (she says excuse me in a little New Zealander's voice)........... when you live in the country that affects the rest of the world as much as America does - you have to expect people from other countries to take an interest in your politics and policies..... be real peoples!!!!! :D :eek: :) :)

:p Now you're in trouble!

coldcupofjoe

11-29-2005, 06:55 PM

Yippy

11-29-2005, 07:29 PM

If the law in some way directly affects you living in a different country then by all means shout loud. If it doesn't then to be perfectly honest I dont care too much what you think about it. Even if we agree on the policy if it does not affect you, your opinion about it means little to me. I'm know that sounds harsh but I generally don't voice my opinions on matters in foreign countries either.
Why not? If you're informed, your opinion could be enlightening.

I like to hear what people in other countries think. It expands my worldview. The opinions that I don't care too much about are the ones that aren't the least bit informed. And there are plenty of those right here in the good ole USA. I'd rather hear someone's opinion who's totally unaffected by our policies than the blather of the extreme left and right and those who'd rather hears themselves talk than learn.

kiwisongbird

11-30-2005, 03:24 AM

:p Now you're in trouble!

I thought I may be!!! :p :p

I don't think i will ever say any more on the topic - just know that the rest of the world is watching you..... :) :) :eek: :eek:

middletree

11-30-2005, 01:54 PM

:rolleyes: I know that, no need to take that statement so literally.

Do you always have to challenge everything? I mean, everything?

Really, there is no need to. There are more important posts in here to address.

In the first place, your rolling eyes at me is just as rude, more so, than me supposedly challenging everything.

2nd place, I wasn't posting the part about trusting God to protect me as a way of being over-literal. I posted it to defend my anti-gun position. It is exactly why I don't believe in defending myself through physical means. There is no other way to put it.

3rd place, the challenge everything accusation is unfair. I said guns don't kill people, bullets kill people as a joke. Nothing more.

ICarlson99

11-30-2005, 02:59 PM

In the first place, your rolling eyes at me is just as rude, more so, than me supposedly challenging everything.

2nd place, I wasn't posting the part about trusting God to protect me as a way of being over-literal. I posted it to defend my anti-gun position. It is exactly why I don't believe in defending myself through physical means. There is no other way to put it.

3rd place, the challenge everything accusation is unfair. I said guns don't kill people, bullets kill people as a joke. Nothing more.

Do you believe there's a point at which God expects you to protect yourself with the abilities/technology He's given you? It's not a perfect parallel but I'm sure that even though you trust God to provide for you, you still think you're expected to find a job and make use of your abilities and skills, right?

I used to be pretty anti-gun myself, but couldn't help but notice that places with the strictest gun laws didn't see any increase in violent crimes. England, in fact, enacted the strictest gun laws in Europe around 2000-01, and in 2002 they had the highest murder rate in their recorded history.

My belief is that if everyone had a gun, and everyone KNEW that everyone had a gun, there would be far LESS violent crime. It's anecdotal and probably ultimately unprovable, but it makes sense to me. I'm also pretty sure that if women were armed (or assumed to be armed), there'd be a lot less rape.

oohmercyme

11-30-2005, 03:13 PM

If the law in some way directly affects you living in a different country then by all means shout loud. If it doesn't then to be perfectly honest I dont care too much what you think about it. Even if we agree on the policy if it does not affect you, your opinion about it means little to me. I'm know that sounds harsh but I generally don't voice my opinions on matters in foreign countries either.

Tell me how you are directly affected by the policies of all the countries the US either has an opinion on or has taken action in?

What you are saying is that no one outside the US has a worthwhile opinion on US policy. Following that logic, no one with in the US, citizen or government, should have an opinion on the policy of other countries and surely should not take action against the policy of those countries.

middletree

11-30-2005, 04:03 PM

Do you believe there's a point at which God expects you to protect yourself with the abilities/technology He's given you?

I have seen verses which indicate that we are not to defend ourselves physically. I have seen no verses which indicate that we are not to work for a living.

ICarlson99

11-30-2005, 04:08 PM

I have seen verses which indicate that we are not to defend ourselves physically. I have seen no verses which indicate that we are not to work for a living.

What do you do if someone attacks your child?

oohmercyme

11-30-2005, 04:09 PM

What do you do if someone attacks your child?

