Any serious Christians left?

Christian: Any person who claims to be a Christian.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

He is not ok for him to voting to restrict what FREE people CHOOSE to do with their own time/money. It is also not ok for the Christian to do so. Liberty, Freedom, Free Will, Privacy, etc. These are founding words of our country.

To be even more clear however, when a Christian votes for this based on their beliefs of the bible, they are pushing their religion. When a Muslim votes for this based on their religion, they are also pushing theirs. When an agnostic does this based on their beliefs they are also pushing their beliefs. All of these pushing their beliefs.

This is exactly what I have said. EVERYONE votes to push their beliefs, regardless of whether or not those beliefs are based on a religious belief or not. That is what voting is MaP, pushing (or advocating) one's beliefs.

maporsche wrote:

And so AM doesn't get in a fit, I'm not talking about anyone's legal right to vote whatever way they want. Of course he has that right, as do all of us.

I get it now MaP. It's his legal right to vote as he wishes, but unless he votes as you think he should then it is not right for him to vote the way he does. At least that seems to be what you are saying here. Please correct me if I am wrong. I don't want to misunderstand.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Christian: Any person who claims to be a Christian.

Even with that definition, I think the 90% is a bit high.

Also, I'm really not trying to be obtuse here, but just to make sure you understand what I was saying echi, there is a difference between claiming to "be christian" and saying one is "a Christian." But I won't belabor that point because as should be obvious, anyone can claim to be a Christian. That does not necessarily make them one.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

So, it is ok for him, an agnostic, to vote to restrict freedoms as you call it, yet because a Christian would vote to do so, the Christian is wrong? Or is he also wrong for voting his conscience?

I'll await your answer.

He is not ok for him to voting to restrict what FREE people CHOOSE to do with their own time/money. It is also not ok for the Christian to do so. Liberty, Freedom, Free Will, Privacy, etc. These are founding words of our country.

To be even more clear however, when a Christian votes for this based on their beliefs of the bible, they are pushing their religion. When a Muslim votes for this based on their religion, they are also pushing theirs. When an agnostic does this based on their beliefs they are also pushing their beliefs. All of these pushing their beliefs.

And so AM doesn't get in a fit, I'm not talking about anyone's legal right to vote whatever way they want. Of course he has that right, as do all of us.

What do we blame it on when a person votes for restrictive laws based on their need to squelch competition for your entertainment dollar?

If you weren't spending it all on poker, you'd have more to tithe to the church.

If you weren't spending it all on poker, you'd have more for your family's well being.

If you weren't spending it all on poker, you'd have more to spend on other forms of entertainment to keep those businesses healthy.

As Intrepid has already shown, voting for restrictive laws isn't always based on a religious platform. The boundaries between individuals are in conflict for many reasons other than religious. That's the sticking point that has this country in such chaos. No one is willing to compromise to achieve a middle ground, only the black and white/yes and no extremes are acceptable.

0 Replies

There is a clear difference between voting to lift restrictions and voting to impose restrictions.

In some cases, a vote to restrict others' freedoms may be justified.

Still, it is understandable that a person who is affected by such restrictions would want to know exactly what that justification is.

0 Replies

Sorry to interupt. Hey butrflynet. I got your PM thanks. I would love the avatar. I can't PM you my email address though, so if you'll PM me yours I'll email you, so you can email it to me. Thanks. Smile

0 Replies

I gotcha, Coastal. And I agree that 90% is probably high.

0 Replies

That one has the right to vote as one sees fit is foundational to the concept of voting. However, that in no way entails that one's determination of what may or may not be fit need be validly derived, nor does it preclude that one may "do the right (or wrong) thing for the wrong (or right) reasons." With history as guide, the legislative motives most deserving of suspicion are those based on religion, whether those motives be pro-religion or anti-religion. It is not the proper function of the state to mandate what its citizens may believe, nor is it the proper function of religion to mandate what the state may legislate.

