Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Democrats try to Deceive Christian Conservatives

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Okay, so you are accepting Christ.. yet, you don't believe Democrats could be Christians because of the single abortion issue?


Question: "Do Christians have to obey the Old Testament law?" Answer:
The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. Some of the laws were to make the Israelites know how to obey and please God (the Ten Commandments for example), some of them were to show them how to worship God (the sacrificial system), some of them were to simply make the Israelites different from other nations (the food and clothing rules). None of the Old Testament law applies to us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) which is to, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.

source:gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html


Also, shouldn't we be talking about pro-life vs. pro-choice rather than dem vs republican? While it is true that the majority of dems are pro-choice to put them all in that catagory would be a falacy.




posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

posted by zoopnfunk
you don't believe Democrats could be Christians because of the single abortion issue?


Liberal Democrats were the ones in question. A far more extreme group than maybe your average Democrat.


In place of the Old Testament law, we are under the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) which is to, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.


This seems to be out of context. Galatians 6:2 talks about bearing one anothers (Believers) burdens.

The latter part is Christs response to his questioners about the Ten Commandments. Which is the Greatest?, and so forth. Christ replies that they can be boiled down to these two. He never says that they have been replaced by these two.



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   


Liberal Democrats were the ones in question. A far more extreme group than maybe your average Democrat.


I still think you ought to be careful... so your definition of 'liberal democrat' presupposes a pro-choice position? That's fine, I just want to make sure everyone is clear on the criteria you are using.

Also, are you implying that if you break one of the commandments, either knowingly or through misinterperetations, that you can not possess a 'strong Christian Faith'?

Is it only abortion / murder or does this standard apply equally across the board?


[edit on 31-10-2006 by zoopnfunk]



posted on Oct, 31 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   


Also, are you implying that if you break one of the commandments, either knowingly or through misinterperetations


I think 'knowingly' is the key. If you know something's wrong, why do it? But by the same token, misinterpretations become a kind of omission that I don't think will fly. It's like telling the traffic cop, 'I didn't know about that traffic law'. You're gettin' a ticket because it's your 'Responsibility' to know the Law.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 05:11 AM
link   
would you also opt for a pro-choice religion, or an authoritarian religion?
a pro-chioce government, or one that dictates your behavior?
which would you prefer, Islam or Christianity?

conservatives would prefer that we went along with the traditions, forever....and that traditional way originally included kings with god given absolute power and priests with about as equal power. and there was no questioning that authority.
liberals had the guts to question....the idea that the Bible should be only readable to the preists, the kings absolute power, the idea of slavery, the position of women in society. and yes the right for the women to be able to control her contribution to procreation.

weather some like it or not, abortion is not a black and white issue, there's way too much grey intermingled within. there's really isn't any consensus as to just when life begins, and quite frankly I got a feeling that many who stand against it would would quickly change their position if they had a doctor tell them that their wife (or themselves) had a good chance of dying, or becoming blind or having some other extreme bad side effect if they carried the child full term. or if their daughter found herself pregnant after being raped. it is not a black and white issue in the bible either, the value of an unborn baby is not nearly as much as a living person, thus the consequences spelled out in the old testament for causing a miscarriage isn't nearly as bad.
add to this the idea that Christ took a pretty strong stand against the ruling theocracy of the time, some might come to the conclusion that maybe it is better that our government stay out of those gray areas of morality and let us make the choice ourselves on a personal level...
after all, aborting a baby to prevent the death or injury to the mother is not murder, it's self preservation. the same driving force that has us in Iraq murdering thousands of innocent men women and children! If the republicans feel the impulse to preserve their self, their lifestyle that strongly, how can they say squat to a women who reacts to the same impulse and aborts a dangerous pregnacy. the christian thing to do it seems would be to take the beam out of their own eye, before they attempt to take the sliver out of hers! you say a liberal can't be a christian, fine so be it...the danged republicans are the pharisees and saducees of today, just like those that Christ stood against while on earth.



posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
After reading your post, I got the impression that there were a ton of critical mothers out there in danger of being harmed by their pregnancies, as well as rape victims needing relief. So I did some searching and found some stats.




Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding "hard case" abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes about 25% for primarily economic reasons.



www.johnstonsarchive.net...