Kill them?

(Did I get the right answer?)

ICarlson99

11-30-2005, 04:12 PM

Kill them?

(Did I get the right answer?)

:rolleyes:
It's amazing that you criticize "Americans" for being arrogant.

oohmercyme

11-30-2005, 04:14 PM

That was the answer you were looking for.

ICarlson99

11-30-2005, 04:18 PM

That was the answer you were looking for.

Really? Thanks for telling me. Go collect your prize. :rolleyes:

ICarlson99

11-30-2005, 04:20 PM

That was the answer you were looking for.

But while you're here, what WOULD you do?

oohmercyme

11-30-2005, 04:21 PM

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

You appear to have something in your eye.

ICarlson99

11-30-2005, 04:22 PM

I beg to differ. While our flesh might want to kill the attacker, unless you are met with lethal force it does not require lethal force. I've studied self defense for several years for the sole reason of being able to do no more than is necessary in that situation. ICarlson wasn't thinking kill the attacker, he was trying to make a point with James about self-defense.

Exactly. Dealing with your own personal self-defense is one thing. What about defending those who can't defend themselves?

ICarlson99

11-30-2005, 04:36 PM

Middletree, on a more general note, while I agree with you that if someone wants to hit you, you're not to strike back, however I don't think it means:

1 - you can't demand justice under the law (societal law, i.e. government - now it can certainly be debated what appropriate justice is)

2 - you're to do nothing if someone wants to KILL you (being hit on the cheek is one thing, but I don't think it can be extrapolated to doing nothing if someone wants to beat you to death - but I could be wrong there - Stephen's stoning comes to mind, although I believe he was convicted of a crime "worthy" of death at the time as opposed to being a random "innocent" victim)

3 - you're to do nothing if someone intends to commit a crime against an otherwise helpless individual

But I greatly respect your logic and reasoning, even when I disagree with you, so I'd be interested in your take on these.

middletree

11-30-2005, 05:15 PM

Well, I wasn't trying to hijack this thing. It's probably best left for its own thread. I said what I said to explain what I said earlier to Healing oil, who for some reason has lashed out at me big time. He or she is entitled to, I suppose, but I didn't appreciate that what I was saying being misrepresented, so that's why I posted a clarification.

larryl

11-30-2005, 09:46 PM

I have seen verses which indicate that we are not to defend ourselves physically. I have seen no verses which indicate that we are not to work for a living.

hmmmm i seem to remember a verse where jesus tells the disciples to go buy swoard to protect themselves while travelling......i will try to look it up later, if noone gets to it before i do

larryl

11-30-2005, 09:47 PM

found it....in Luke 22...

34Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me."

35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

ICarlson99

12-01-2005, 10:25 AM

kiwisongbird

12-01-2005, 11:32 AM

middletree

12-01-2005, 11:42 AM

ICarlson99

12-01-2005, 11:51 AM

I think there needs to be a special thread to discuss the guns/no guns thing - it could go on for a loooooooooooong time couldn't it? New Zealand is pretty much a no guns country - I don't think even the police carry them - or maybe in their cars or something - it's still weird here for me to see handguns in the policemen's belts!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

This is the most recent article I could find on New Zealand crime (from '03) - shows crime, especially violent crimes and sexual crimes increasing. Coincidence?

from the New Zealand Herald (I know nothing about the paper)

Crime rate up 3.2pc last year, 66 murder inquiries

11.03.2003 - 4.00pm
Police investigated 66 murders last year - 13 more than in 2001 - with a 3.2 percent rise in overall recorded crime last year.

Releasing crime statistics for 2002, Police Commissioner Rob Robinson said today the total number of offences reported to police rose to 440,129, compared with 426,526 in 2001.

Homicides rose from 93 in 2001 to 122 in 2002. Mr Robinson said homicide included murder, attempted murder, illegal abortion and aiding suicide.

There were 18 recorded homicides in Counties-Manukau alone, which recorded an 8.3 percent rise in overall crime compared to 2001.

The 66 murders investigated countrywide compared with 53 in 2001 and 56 in 2000. There were usually around 50 to 60 murders a year, Mr Robinson said.