By its nature, religion is a wholly subjective, purely personal matter driven by individual interpretation and acceptance of canon and dogma, immune to and exempt from objective critical analysis ... simply accepting, endorsing and espousing any religiospiritual belief set predicated on the concept of an "Ultimate Truth" renders questioning that belief set oxymoronic; one does not question that which one believes beyond question, and for there to be any "Ultimate Truth" entails there be no question of same - a perfect circle, unfalsifiable, definitionally a logical absurdity.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

There is a clear difference between voting to lift restrictions and voting to impose restrictions.

In some cases, a vote to restrict others' freedoms may be justified.

Still, it is understandable that a person who is affected by such restrictions would want to know exactly what that justification is.

Absolutely Echi. I don't have a problem with being asked why I voted or would vote a certain way. And it doesn't appear that AM does either. But then to be told that because of the reason she used to determine her vote means she is advocating turning our society into one akin to the taliban society is flat out wrong and inflammatory. Her reasons for voting a certain way are just as valid as someone's who chooses to vote differently (or even the same based on different reasons.) That's all I've been attempting to point out.

AM wants society to confirm to her views because she believes it is in society's best interest to do so. She looks to make changes in the constitutional way. Any law that is voted on still has to pass muster with the constitution. I don't think AM is saying otherwise. Other people may have a different view of what is best for society and they work to pass laws that concur with their view. And again, any law that does get passed is subject to the constitution.

0 Replies

Coastal Rat, It's true that anyone can claim to be a christian or a dingbat. Same-o, same-o.

0 Replies

Okay, I'll admit that my "90-percent" is an exageration, but it's still the greatest majority. Some statistics put it about 80 percent. It still doesn't take away from my major thesis about religion and crime in the US. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

For anyone interested in seeing my travelogue on Israel, visit the Travel Forum's "Two Weeks in Israel."

0 Replies

I'd be more interested in seeing your statistics on your claim as to the percentage of Americans that are Christian. Laughing

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

ehBeth wrote:
echi wrote:
Now. . . You said you could find me some proof??

How are you doing with that proof thing, Arella Mae?

I'm sorry, I didn't see where you requested proof.

Arella Mae, being deliberately obtuse is not a way to bring anyone around to your position. Or even to considering it.

You're really quite skilled at your ability to avoid responding to direct questions. Just don't think it's not noticed.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
echi wrote:
Now. . . You said you could find me some proof??

How are you doing with that proof thing, Arella Mae?

I'm sorry, I didn't see where you requested proof.

Arella Mae, being deliberately obtuse is not a way to bring anyone around to your position. Or even to considering it.

You're really quite skilled at your ability to avoid responding to direct questions. Just don't think it's not noticed.

Actually ehBeth, I thought I was replying to Echi when I posted this. I hadn't seen his post about where he wanted proof. I'm glad you posted this because I forgot to tell you that it wasn't meant for you. Sorry about that.

I did post some links ehBeth about crimes and gambling. I said I would post more if anyone wanted them.

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

Echi,

You can start with this article. If there had been no gambling casinos then there would have been no one for the Governor to extort money from for gambling licenses.

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/1-9-2001-2033.asp

This link has statistics for more than just Louisiana:

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/gambling/facts/a0029358.cfm

Quote:
Another Crime Issue Associated with Gambling is Street Crime. U.S. News and World Report did a comparison of crime rates in cities with gambling versus those that do not. The crime rates were significantly higher in the places that allowed gambling.18 Industry researchers dispute the view that cities with gambling have higher crime rates and assert that the rates aren't higher when the tourist population is considered.19 The article failed to consider that these cities are vacation destinations and their population is swollen by the influx of tourists.

http://www.library.ca.gov/CRB/97/03/Chapt11.html

So, in order to keep that psycho crooked Gov. straight, we need to outlaw gambling?

It appears we also need to outlaw attractive women. This is why I reject gun control. You can't take **** away from people i order to control their behavior. And I will strike down with furious wrath and mass indignation anyone who lets this lying hillbilly get away with saying votes such as these don't originate from a feeling of superiority.

The story is: they are so lascivious and evil, they can't control themselves to make ethical choices, so they try to rid themselves and their perverted families of the ability to do things. They can't stand that someone else may be contented when they have to masturbate in an outhouse somewhere with the Sears catalogue.

I must say. I very nearly hate these people.