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
so we should deny a medical procedure to the .03 percent or whatever to ease the your concious? I don't care if it's just one or two people! it would be an injustice! there's a mother in poland who became pregnant, was warned, and denied the medical care she needed, and now she's trying to raise three or four kids blind!!

and by the way.....
how many wmd's were found in Iraq?
what do you think the chances are that if their were any wmd's in Iraq, they would have found their way to your hometown to injure or kill you or your loved ones?
which do you think has the better chance of happening? a women here in the US, a women finding herself in pregnant and developing complications that will lead to death or permanant disability, or one of those wmd's from some third world nation like Iraq finding their way to your hometown?

remember, 9-11 doesn't count here, they were our planes, flown by pilots trained in our schools!!!

just about every peice of legislation that they are trying to pass against abortion has very little if any concern for the health and well being of the mother! they are hypocrits just like the saducees and the pharisees. they have no qualms about sending a ton of missles into countries across the war to kill people on the slim chance that the country might have wmds and on the even slimmer chance that these wmds might be used against us, but then they won't recognize the not as slim chance that a women might need an abortion to save her life or prevent drastic health problems from the pregnacy!
when asked about these little quirks in their faith, where common sense so serverely collides with their faith and moral values, be it physical harm to the mother during abortion, abusive marriages, whatever...they often resort the the "have faith in God, he will protect you....bit"
so, when it comes to wmds in little nitpicking third world nations, why don't they have faith in God, stick to their beliefs and moral values, instead of throwing a ton of missles around?
they are hypocrits, like the saducees and the pharisees.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Democrats try to Deceive Christian Conservatives

The above constitutes the original theme of this Thread, and I wish to further treat that, logically flawed, statement. Just for what it’s worth, I doubt the existence of truly “Christian” Conservatives in the sense of the Reality of the Truth of the Universal Body of Christ. For that major reason, and many, many, others, I challenge, and will continue to challenge, the use of that genre of terminology regards Politics and the Secular World. Why? Because such a “paradigm” as “Christian” Conservatism has come to represent runs counter to the very fundamental beliefs and doctrines of the entirety of the Christian Faith, itself. Before I go any further, I MUST state that I speak on this thread, (and the rest of ATS), as an individual Christian man, and not for the Faith of my Ministry as the Body it is. I cannot speak for that in a Political forum simply because it is against the Law for me to do so. In other words, the opinions I express on these forums are my own, and not necessarily that of the Church and Faith I represent. This secular fact does not just affect me, but, every other Ordained Minister and Lay Person in America.

It appears to me that those who define themselves politically as “Christian” Conservatives also identify with what has come to be called the Christian Right. In my mind, personal Faith, and religious education, there is, and has never been, anything “right” about the “Christian Right”. What has been proven by Fruit and Act by these people over time and analysis is, though they well may be politically “conservative”, they are, at the same time, Biblically Liberal; lauding both the Name of Jesus and the Holy Bible and Scriptures to support political platforms, Wars, and bad secular Law. That such is done selectively, taking Scriptures out of context and twisting meanings to their own ends to instill Fear and create division and schism in the Body of Christ, is completely juxtaposed to the intended meaning of the Bible and the Christian Faith. No greater example of this sort of divisiveness (though not strictly Biblical) can be found than in the title of this Thread. The same “device” is represented. Let me get specific.

One of the hallmark themes of both the Christian Conservatives and the Christian Right is “Christian Family Values”. Yet, at the same time, Christian Conservatives largely support the War in Iraq. How can this possibly be, as War divides Families by sending Sons and Daughters, and in this one, Parents of small children, into harms way? What are “Christian Family Values” and a “Christian Family” if not the crux, Love-functional, unit of the Body of Christ, the Secular Community, and the Nation, itself? In the Eyes of God, nothing justifies War, and it is a totally secular practice prosecuted by Natural Men—not God. (Don’t even think about Old Testament examples, as that is a dead book and Testament to the true Christian as it is no longer the Law; and only a moral dictum for the purpose of conviction and that is all.)

I have seen a decay from subject here, as well, as we speak of the abortion rights controversy, which is off-topic for this thread. It is enough to state that it is the long-held dictum of Faith that Life begins, now, in the same it has begun since the Beginning. That is when God breathes the Breath of Life into the Body, just as was done in the case of Adam and Eve. The learned of the Faith understand that Time to be on the taking in of the First Breath.

Another kindred issue is Women’s Rights. I will say this once. The translation of the Hebrew text as regards Women as “Helpmeets” is the 12th definition of the word. The First Definition is “equal”, and the Text itself does NOT contain the appropriate and common modifiers required to lend any other definition. IOW, the word is used in the literal sense. Personally, I hold with the intended and original definition, and not the definition as miss-transcribed.

In closing, I am merely going to say that there is no “conspiracy” or deception in “Democrats deceiving Christian Conservatives”. None is needed, as the Christian Conservatives seem to gbe doing a good enough job of deceiving themselves, and by their own hands. Just make sure that they don’t deceive you in the process, and Poison your Well as they certainly have others.

I’m done here.