Recorded violence rose 2.1 percent compared to a 5.9 percent rise in the previous calendar year.

Sexual offences increased by 17 percent to 3508. However, Mr Robinson said the numbers in that category were small compared to others - there were 399 more reported offences last year.

Yippy

12-01-2005, 12:30 PM

Why do you keep speaking of New Zealand when your location says you are in Asia?
Middletree, I believe the ljs are missionaries to Thailand.

Healing Oil

12-01-2005, 01:13 PM

2nd place, I wasn't posting the part about trusting God to protect me as a way of being over-literal. I posted it to defend my anti-gun position. It is exactly why I don't believe in defending myself through physical means. There is no other way to put it. It did not appear that way to me. It came across as complete sarcasm. But while on the subject, I believe God gave us wisdom, and we are free to choose how to use it. I believe it is wise to own a gun, and I believe it is wise to lock your windows and doors. I remember a while back, someone here claimed they dont believe in locking their doors at night. It means they "dont trust God". Bad things happen to good people every day, even men and women against God. I believe God allows me the right, the wisdom, and the weaponry to do so.

3rd place, the challenge everything accusation is unfair. I said guns don't kill people, bullets kill people as a joke. Nothing more.Nothing in your words indicated a joke to me, unfortunately. It may not 'be fair' but that is the impression Ive been getting in the past few hot topic threads.

Anyways, Im really not here to argue over petty things.

middletree

12-01-2005, 02:04 PM

It did not appear that way to me. It came across as complete sarcasm.

Nothing in your words indicated a joke to me, unfortunately. It may not 'be fair' but that is the impression Ive been getting in the past few hot topic threads.

That's interesting. You think I'm joking when I'm not, and think I wasn't joking when I was.

Anyway, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I think that the "bullets kill people" thing was pretty obviously a joke, and it made me laugh the first time I read it on a bumper sticker. I'll try to use more smilies.

Please note that on the steak thread, I used a smiley.

But while on the subject, I believe God gave us wisdom, and we are free to choose how to use it. I believe it is wise to own a gun, and I believe it is wise to lock your windows and doors.

I disagree on one, agree on the other. I'm not harming anyone by locking my door, but the same cannot be said about what I could do with a gun. But you are entitled. However, this might be better off carried over to the thread called Self Defense.

Anyways, Im really not here to argue over petty things.

That's a good thing.

kiwisongbird

12-02-2005, 11:43 AM

Middletree, I believe the ljs are missionaries to Thailand.

Yup - that is correct - New Zealanders here in the tropics! :)

middletree

12-02-2005, 12:12 PM

Yup - that is correct - New Zealanders here in the tropics! :)
Ok, I was confused, but I can see clearly now. the rain is gone.

victim_of_7up

12-03-2005, 06:17 PM

The thing that turns people off to Hannity is his blind support of GWB. He immediately argues with anyone who calls the president's actions into question. And his voice gets kind of annoying. :rolleyes: :D

hey now..hannity is my fav. talk show host. i don't think he can help his voice. that's how he was made. i will not say which side i'm on. because 1. i'm not old enough to vote yet. 2. politics cause people to say about each other "oh hey, he/she's a democrat. i don't like him/her." or "he/she's a conservative. he/she's an idiot." so i won't do anything. but. then some of you will say "then what are you doing here?" well, i'm defending my favorite host ever.

ObiShawn

12-03-2005, 10:53 PM

You've been Hannitized. Cue the chimes . . . . 3 hours a day, that's all he asks.

coldcupofjoe

12-05-2005, 01:03 AM

Tell me how you are directly affected by the policies of all the countries the US either has an opinion on or has taken action in?

What you are saying is that no one outside the US has a worthwhile opinion on US policy. Following that logic, no one with in the US, citizen or government, should have an opinion on the policy of other countries and surely should not take action against the policy of those countries.

