Observations in Contradiction: Part 1

Redheat wrote:

How is killing 10,000 innocent people based on lies considered a "Christian" act?

Jesus died to save countless numbers. In Iraq, 10,000 died to save millions. seems somewhat Christian.

Redheat wrote:

Placing the concerns of Corporations over the health of children, is this an act of a "christian"?

Corporations employee vast numbers of people and those people can support their children.

Redheat wrote:

Breaking promises to childrens groups, first responders or anyone for that matter part of being a good "Christian"

Not sure what promises you are referring to here, but bad politics does not equal bad Christianity

Redheat wrote:

Outing a CIA operative good "Christian"?

I wasn't aware that a news guy was President. I thought it was Bush all this time and I don't recall Bush outing anyone.

Redheat wrote:

Fact is that saying you are "Christian" doesn't make you one and it's a little disappointing that people who base their standards for a "Christian" on so little. Basically, gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research.

I seen a woman on TV that was against the Iraq war and thought we should not be there, BUT she planned on voting for Bush because he was a good "Christian" the hypocrisy of her stance seemed to allude her.

I saw a fat, blubbering idiot on TV that was against the war. He made a mockumentary in which he spilled half-truths and exagerrations to confuse an already confused populace into believing his lies and innuendos. The inability of some to see his lies for they are is certainly mind boggling.

0 Replies

Quote:

Not sure what promises you are referring to here, but bad politics does not equal bad Christianity

If your bad politics involve instigating and supporting decidedly non-christian actions, then yes, bad politics DOES equal bad Christianity.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If "Evil" is the catch phrase capturing Christians, it bears investigating. What is Evil? Dr. M. Scott Peck (Road less Traveled / People of the Lie) defines Evil as "Live spelled backwards." He says that evil is opposite of live, and therefore anything in opoosition to life is evil. This would include anything that hinders a full life, such as mental abuse.

Websters defines evil as:

1. Anything which impairs the happiness of a being or deprives a being of any good; anything which causes suffering of any kind to sentient beings; injury; mischief; harm; -- opposed to good.

2. Moral badness, or the deviation of a moral being from the principles of virtue imposed by conscience, or by the will of the Supreme Being, or by the principles of a lawful human authority; disposition to do wrong; moral offence; wickedness; depravity.

WOW! That's pretty heavy!! As a Christian, I understand that evil will be with us until the end of days. It is in the Bible. THERE IS NO HUMANLY POSSIBLE WAY TO WIPE OUT EVIL OR TERROR, and especially not through additional acts of evil! So, why would Christians take Bush at his word that he is a Christian just from throwing around a few catch phrases like "Evil" and "Axis of Evil" KNOWING that Evil cannot be fought by waging wars? That only Christs return will wipe out evil? And, that Revelations itself speaks to the fact that there will be wars and rumors of war and that there will be much deception from leaders? It even says that there will be many Christians caught up and lead astray by this leader and warns not to be like sheep.

So if Evil is the catch phrase why do Christians of all people not question?

Perhaps:

http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/propaganda.htm : Excerpt

In Orwell's Newspeak, words were corrupted by assigning them to their conventional opposites: "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," "Ignorance is Strength." In the government of 1984, the military command is housed in The Ministry of Peace. The secret police and the torture chambers operate out of The Ministry of Love. And propaganda, including the rewriting of history, issues from The Ministry of Truth. Note in this regard that the organ of Soviet propaganda was named "Pravda." English translation: "truth."

The torture of the English language in the hands of the Bush Administration is scarcely less bizarre. A Bush Administration policy that will let loose the chain saws of the timber corporations upon our national forests is dubbed "healthy forests." Another policy which allows increased power plant emissions into the atmosphere is called the "Clear Skies Initiative." The military occupation of the once-sovereign nation of Iraq was accomplished under "Operation Iraqi Freedom." And the USA PATRIOT Act abolishes citizen rights and protections of law in defense of which authentic patriots in our history pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor, and often gave their lives. (Cassel, van Bergen, Crisis Papers). (Note 4)

Is Evil - a broad term with appeal to Christians - replacing the more accurate description of our current struggle, "terror"?

0 Replies

Somalia, the forgotten Iraq, or just a test project the US didn't learn from?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2863.htm

0 Replies

Illuminating explanation:

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19263/

0 Replies

Quote:

The first thing I noticed was that there was an insert in the bulletin handed to me that was produced and distributed by "Focus on Family." It was a bulletin size pamphlet with small type that covered all 4 pages with the "Christian" stance on various political issues and emphasized voting for the candidate that fit these values.

Most churches enjoy the tax free benefits of a 501(c) (3) status. To be eligible for this status the organization cannot "attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates." (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html )

It would be highly unlikely that the church in question declined this status in order to further their "moral" cause. A small rural church would never want to give up what little money they receive to Uncle Sam. This is not a unique case, for years churches have stumped for many legislative actions, even going so far as to refuse communion to politicians who are pro-choice.

