Bush and Christians

[tecoyah]

Here ya go folks.....the guy you voted for obviously has your back. Are you actually gonna fall for this again?

WASHINGTON - "A new book by a former White House official says President Bush's top political advisers privately ridiculed evangelical supporters as "nuts" and "goofy" while embracing them in public and using their votes to help win elections.

The former official also writes that the White House office of faith-based initiatives, which Bush promoted as a non-political effort to support religious social service organizations, was told to host pre-election events designed to mobilize religious voters who would most likely favor Republican candidates."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1013faith1013.html

 

[Pen]

The evangelical right certainly has been manipulated for political purposes. Each election cycle revives this constituency's hot buttons with calls for constitutional amendments and the like, that have zero chance of being pursued, let alone enacted.

I am leery, however, that this author chooses not to reveal the source claiming that the ER was mocked by the administration. I believe the claims are likely true, but give me a name first.

 

[jfuh]

Here's the ultimate irony.
Evangelicals are hardcore on the whole Jesus issue - Yet, Jesus was the ultimate pacifist; then here we have Bush, the ultimate war monger. How the hell do these "evangelicals" support a war monger? Blasphomy anyone?

 

[Btipton]

Not really. Blasphemy is either an action, thought, or word spoken against God or that is consisdered insulting to Him.

Jesus was pure. Ideas such as Christianity are pure. They are sacred, perfect. Man on the other hand is not. Therefore you musn't expect him to behave in such a manner.

Much like you or I, or everyone else and their mother claims to vote for the "lesser of the two evils" so much religious figures. Just because they're clergymen doesn't mean they shouldn't have patriotism or be politically involved in their nation.

It's their concern that counts.

 

[jfuh]

Not really. Blasphemy is either an action, thought, or word spoken against God or that is consisdered insulting to Him.

Jesus was pure. Ideas such as Christianity are pure. They are sacred, perfect. Man on the other hand is not. Therefore you musn't expect him to behave in such a manner.

Much like you or I, or everyone else and their mother claims to vote for the "lesser of the two evils" so much religious figures. Just because they're clergymen doesn't mean they shouldn't have patriotism or be politically involved in their nation.

It's their concern that counts.

Voting would be an action. voting for war is also an action. Hence in the name of christ to vote for war would indeed be blasphemy.

 

[Btipton]

I think you've missed the point yet again. You're attributing will where there is none. By your logic I could say breathing is an action, it sustains your life, you focus your life on voting, you voted for war, war is against God, by breathing you're against God.

Use some common sense, don't act like a child.

 

[jfuh]

I think you've missed the point yet again. You're attributing will where there is none. By your logic I could say breathing is an action, it sustains your life, you focus your life on voting, you voted for war, war is against God, by breathing you're against God.

Use some common sense, don't act like a child.

Except breathing is not conditioned on a "focus of life" - ie voting - hence an invalid argument all together. Try better next time.

 

[Adrian]

Jesus was pure. Ideas such as Christianity are pure. They are sacred, perfect. Man on the other hand is not. Therefore you musn't expect him to behave in such a manner.

This is an interesting explanation I have heard for quite some to explain how Christians who seem to be so devout can at the same time be so unChristian. And yet I have also heard it said, just as frequently, that Christianity results in greater morality, and that you need look no further than atheism to find the greatest immorality. This is a contradiction, though, because if the latter were true, if Christianity (not its ideals, but how it's commonly practiced) really did result in greater morality, then the argument that we are sinners by nature to excuse sin would not be necessary.

So, does Christianity lead to greater morality, or is the question moot because we are sinners and Christ was just too perfect to really emulate?

 

[Captain America]

I think you've missed the point yet again. You're attributing will where there is none. By your logic I could say breathing is an action, it sustains your life, you focus your life on voting, you voted for war, war is against God, by breathing you're against God.

Use some common sense, don't act like a child.

Prick Point awarded to Btipton.
This thread is now officially considered tainted and no follow up retalitory posts can be considered for Prick Points so have at it ladies and gentlemen.

Thank you for playing the Report a Prick game.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-partisan-politics-political-platforms/14360-report-prick.html

 

[Gibberish]

I think you've missed the point yet again. You're attributing will where there is none. By your logic I could say breathing is an action, it sustains your life, you focus your life on voting, you voted for war, war is against God, by breathing you're against God.

Use some common sense, don't act like a child.

God said don't kill, if three people vote to have someone killed that would not be considered blasphemous?

So I guess as long as you have someone else perform the action your all clear. Telling that person to perform the action is ok.

Also how can you compare an involuntary action that only affects one person to a voluntary action that affects many?

 

[Btipton]

Voting should also not be a focus on life. Some of the lowest forms of one's identity is what your particular party affiliation is. No matter what form of government you believe in they're all "caves" as Plato might say.