As long there is no situation where hundreds of thousands of people are being killed becuase of the government or less importantly if my way of living is affected and therefore others (note I didnt say my quality of life. If I have to pay $5.00 a gallon for gasoline I'll just yell louder to open the oil fields in Alaska, or whatever the situation may be.) i think we have no business sticking our nose into another countries business. I don't agree with every action the US makes. Please don't think that I do.

kiwisongbird

12-05-2005, 11:00 PM

Ok, I was confused, but I can see clearly now. the rain is gone.
:D Oh I thought it was gone too - we haven't had rain for about a month - then last night - oh!!! it rained all night - sooooo refreshing!! :D :D ;)

webo

12-13-2005, 07:51 PM

If I lived in the states and could vote, I would not vote for either major party (y'all need a middle of the road party! Like pro-life, pro-socialized health care, pro-social safety net, anti-capital punishment, anti-guns, less $ on war and more on health, social care, education, and poverty reduction).

I'm with you on that.

A few years ago, I started a post called, "Should your Christianity be questioned if you vote Democrat?" My inspiration was the reaction I was getting in Texas for the three years I had lived there. I had come across numerous people who thought I couldn't possibly be a Christian if I didn't vote for Bush. Talk about being in the minority! :D

When I started the post here, there were a number of people who agreed with me. But you wouldn't believe some of the narrow-minded viewpoints that were expressed.

middletree

12-13-2005, 07:56 PM

When I started the post here, there were a number of people who agreed with me. But you wouldn't believe some of the narrow-minded viewpoints that were expressed.

I am sure you found some narrow-mindedness, but I hope you aren't one of those who think that someone who disagrees with you is, by definition, narrow-minded.

Just checking.

webo

12-14-2005, 06:31 PM

I am sure you found some narrow-mindedness, but I hope you aren't one of those who think that someone who disagrees with you is, by definition, narrow-minded.

Just checking.

Narrow-minded, as in, "How could you be a Christian if you didn't vote for MY candidate?" Narrow-minded, as in, "Democrats are evil."

There is no correlation between your Christianity and the party you vote for. But it was enlightening to examine the responses to my question.

Pouye

12-14-2005, 07:15 PM

Narrow-minded, as in, "How could you be a Christian if you didn't vote for MY candidate?" Narrow-minded, as in, "Democrats are evil."

There is no correlation between your Christianity and the party you vote for. But it was enlightening to examine the responses to my question.

When the democratic party feels like they have a large enough anti-Christian constituency to actually sell bumper stickers like this to support their campaign, I check out. Talk about closed-minded. What will it take for Christians to realize that the majority of democrats are anti-Christ?

Rock

webo

12-16-2005, 04:08 AM

What will it take for Christians to realize that the majority of democrats are anti-Christ?

Rock

You're scaring me. Anti-Christ???

Teresa79

12-16-2005, 04:21 AM

What will it take for Christians to realize that the majority of democrats are anti-Christ?

EXCUSE YOU?? :mad: I'm a Democrat, thank you very much!

ObiShawn

12-16-2005, 09:06 AM

Settle down. Notice the use of the word "majority of democrats ," he didn't say "all democrats."

And you can get upset about the statement as much as you want, but that doesn't change it from being true. Look at all of the issues that the MAJORITY of the democratic party up hold, most do not line up with the Word of God. And just in case you missed Rock's point, there are a lot of democrats that spead hate messages towards Christains.

middletree

12-16-2005, 12:20 PM

Look at all of the issues that the MAJORITY of the democratic party up hold, most do not line up with the Word of God.

This is the type of statement I am uncomfortable with. There are few of these issues on which you can make this case, abortion being at the top of the list. But there is no clear-cut biblical way of handling issues like gun control, taxes, assisting the poor, deth penalty, the war in Iraq, etc. I know many Christians who think there are, but they aren't that clear in Scripture.

Take the feeding of the poor. I am on the Right on this one. I think the church should do it, not the govt, and I think that many people who receive such help might be better off without it.

However, as much as Christians like to say that Scripture is clear on this, it isn't. Yes, it says that we are to help the poor. In fact, there is more about this subject in the Old and New Testaments than dang near any other subject. But not one verse--not one--which says that we are not do help the poor using govt means. Therefore, many Christians feel the best way to carry out Jesus' orders to feed the poor is through govt programs. You can disagree, but you can't say that these people are anti-Christ.