This is her evidence.

Give crooked people less stuff to steal.

I saw we should stop the preachers from fleecing people of their money.

No more televised church. No more offering plate.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I don't have a problem with being asked why I voted or would vote a certain way. And it doesn't appear that AM does either.

You seem to be in favor of open dialogue, Coastal. I cannot say the same for AM, which is why this thread has veered off in this direction. Of course, I may be mistaken about her, but with statements like, "It's wrong, so it's bad.", I think my doubt is pretty well justified.

Quote:

AM wants society to confirm to her views because she believes it is in society's best interest to do so. She looks to make changes in the constitutional way. Any law that is voted on still has to pass muster with the constitution. I don't think AM is saying otherwise.

Well, there certainly is room to wonder.
Phoenix posed the question, "In deciding how to vote, which is primary, to you, the U.S. Constitution or the Bible?"
To which AM replied, "Well, since you flat out want to know Bible or Constitution my answer is Bible. I am not going to vote for anything contrary to God's laws."

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:
I realize that you aren't edgar. That is why I used edgar's, name at the beginning of that sentence. It was my way of saying, "Hey Edgar! Got an idea that will get us back on topic here?"

And yes, asked and answered. You just don't like my answer. It's not changing.

Show me where you've answered the question about your votes violating god's free will.

Does voting to restrict other's freedoms violate the free will given to man by your god.

Here is a direct question to AM that she has chosen not to respond to.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
Consider 20th Century Taliban rule in Afghanistan compared to Christian rule in medeival Europe. Strip away technology, allow for geography, adjust for dogma, and there's damned little functional difference; an infidel beheaded in Kabul's soccer stadium is just as dead as a heretic burned at the stake in a cathedral's courtyard, and both are dead for and by much the same rationale. The primary functional difference is a few centuries.
The blame for religious atrocity falls not on God but on man.

Unless you believe in the Bible, that is.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

So, in order to keep that psycho crooked Gov. straight, we need to outlaw gambling?

That is not what I said and you know it. I stated that the crime rate had increased in Louisiana and I would imagine that some of the crimes were related to gambling and was asked to provide proof of such a claim. This crime was related to gambling.

Quote:

It appears we also need to outlaw attractive women. This is why I reject gun control. You can't take **** away from people i order to control their behavior. And I will strike down with furious wrath and mass indignation anyone who lets this lying hillbilly get away with saying votes such as these don't originate from a feeling of superiority.

Lying hillbilly? Is that the best you can do, Lash? What is wrong with you? You can't even post civilly to me and you are getting more and more ridiculous in your posts. Intimating that I handle snakes and such? Rolling Eyes

Quote:

The story is: they are so lascivious and evil, they can't control themselves to make ethical choices, so they try to rid themselves and their perverted families of the ability to do things. They can't stand that someone else may be contented when they have to masturbate in an outhouse somewhere with the Sears catalogue.

And you think my thinking is twisted? They try to rid ourselves and their perverted families of the ability to do things because they can't control themselves to make ethical choices? They are so lascivious and evil? And just to whom are you referring Lash?

Quote:

I must say. I very nearly hate these people.

If this is very nearly hate, then I dare say I don't want to see full blown hate.

Quote:

This is her evidence.

The evidence I said that I would provide was that there was some crime related to the gambling issue and that is what I did.

Quote:

Give crooked people less stuff to steal.

Twist it why don't you Lash? I said it is wrong in God's eyes and I am not going to vote for it. If you don't like that then you lobby to change the law.

Quote:

I saw we should stop the preachers from fleecing people of their money.

Hey, I don't like the preachers that do this either.

Quote:

No more televised church. No more offering plate.

Now who is wanting to take away whose rights? But I guess it's ok for you to do it but God forbid I would even appear to do such a thing by merely casting my vote as is my right the way I want to cast it. Can you say hypocrite, Lash? Rolling Eyes

Now, would you kindly just stop this? You attack me at every turn Lash and quite honestly, I think you are losing it. I don't mind having a civil discussion with you or anyone else but you are now doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. You are lying, twisting things, and being a hypocrite.

0 Replies

Any serious Christians left?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know