When I say the idea is pure this doesn't mean don't bother trying. Christianity is not a Nihilist way of thinking. This doesn't go to say that attempting to emulate Christ is futile, it simple means don't condemn an entire religion because of one group of people that you saw acting in ways you consider tawdry. As for whether or not it develops morals I could go into it, but you sort of took that out of thin air, no mention of it beforehand that I can recall or see.

No, God said thou shalt not murder. Common misconception, most often enough mistranslated in the New Kings James version. There is a difference between killing and murdering, use your logic.

Lastly, if I were to assume your view point on this war but I had voted for Bush. How was I to know that this was to occur? Unless you had foresight this would not make it blasphemous. If on the other hand you consider the reelection as blasphemous then one must consider the way it would make your nation look at a global perspective. To show weakness is contrary to the general idea of a strong nation. If you back out before it's over, you make yourself more succeptible to future threats. In this case, try to use some foresight. A little cost in the immediate future prevents much larger ones in the far future.

Regardless of what political party has been in office at times of war, America has always reelected him in order to maintain balance and continuity. Peace is created through the destruction of your enemy. Strife is greatest at times where countries approach equal power or think they do.

 

[Btipton]

If you would like a different example then I can come up with since so many seem to complain about voluntary and the involuntary difference.

The creation of a civilization is one created by a gathering of men. More often than not it is in the hopes of trade and increased prosperity for all. An economy always forms first, everything else follows. It is the foundation of a civilization.

So I suppose we could define society as: An institution created for the procurement and advancement of man's personal interests.

To take something created out of pure greed and then try and associate God with it may make it blasphemous. Almost like spitting in God's face and asking for a blessing on something that is unpure. Therefore every creation within it, including and especially politics is simply a further perversion of His whim.

Hence, your furthering and participation in such an environment via thoughts, actions, and words is blasphemous. And in God's eyes all sins are equal. He didn't say wellll, lying is not quite as bad as murdering, they're all sins, pure and simple. Therefore you voting for what you claim is a war monger and someone who is intentionally killing people (Bush), is no better or worse than you participating in your everyday comfortable lives within such a civlization.

Amen. :lol:

 

[Gibberish]

If you would like a different example then I can come up with since so many seem to complain about voluntary and the involuntary difference.

The creation of a civilization is one created by a gathering of men. More often than not it is in the hopes of trade and increased prosperity for all. An economy always forms first, everything else follows. It is the foundation of a civilization.

So I suppose we could define society as: An institution created for the procurement and advancement of man's personal interests.

To take something created out of pure greed and then try and associate God with it may make it blasphemous. Almost like spitting in God's face and asking for a blessing on something that is unpure. Therefore every creation within it, including and especially politics is simply a further perversion of His whim.

Hence, your furthering and participation in such an environment via thoughts, actions, and words is blasphemous. And in God's eyes all sins are equal. He didn't say wellll, lying is not quite as bad as murdering, they're all sins, pure and simple. Therefore you voting for what you claim is a war monger and someone who is intentionally killing people (Bush), is no better or worse than you participating in your everyday comfortable lives within such a civlization.

Amen. :lol:

Ok so you just established that men create civilization out of greed and all sins are equal.

How does that counter the statement that supposedly "holier then thee" evangelicals are backing a leader who does the opposite of what God teaches?

 

[talloulou]

Here ya go folks.....the guy you voted for obviously has your back. Are you actually gonna fall for this again?

WASHINGTON - "A new book by a former White House official says President Bush's top political advisers privately ridiculed evangelical supporters as "nuts" and "goofy" while embracing them in public and using their votes to help win elections.

The former official also writes that the White House office of faith-based initiatives, which Bush promoted as a non-political effort to support religious social service organizations, was told to host pre-election events designed to mobilize religious voters who would most likely favor Republican candidates."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1013faith1013.html

By "evangelical" they were most likely referring to fanatical zealots. The fact that they recognize that population for being "nuts" & "goofy" is reassuring!

Also which campaign commercial, promise, ect of Bush's was targeting the evangelical fanatically religious zealots? Hmmm? I don't recall any.

 

[jfuh]

I call bullshit.

This life is a complex one by any objective standard. Jesus was not afraid of conflict, and thus in certain circumstances war can be justified.

For example, if someone entered WW2 in the name of Christ, this would more than likely not be blasphemous, for in the name of Christ you are putting your life on the line in order to save others. By the same note, if one voted for the war, or entered the war, in the name of Christ, because one was willing to sacrifice either the tax dollars, or quite more monumentally, your life, in order to free the Iraqis, however naiive this may have been, it certainly wouldn't be blasphemous.

You overreach. You shouldn't try to prove that all war in the name of Christ is blasphemous, because that's obviously wrong. You could argue that killing in the name of conversion is always wrong, you could claim that a particular war, or particular motivations to war justified in the name of Christ are blasphemous, but you overreach.

Bullshit, I say.