I am a Republican who sees a lot of good in some Left positions, and while it's true that many on the left like to demonize Christians, I'm seeing a lot of Christians on the Right demonize leftists.

cheewiee

12-16-2005, 01:28 PM

middletree

12-16-2005, 01:38 PM

I have on more than one occasion seriously considered dropping my Party affiliation all together... But I don't because then I won't have any say in primary races... So I register as Republican because atleast then I can have a say in the only party that atleast pay's lip service to us Pro Lifers... Half of the liberals are now calling us Anti-Choicers.... totally negating the life aspect of the debate...

See, that brings up a good example. I am pro-life. That means that I am against abortion. But to me, it extends to being pro-environment, anti-tobacco, and anti-death penalty, which are all leftist positions. One can argue against me on those things, but I don't see how one can say that one must be anti-Christianity to take those positions.

As for abortion, that is very important to me. However, perhaps some are Democrat because even though they are pro-life, they feel that it's even more important to feed and clothe the poor, and they think that the liberal way of doing that is best. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're crazy for having such a viewpoint.

wbthornton

12-16-2005, 01:46 PM

I happen to be a conservative......some would call me an ultra-conservative. I was truly a Republican in the vein of Ronald Reagan. The Republican party does not resemble Reagan's values anymore. The national leadership toys with us at election time because they know they cannot win without our votes, but when the election is over they go back to their liberal ways. I, for one, am tired. :mad:

Yippy

12-16-2005, 01:48 PM

Move to California and you'll see a whole different kind of democrat. I work in a part of town where people put signs like the bumper sticker Pouye posted in the windows of their homes...Conversations exclude anyone with a slightly differing opinion. Maybe Republicans do that too somewhere.

I did see something very funny though and wish I had had a camera with me. I was driving to work during the last presidential election and saw an old hippie VW bus with bumper stickers all over it, peace signs, flowers, etc., etc. When I got closer, I saw that the bumper stickers were all Republican or conservative. An old hippie was driving it. Ah, it gave me quite a chuckle. I bet he drives around just to rankle people.

BTW, Middletree, I see your point. I often have one foot on one side and one foot on the other.

cheewiee

12-16-2005, 01:50 PM

See, that brings up a good example. I am pro-life. That means that I am against abortion. But to me, it extends to being pro-environment, anti-tobacco, and anti-death penalty, which are all leftist positions. One can argue against me on those things, but I don't see how one can say that one must be anti-Christianity to take those positions.

As for abortion, that is very important to me. However, perhaps some are Democrat because even though they are pro-life, they feel that it's even more important to feed and clothe the poor, and they think that the liberal way of doing that is best. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're crazy for having such a viewpoint.

I understand what your saying.... Prolife, isn't just an abortion issue... it does involve the Enviroment... Death Penalty... and the like...

To me Abortion stands out because a person can avoid the Death Penalty... whereas a fetus cannot avoid an abortion... The death Penalty has taken 1000 lives since it has been reenstated... Abortion has taken MILLIONS...

wbthornton

12-16-2005, 01:57 PM

I lived in San Diego in the early 90s when Pete What's-his-name? was governor. My house representative was the recently resigned Randy "Duke" Cunningham. San Diego was pretty much Republican, and so was Orange Co. I was really shocked when "B1" Bob Dornan was unseated up there.

ObiShawn

12-16-2005, 08:25 PM

Look at all of the issues that the MAJORITY of the democratic party up hold, most do not line up with the Word of God.This is the type of statement I am uncomfortable with.I agree with you completely. I was actually refering to the moral issues, not the "policy" type of issues. I didn't exactly make that clear in my post though . . .

HotWireD

12-16-2005, 10:57 PM

My belief is that if everyone had a gun, and everyone KNEW that everyone had a gun, there would be far LESS violent crime. It's anecdotal and probably ultimately unprovable, but it makes sense to me. I'm also pretty sure that if women were armed (or assumed to be armed), there'd be a lot less rape.

In the 1980's I worked at a forensic laboratory with a firearms department. They subscribed to a lot of journals about guns (obviously - we wanted to keep up with the developments).

One of these magazines was a big fat journal, about two inches thick - I cannot recall the name, but it was American.

On the inside back page there would be an article about guns in the news, a 'blog' by a pro gun journalist.

I distinctly recall one particular anecdote that he mentioned.

The two Counties(or cities?) with the lowest recorded gun crime in the United States that year were...

