Bible Party of the USA

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;22394 wrote:

No, I came to my belief system as a result of reasonable approach. I didn't start out with my belief system and come to my conclusions from there.

Sure, I believe you, wink, wink.

2 Replies

@Volunteer,

Volunteer;22401 wrote:

Sure, I believe you, wink, wink.

Doesn't matter whether you do or don't, but a belief system shouldn't be central, it should be a set of beliefs each gathered from observation and reason.

1 Reply

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;22289 wrote:

It's absolutely wrong.

When did I use the word "science"? I used the word "logic".

There is science, mathematics, philosophy, etc etc.

You didn't I did. Why is large government logicly inferior. Also why if freedom better? I'm being the devils advocate.

1 Reply

@carryabigstick,

carryabigstick;22414 wrote:

You didn't I did. Why is large government logicly inferior. Also why if freedom better? I'm being the devils advocate.

Because:

Through reason I've decided that people don't owe other people a living, except for anyone they bring into this world.

That... yeah... that pretty much covers it.

1 Reply

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;22415 wrote:

Because:

Through reason I've decided that people don't owe other people a living, except for anyone they bring into this world.

That... yeah... that pretty much covers it.

Well the point i'm trying to make is this.

Christians are fine to be in office and can not help but make decissions based on faith. Now if one Christian believes in a state instituted church. Well then I'd vote against it. Just like I'd vote against incresing the size of other governments. If a Non-christian makes a decission it is also based on their faith. The reason I would rather elect Christians is because I know what the Bible that they believe in says about the cival government. It says it should be small. Now if a Christian has an opinion that isn't based on the Bible (which all Christians do) then I'd have to condemn it. The Constitution was written by men who were mostly Christian. They were greatly influenced by the Bible.

They understood and intended that the seperation of church and state is meant to keep the federal government from instituting a common denomination or religion. It was never meant to say that anyone who is a person of faith can't let that sway their decision. Read the federalist/Anti-federalist papers.

2 Replies

@carryabigstick,

carryabigstick;22467 wrote:

Well the point i'm trying to make is this.

Christians are fine to be in office and can not help but make decissions based on faith. Now if one Christian believes in a state instituted church. Well then I'd vote against it. Just like I'd vote against incresing the size of other governments. If a Non-christian makes a decission it is also based on their faith. The reason I would rather elect Christians is because I know what the Bible that they believe in says about the cival government. It says it should be small. Now if a Christian has an opinion that isn't based on the Bible (which all Christians do) then I'd have to condemn it. The Constitution was written by men who were mostly Christian. They were greatly influenced by the Bible.

They understood and intended that the seperation of church and state is meant to keep the federal government from instituting a common denomination or religion. It was never meant to say that anyone who is a person of faith can't let that sway their decision. Read the federalist/Anti-federalist papers.

No, if their decisisions infringe on anyone else's freedoms they should **** off.

Most religous legislation would.

2 Replies

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;22487 wrote:

No, if their decisisions infringe on anyone else's freedoms they should *** off.

Most religous legislation would.

That isn't true. The fact is that the whole constitution is based on what the founders thought was a Biblical government. However I agree, if a Christian is trying to infringe on other people's rights then he should "**** off". There isn't any room for an authoritative government in the Biblical worldview. So if a Christian is trying to make it a requirement that you attend church or what not. Then they are wrong about the roll of the government and are misrepresenting teh Bible. However it isn't just Christians who do this. They teach evolution in public schools. Of course i don't believe in public schools howver it isn't right to say that your moral beliefs can't effect your decision and then go and do the same exact thing.

I'm not talking about any type beaurocratic government. I'm talking about lawmakers who are taking into account every party that can be affected.

Why is it wrong for someone to believe something because of moral convictions? I will come up with many of the same conclusions about government that you will. I just start at a different place. I have a different faith than yours.

1 Reply

@carryabigstick,

carryabigstick;22515 wrote:

That isn't true. The fact is that the whole constitution is based on what the founders thought was a Biblical government.

Thats' certainly not true, but that's a worn subject and I'm not going to dig up quotes.

Quote:

Why is it wrong for someone to believe something because of moral convictions? I will come up with many of the same conclusions about government that you will. I just start at a different place. I have a different faith than yours.

Because that's not a logical reasons.

Problems with Christianity in laws:

Illegalizing divorce.
Illegalizing gay marriage.
Illegalizing adultery.
Illegalizing gambling.
Illegalizing drugs and alchohol.
Illegalizing porn.
Illegalizing some sexual acts.

And many bans/temporary bans (like alchohol on Sundays, that pisses me off).

2 Replies

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;22403 wrote:

Doesn't matter whether you do or don't, but a belief system shouldn't be central, it should be a set of beliefs each gathered from observation and reason.

One Man Clan;22394 wrote:

No, I came to my belief system as a result of reasonable approach. I didn't start out with my belief system and come to my conclusions from there.

Which is it?

1 Reply

@carryabigstick,

carryabigstick;22467 wrote:

Well the point i'm trying to make is this.

Christians are fine to be in office and can not help but make decissions based on faith. Now if one Christian believes in a state instituted church. Well then I'd vote against it. Just like I'd vote against incresing the size of other governments. If a Non-christian makes a decission it is also based on their faith. The reason I would rather elect Christians is because I know what the Bible that they believe in says about the cival government. It says it should be small. Now if a Christian has an opinion that isn't based on the Bible (which all Christians do) then I'd have to condemn it. The Constitution was written by men who were mostly Christian. They were greatly influenced by the Bible.