I hate to use the goodwen rule yet again; but someone did enter into WWII in the name of christ, that being no other than Hitler.
No matter how you cut it, it doesn't matter. Christ was the ultimate pacifist. Toss a slap to one face and he'll turn another face to receive another slap. Make no mistake about it, there's nothing holy about war.
If you want to go to war, fine go to war, but don't for one moment say that you are fighting in the name of christ or for the name of christ, because that is not what christ was ever about - hence, blasphemous.

 

[talloulou]

Christ was the ultimate pacifist.

Which is why Matthew 10:34 is so odd.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 10:34&version=9;

And then again in Luke 12:49-53.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke 12:49-53;&version=9;

I don't get all that but it leads me to believe that Jesus, if he existed, wasn't a pacifist. More like a parent telling their kids not to hit and violence is unacceptable.

Anotherwards it's almost like he himself was not a pacifist but pacifism for the most part is what is expected of us.

 

[Btipton]

Ok so you just established that men create civilization out of greed and all sins are equal.

How does that counter the statement that supposedly "holier then thee" evangelicals are backing a leader who does the opposite of what God teaches?

It means that you're being either
a) a hypocrite - because you're aware that society itself is corrupt and it's almost idiotic to point out a flaw
or
b) ignorant - I'm uneducated on the Bible, but I'm almost positive God never said, "thou shalt not vote..." and so on and so forth.

 

[Captain America]

..............................................................................

 

[Gibberish]

It means that you're being either
a) a hypocrite - because you're aware that society itself is corrupt and it's almost idiotic to point out a flaw
or
b) ignorant - I'm uneducated on the Bible, but I'm almost positive God never said, "thou shalt not vote..." and so on and so forth.

The act of voting is not what is under discussion. What you are voting for is.

Voting for world peace is not blasphemous.
Voting for world destruction is blasphemous.

 

[Btipton]

What is under discussions was my example of acting within such a society. If you have a logical explanation that undermines it pre-empt your answer with that.

In such a society, according to aforementioned definition, the very act of voting would be blasphemous. No matter if it was to save a little kid or to allow sacrifices every other Wednesday.

Therefore you must look at an issue at the closest level to its foundation to determine whether or not it's blasphemous, right, corrupt, virtuous, whatever the case may be. Trying to find good on an innately evil, greedy, etcetera institution would be considered...blasphemous.

[drops mike, walks away dramatically]

 

[Btipton]

Also I'd like to point out that the very nature of politics and in competition within the human mind is based off the assumption that each side must demonize the other.

It's simple to say you're evil if you vote for party A when you belong to party B, and vice versa.

You're political affiliation is the lowest form of identity that you can express for yourself.

And God said, "Let there be different divisions of the afterlife, one for the Republicans - and so Heaven was created. And one for the democrats, and Hell was brought forth.

or vice versa...

 

[Btipton]

And finally:

I heard them [priests] anathematize ambition and bad faith, whatever might be the political opinions with which these took care to cover themselves. but I learned in listening to them that men cannot be condemnable in the eyes of God because of these same opinions when they are sincere, and that there is no more sin in erring in matters of government than in being mistaken about the manner in which one must build a dwelling or plow a furrow.

-Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America

 

[Gibberish]

What is under discussions was my example of acting within such a society. If you have a logical explanation that undermines it pre-empt your answer with that.

In such a society, according to aforementioned definition, the very act of voting would be blasphemous. No matter if it was to save a little kid or to allow sacrifices every other Wednesday.

Therefore you must look at an issue at the closest level to its foundation to determine whether or not it's blasphemous, right, corrupt, virtuous, whatever the case may be. Trying to find good on an innately evil, greedy, etcetera institution would

According to the bible we have free will and choice. We can be forgiven and change our ways. Just because we are considered evil at one point does not mean we cannot ever be good.

Just because you consider a society to be built out of evil intent doesn't mean everything they ever do, touch, think is innately evil as well. If an evil person votes to save thousands of lives it is not blasphemous just because he is evil, it matters on if the intent is evil.

With your thought process there should be no forgiveness and everyone that was evil or spawned from anything remotely evil should be labeled as such for the rest of their lives no matter if their actions go against that evil.

 

[Btipton]

By logic if you know you're doing something wrong but continue then your request for salvation and forgiveness is a perversion of its essence. God allows forgiveness assuming you stop doing whatever it is you're doing wrong. This doesn't go to say you accidentally repeated a mistake, but rather if you run around killing people repeatedly knowing you'll get away because you can ask for forgiveness.

 

[kal-el]

According to the bible we have free will and choice. We can be forgiven and change our ways. Just because we are considered evil at one point does not mean we cannot ever be good.

C'mon man. You can do better. This is what happens when you don't actually read the book that you claim lends aid to your arguments. The bible says we have free will? Predestination, hardened hearts, before the foundation of the world, etc, etc, etc. And Jesus says there's 1 sin that no matter what, we can never be forgiven, I'll give you 1 chance to answer, ????????