1/ A place where everyone was expected to have a gun (although they did not have to carry it). He mentioned a bank robbery where the locals shot the robbers. Apparently even once the police had arrived, people were walking up to the bodies and firing off a shot into the dead robbers. One old lady walked up in front of the police, removed her handgun from her handbag and fired a shot into one of them.
2/ A place where only the police could carry guns in public.

These places were equal first as the lowest crime areas of the USA.

I work in crime investigation in the United Kingdom. I have assisted in hundreds of investigations of violent crime and murder. Guns are rarely used (although unfortunately their use in crime is increasing).

Knives, fists, feet, bits of wood and vehicles all get used to murder people more than guns in the UK.

I once met a young man (mid-twenties) at a burglary who said to me "I would like to apologise to you". I asked him why and he said "Yesterday, I was one of the people who always argued that we should be more understanding of criminals and would say that we should understand them and sympathise with them. Today, after having been burgled and had my belongings stolen, I think we should lock them all up".

Personally, I am in two minds about criminals. I believe that when someone commits a crime something should happen. there should be a consequence to their actions.

I do not necessarily mean that they should all be locked up, or fined, or made to do community service. I just believe that something should happen. even if it is counselling, sending them on a holiday, or giving them help to understand that their actions are hurting society.

Quite often, nothing happens for the first hundred or so crimes they commit. How can we expect a young person starting out on a life of crime to understand that what they are doing is wrong if they just get sent home with a 'ticking off', offence after offence?

A p[evious Home secretary stated that it was not in the public interest to lock up offenders who are under 21 years of age. Excuse me Home Secretary, but most offenders (in my opinion) are under 21.

I was also told by a police officer (and later, by a barrister) that '"it does not matter who starts a fight, the one that gets hurt the most if classed as the victim".

So, if I get attacked in the street and push the offender away and he falls and he bangs his head and fractures his skull, does that make me the offender and him the victim?

In some things I am a liberal. In the things I know something about through direct experience, I am a conservative.

webo

12-17-2005, 05:44 PM

while it's true that many on the left like to demonize Christians, I'm seeing a lot of Christians on the Right demonize leftists.

I agree totally. We're seeing it here on these boards.

webo

12-17-2005, 05:48 PM

Yippy

12-17-2005, 06:41 PM

So how can my Christianity be questioned just because I didn't vote for Bush?
It can't.

(I guess people can choose to question it, but I believe that's their problem.)

There are very few things I would die for, and being a Republican (or Democrat, or whatever) isn't one of them. I think it's sad when Christians so closely identify with a political party that they can't seem to separate it from their identity as a Christian. Being Christ's and His knowing me by name is more important to me than anything. I'd say we should be Christians first. I can't be your conscience, but I will certainly have to answer to God for mine. To live is Christ...(not Bush or Kerry)

Pouye

12-17-2005, 07:39 PM

EXCUSE YOU?? :mad: I'm a Democrat, thank you very much!

And a good Christian one, I'm sure... which puts you into the minority in your party. That's all I was trying to say.

Rock

Yippy

12-17-2005, 09:08 PM

And a good Christian one, I'm sure... which puts you into the minority in your party. That's all I was trying to say.

Rock
I would love to see the actual statistics on that. I live in an area where hordes of churchgoers are African-American and Hispanic, who typically vote Democrat. They probably wonder why a good Christian would vote Republican. And I wouldn't assume the Christians I go to church with are Republican. Because I know many are not (found that out the last presidential election).

Like I said at the beginning of this thread, I'm not really comfortable in either camp...I don't see how a good Christian could (now THAT ought to offend both sides... ;) :D ). Now that's just my opinion said good-naturedly, so no PMs are necessary... :)

webo

12-18-2005, 03:55 AM

I think it's sad when Christians so closely identify with a political party that they can't seem to separate it from their identity as a Christian.

I couldn't have put it any better than you have. I'm really puzzled by these people who want to put others in an "evil" box because of some sort of difference in political ideology, or something as simple as voting for another candidate.