Churches have much to benefit from Bush being reelected. Anyone remember the faith based initiatives that funnel PUBLIC funds to religious charity groups? Churches like so many others have their hands out for a piece of the American pie, and are willing to support the party that will support them (i.e. give them public funds), even if it means breaking the law.

0 Replies

Soooo.....

Now where were we?

Oh, yes, the Republicans claim to the religious right vote and why this group has chosen the republican party as its own without questioning whether their claims of shared values is true or not.

Carry on.

0 Replies

( Thanks for bringing us back, Winter Mist!)

0 Replies

winter.mist wrote:

Quote:
The first thing I noticed was that there was an insert in the bulletin handed to me that was produced and distributed by "Focus on Family." It was a bulletin size pamphlet with small type that covered all 4 pages with the "Christian" stance on various political issues and emphasized voting for the candidate that fit these values.

Most churches enjoy the tax free benefits of a 501(c) (3) status. To be eligible for this status the organization cannot "attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates." (http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html )

It would be highly unlikely that the church in question declined this status in order to further their "moral" cause. A small rural church would never want to give up what little money they receive to Uncle Sam. This is not a unique case, for years churches have stumped for many legislative actions, even going so far as to refuse communion to politicians who are pro-choice.

Churches have much to benefit from Bush being reelected. Anyone remember the faith based initiatives that funnel PUBLIC funds to religious charity groups? Churches like so many others have their hands out for a piece of the American pie, and are willing to support the party that will support them (i.e. give them public funds), even if it means breaking the law.

Good points. It's a sad day when Churches will give up their principles in order to get the all mighty dollar.

0 Replies

Bush and the republicans claim that they are for family values. Why havent they passed a law makeing abortion illegal. They have the President, congress and the supreme court in thier pocket. Could it be that they are all talk and no do. As the old saying goes talk is cheap.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Bush and the republicans claim that they are for family values. Why havent they passed a law makeing abortion illegal. They have the President, congress and the supreme court in thier pocket. Could it be that they are all talk and no do. As the old saying goes talk is cheap.

good question. I wonder if the idea would get off the ground more than the ban on gay marriages?

Maybe my church is different, but we do not accept any money or give any money to anything other than our church and church members or members of the same church in the world. Neither do we ever talk about or any way hint about politics or if someone does, they get shut down real fast.

A sermon may be about abortion, but no one would ever say anything to even hint or infer which party to vote for. If they did, I would quit in a heart beat. I think separation of church and state is two way street and if you accept anything at all from uncle sam then you owe uncle sam. (render unto ceasar the things...)

0 Replies

Noddy has it right.

The liberal forces in this country have brought about changes that are totally opposed by the conservative side. This has been done with little if any respect for conservative views.

Now the conservatives are in charge and are striking back.

The real loss is a loss of tolerance and mutual respect. Somehow we have turned into a pack of wolves fighting amongst ourselves.

I am opposed to everything Bush has done but rather than lambaste the republicans for all their lies and stupidity we would be better advised to look inward at ourselves and at the tremendous animosity, anger and hatred that we have allowed to build up.

0 Replies

hitchhiker wrote:

Noddy has it right.

The liberal forces in this country have brought about changes that are totally opposed by the conservative side. This has been done with little if any respect for conservative views.

Now the conservatives are in charge and are striking back.

The real loss is a loss of tolerance and mutual respect. Somehow we have turned into a pack of wolves fighting amongst ourselves.

I am opposed to everything Bush has done but rather than lambaste the republicans for all their lies and stupidity we would be better advised to look inward at ourselves and at the tremendous animosity, anger and hatred that we have allowed to build up.

I agree with you to a point, but not holding people accoutable isn't the answer. Republicans have allowed their conservative values to be hijacked by the far right. If they don't learn to discern real principles from blind partisanship they will help destroy this country. Liberals have been taking a beating, and the Republicans gloat. Until there is some compromise this nation will continue to be torn apart.

0 Replies

The difference between Bush and Jesus:

When Jesus died for our sins, he personally died. He personally sacrificed.

When Bush caused the deaths of thousands, he was thousands of miles away, observing from a safe distance, just like he did in the late 60's.

0 Replies

Sagamore wrote:

When Bush caused the deaths of thousands, he was thousands of miles away, observing from a safe distance, just like he did in the late 60's.

Right. That's because the leaders of countries are supposed to be in the front lines leading the charge! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Readheat,

First step is to try to understand the enemy.

0 Replies

I haven't read this story closely yet, but it seems relevant:

http://www.alternet.org/story/19425/

0 Replies

Observations in Contradiction: Part 1

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know