They understood and intended that the seperation of church and state is meant to keep the federal government from instituting a common denomination or religion. It was never meant to say that anyone who is a person of faith can't let that sway their decision. Read the federalist/Anti-federalist papers.

I agree with what you are saying except for the innacuracy of using the term "separation of church and state" in relation to the Constitution. That term just isn't there. The rest of your analysis is pretty much right on.

0 Replies

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;22487 wrote:

No, if their decisisions infringe on anyone else's freedoms they should *** off.

Most religous legislation would.

All rules and laws infringe on peoples' "rights." Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for laws.

Christians who are commanded to love their neighbor as themselves, will make laws that apply that principle more often than people who believe in a religion or god(s).

1 Reply

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;22518 wrote:

Thats' certainly not true, but that's a worn subject and I'm not going to dig up quotes.

Because that's not a logical reasons.

Problems with Christianity in laws:

Illegalizing divorce.
Illegalizing gay marriage.
Illegalizing adultery.
Illegalizing gambling.
Illegalizing drugs and alchohol.
Illegalizing porn.
Illegalizing some sexual acts.

And many bans/temporary bans (like alchohol on Sundays, that pisses me off).

Don't drink so much water and you won't have to use the restroom so much.

1 Reply

@Volunteer,

Volunteer;22661 wrote:

Which is it?

That's saying the same thing...

1 Reply

@Volunteer,

Volunteer;22668 wrote:

All rules and laws infringe on peoples' "rights." Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for laws.

No they don't and I didn't use the word "rights".

Remember? I don't believe in imaginary stuff.

1 Reply

@Volunteer,

Volunteer;22670 wrote:

Don't drink so much water and you won't have to use the restroom so much.

Ha.

Haha.

Ha.
Ha.

Aha.

Ah.

0 Replies

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;22676 wrote:

No they don't and I didn't use the word "rights".

Remember? I don't believe in imaginary stuff.

What is the difference between rights and freedoms?

1 Reply

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;22518 wrote:

Thats' certainly not true, but that's a worn subject and I'm not going to dig up quotes.

Because that's not a logical reasons.

Problems with Christianity in laws:

Illegalizing divorce.
Illegalizing gay marriage.
Illegalizing adultery.
Illegalizing gambling.
Illegalizing drugs and alchohol.
Illegalizing porn.
Illegalizing some sexual acts.

And many bans/temporary bans (like alchohol on Sundays, that pisses me off).

Well I can't speak for all Christians but I don't believe what you say about "Problems with Christianity in laws".

Illegalizing divorce. Divorce is not un biblical. It is sometimes necessary.

Illegalizing gay marriage. While I wouldn't make it a crime, gays should not be allowed to "Marry" Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Illegalizing adultery. Again, it wouldn't be illegal but when you are cought and divorced, you should have more responcablity for your former family.

Illegalizing gambling. Gambling may be foolish at times but it isn't evil. I would make it legal.

Illegalizing drugs and alchohol. I'm 100% for the Legalizing of drugs and alchohol. It should be left up to the parent. That is what is Biblical. The Bible says that wine is a blessing.

Illegalizing porn. No, even though it is imoral, it isn't the governments right to legistlate that.

Illegalizing some sexual acts. Sexual acts are meant to be done in private, so no that isn't the government's legislation.

We are not all the fundimentalist, Don't drink don't chew crowd. I believe that the problems you said. Are all good concerns. Christians who believe thoses things are wrong about what the Bible says.

1 Reply

@Volunteer,

Also just because the Bible says something is wrong doesn't mean that it says for the government to enforce those laws. People will be eternally judged for there sins. If you have recieved Christ then his death on the cross will make you pure. If you don't then you will spend eternity in hell.

Gossip is a sin but it would be a bit silly if the Gubment were kiicking in the door when a couple ladies start talking about their neighbor. :-)

1 Reply

@Volunteer,

Volunteer;22686 wrote:

What is the difference between rights and freedoms?

Rights are invented by humans to justify the infringement of freedom ("workers rights"), freedoms are a bunch of ideas that make up the whole idea of freedom.

Freedom is objective.
Rights are highly, highly subjective.

1 Reply

@One Man Clan,

One Man Clan;22675 wrote:

That's saying the same thing...

Really OMC, you are one arrogant young man. Pride comes before the fall, bud.

You assume, at 16 years old, that my experience, which equates to 33 more years than yours, is worth nothing because it isn't your experience, because you didn't experience it. You seem to believe that because I believe in Christ Jesus, and His Father Yahweh, that I must be mentally defective, despite the fact that this reasoned position is "a set of beliefs each gathered from observation and reason" over a period that extends 33 more years than you have been breathing outside your mother's womb.

When I was in England, my wife had a professor who told her college history class that the USA doesn't have a history. You know why? Because the USA just isn't old enough. He was right. The class was a field class to explore the cultural history of London.

You stated, "I didn't start out with my belief system and come to my conclusions from there." Yet you are barely out of short pants. You are just starting out with your belief system. You need to give it a couple of decades, if you live that long, before you can say your belief system has been adjusted by observation and reason.

0 Replies

Bible Party of the USA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know