Gandalf

12-19-2005, 04:39 AM

I think the two sides here are using terms a little differently. I doubt anyone meant that people who vote for Democratic candidates are evil. It seems to me that the point of those saying that the Democratic party supports anti-Christian positions has nothing to do with the voters, but focusses on the national party leadership and platform. If those of you upset with those comments are taking it personally, as addressed to the voters rather than the party itself, I doubt that was the intent. From past conversations I've seen, those on the right side of the spectrum in this discussion don't often associate themselves or other voters with the parties so much as they associate the parties with positions, and comment accordingly.

I think there is a valid point to be made that the current leadership of the Democratic party has aligned itself with those who not only hold positions favoring abortion, favored treatment for homosexuality, etc. but also directly attack any public expression of Christianity. Groups like the ACLU are almost exclusively aligned with the Democratic party, and while not everyone in the party agrees with their extreme positions, the party itself is still associated with them. This says nothing about the voters, or even all of the individual politicians. But, at least as far as perceptions and alignment with special interest groups are concerned, I think the observation that the Democratic party is often aligned with anti-Christian interests is a perfectly valid point of discussion, and not an attack on anyone.

Perhaps we should all be careful though to word things in such a way as to avoid confusion as to whether we're talking about voters, politicians, government officials, political parties, special interest groups, etc. A statement about one of those categories doesn't necessarily apply to the others.

Yippy

12-19-2005, 01:40 PM

Ah, the voice of reason. :)

webo

12-19-2005, 02:39 PM

I think the two sides here are using terms a little differently. I doubt anyone meant that people who vote for Democratic candidates are evil.

First of all, I have been attacked for having the gall not to vote for Bush. My Christianity has been questioned and the party I've voted for has been called evil.

Second, I don't care whether we're talking about the people who vote for Democrats or the politicians themselves, it's outrageous and offensive for somebody to write, "What will it take for Christians to realize that the majority of democrats are anti-Christ?" If a person is writing that, what do you suppose he's thinking about the people who vote for those "anti-Christ" candidates?

Gandalf

12-19-2005, 03:53 PM

First of all, I have been attacked for having the gall not to vote for Bush. My Christianity has been questioned and the party I've voted for has been called evil.
If it happened, as you say, years ago (haven't seen it in this thread...), just forgive them and move on. If you believe your opinions are reasonable and correct, others reacting emotionally should be nothing for you to be upset about. If you're reeacting emotionally here when others are making reasoned, thought-out statements (whether correct or incorrect), it doesn't help them to look favorably upon your opinions or help you to effectively communicate why you think as you do. My advice would be to take a step back and look at the posts with an optimistic view of the posters' intent, rather than assuming attacks were intended. The latter will only lead to bitterness, and will only hurt you, not them.
Second, I don't care whether we're talking about the people who vote for Democrats or the politicians themselves, it's outrageous and offensive for somebody to write, "What will it take for Christians to realize that the majority of democrats are anti-Christ?" If a person is writing that, what do you suppose he's thinking about the people who vote for those "anti-Christ" candidates?
When the democratic party feels like they have a large enough anti-Christian constituency to actually sell bumper stickers like this to support their campaign, I check out. Talk about closed-minded. What will it take for Christians to realize that the majority of democrats are anti-Christ?
Perhaps he should've worded that differently, but as I read it in the context of the post, he's observing how the Democratic party has a large anti-Christian base, and wondering why some Christians still support the party, when the party is catering to those anti-Christian constituents. As for what he thinks of the voters, you'd have to ask him. Making pessimistic assumptions isn't going to take the discussion anywhere fruitful!

webo

12-20-2005, 09:13 PM

If it happened, as you say, years ago (haven't seen it in this thread...), just forgive them and move on.
...
The latter will only lead to bitterness, and will only hurt you, not them.

Forgiveness isn't really an issue for me. If I can forgive my ex-wife for taking my 2-year-old son away from me, I can certainly forgive the author of a thread post.
I don't have any bitterness. It's more of a sense of sense of amazement at the level of callous, judgmental offerings.

Perhaps he should've worded that differently, but as I read it in the context of the post, he's observing how the Democratic party has a large anti-Christian base, and wondering why some Christians still support the party, when the party is catering to those anti-Christian constituents. As for what he thinks of the voters, you'd have to ask him. Making pessimistic assumptions isn't going to take the discussion anywhere fruitful!
I don't necessarily support the party, and I certainly wouldn't support any attack on Christians. I just happen to have not voted for Bush. And if he were eligible to run for President again, I'd avoid him just like I have twice already.
There's nothing "pessimistic" about my assumption. It's pretty realistic, I'd say. And unless he chooses to respond again in this thread, it's all we have to go on.

Gandalf

12-21-2005, 02:17 AM

Forgiveness isn't really an issue for me. If I can forgive my ex-wife for taking my 2-year-old son away from me, I can certainly forgive the author of a thread post.
I don't have any bitterness. It's more of a sense of sense of amazement at the level of callous, judgmental offerings.
That's good! I am very glad you're not bitter.
I don't necessarily support the party, and I certainly wouldn't support any attack on Christians. I just happen to have not voted for Bush. And if he were eligible to run for President again, I'd avoid him just like I have twice already.
There's nothing "pessimistic" about my assumption. It's pretty realistic, I'd say. And unless he chooses to respond again in this thread, it's all we have to go on.
If you don't necessarily support the party, why take his statement so personally? Clearly, you wouldn't qualify as being one of those of whom he was speaking, whether he knew that or not. I don't know what he was thinking when he wrote that, but I can't see how it can generally be a healthy approach to assume the worst interpretation of the meaning of peoples' posts. It won't hurt the poster any, but it sure won't be very enjoyable for the reader who thinks he's being attacked when that may not have been the intent. If it's valid to read the post as being inoffensive in intent, why not take it as such?

webo

12-22-2005, 05:11 AM

If you don't necessarily support the party, why take his statement so personally?

Because it's a ridiculous statement. I don't have to be a politician to find it ridiculous. I can rifle through a lot of posts without feeling compelled to respond, but that couldn't be ignored.

Clearly, you wouldn't qualify as being one of those of whom he was speaking, whether he knew that or not. I don't know what he was thinking when he wrote that, but I can't see how it can generally be a healthy approach to assume the worst interpretation of the meaning of peoples' posts. It won't hurt the poster any, but it sure won't be very enjoyable for the reader who thinks he's being attacked when that may not have been the intent. If it's valid to read the post as being inoffensive in intent, why not take it as such?

Aren't you getting a bit overanalytical here? I'm not as upset as you appear to think I am. I responded to a ridiculous statement. End of story.

Gandalf

12-22-2005, 05:27 AM

Glad to hear you're not upset...

I just figured anyone who found a statement ridiculous would either ridicule it or not bother to respond, not respond to it seriously :) Sorry for the misunderstanding. I think it is a point that merits actual discussion though.

ObiShawn

12-22-2005, 05:31 AM

Because it's a ridiculous statement. I don't have to be a politician to find it ridiculous. I can rifle through a lot of posts without feeling compelled to respond, but that couldn't be ignored.If it was so ridiculous, then why did you feel the need to respond? Would the statement not deflate itself, if it was so rediculous? It sounds more so like what he said struck a nerve.

Also, Gandalf may indeed be overanalytical, but his assessment is the same impression I got as well. It's just the way you come across.

One last thing, you didn't answer Gandalf's question:

If it's valid to read the post as being inoffensive in intent, why not take it as such?

webo

12-23-2005, 03:53 AM

If it was so ridiculous, then why did you feel the need to respond? Would the statement not deflate itself, if it was so rediculous?

What are these boards for? Why would I want to censor myself from responding to something I don't agree with?

One last thing, you didn't answer Gandalf's question:
Originally Posted by Gandalf
If it's valid to read the post as being inoffensive in intent, why not take it as such?

Who says it's valid?

rossid

12-23-2005, 05:43 PM

How the "Left" Stole Christmas:
Twas, the months before Christmas.
When all through our land
Not a Christian was praying nor taking a stand.
See the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say
The children were told by their schools not to sing
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers would say
December 25th is just a "Holiday"
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it
CDs from Madonna, X BOX and I-pods
Something was changing, something quite odd
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda
As Target was hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was not to be found
At K Mart and Staples at Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, On Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton
To the top of the Senate, they rose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matters
And we spoke not a word, as they, slapped our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before started
So as you celebrate "Winter Break" under your "Dream Tree"
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me
Choose your words careful, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS, not Happy Holiday!