[edit on 2-11-2006 by Ed Littlefox]



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
My question is, Are the Democrats any different? I mean, they're just looking to make a trade for the Power right?



I totally agree, they are lying for votes and hoping that they retake the House and Senate. If they do retake both you will see them revert to what they really are, against God and Christians.

Now after having said that, being Republican doesn't make someone automatically a Christian.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by zoopnfunk

The republicans having total control over both branches has us in a real mess.



When Jimmy Carter was President and the Democrats controlled both branches we were in bad shape also. Both parties have had their chances and turns at making things better and both have failed. The problems the world faces are too great for mankind to solve.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   


The problems the world faces are too great for mankind to solve.



Absolutely. You've hit the nail on the head. Many here see mankind achieving Utopia on its own. Save Mother Earth, stop the Wars, feed everyone. Not gonna happen without Gods guidance. It must be frustrating to keep trying and failing. Reminds me of someone making a soup sandwich.



posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

posted by ed littlefox
It is enough to state that it is the long-held dictum of Faith that Life begins, now, in the same it has begun since the Beginning. That is when God breathes the Breath of Life into the Body, just as was done in the case of Adam and Eve. The learned of the Faith understand that Time to be on the taking in of the First Breath.


Luke 1:41 States that when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb. As we know this was John the Baptist and Mary of course was carrying Christ. Seemed to be alive to me.




Yet, at the same time, Christian Conservatives largely support the War in Iraq.


The Bible is not a suicide pact. It has never told anyone not to defend themselves. I know, you'll start whining about it being unnecessary. Osama Bin Laden disagrees with you.




(Don’t even think about Old Testament examples, as that is a dead book and Testament to the true Christian as it is no longer the Law; and only a moral dictum for the purpose of conviction and that is all.)



How do you explain Christ's statement that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it? Kinda seems like maybe he doesn't agree with throwing out the Old Testament. Ed Littlefox: Don't even think about the OT......


[edit on 2-11-2006 by HimWhoHathAnEar]



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   


Luke 1:41 States that when Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb. As we know this was John the Baptist and Mary of course was carrying Christ. Seemed to be alive to me.


"Seemed", yes, but was before the Biblical Breath of Life (the Soul) and that Ordained by God, Himself? And, what was it that I was saying about taking the Word out of context to prove a point? Yes, Mary was carrying the Christ, BUT, the Babe that leaped was that of Elizabeth, who was also pregnant (6 months) and delivered a son, also. To use a single verse of scripture that is unrepresentative of a complete thought (ex. John 3:16) is misleading, and many times purposefully so.

The further fact is that fetus' move in the womb--whether Human or animal. Movement is not necessarily an indication of Life. We keep the organs of the Dead "alive" for the purpose of harvest, and people who are EEG flat-lined "alive" with machinery. This does NOT mean that their Soul is present in their bodies or their Organs.




The Bible is not a suicide pact. It has never told anyone not to defend themselves. I know, you'll start whining about it being unnecessary. Osama Bin Laden disagrees with you.


"If men smite thee on thy left cheek, then turn to him the other".




How do you explain Christ's statement that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it? Kinda seems like maybe he doesn't agree with throwing out the Old Testament. Ed Littlefox: Don't even think about the OT......


The fact and Truth is that Jesus became the Law in the Flesh, and the Law died on the Cross with the Flesh, and that because the Law was Flesh and regarded the Flesh.
Though Christ was resurrected from Death, the Law was NOT resurrected, such that no Christian is under the Law any longer. Only Sinners are under the Law. For Christians, the Law has been fulfilled, they are Forgiven for it, and vouchsafed in Grace by the Blood of Jesus Christ. This Truth is the basis of the Christian Faith, and there is no Grey Area, no "If", no "but", and no "and". Christians, sir, cannot superimpose the Old Testament Law on other Christians as it is a quite moot point to do so.

So, what is the Deception, if indeed one exists? Simply that it is bound in the fact that one cannot mold the Truth to fit themselves, one must mold themselves to fit the Truth. The proof of the righteous act in that regard is the Fruit it bears. If the Fruit be Evil (Fear), then the Vine is also Evil (Fear). Fear, if you don't have a clear understanding of it, is the opposite of Love, and God is Love. That being the case, then what is Fear and why is it that the Christian Right propagates Fear and its kindred spirits, Confusion and Division; and uses these to support secular Laws which are counter to Individual Liberty, knowing all the while that the Truth sets one Free? One does not fight Terror by creating Tyranny--and if there is a deception or conspiracy here, then this is it.

Now, "you want to go home and rethink your Life"---Obi-Wan Kenobi



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Osama Bin Laden disagrees with you.


Oh brother... what does Osama have to do with Iraq? Iraq wasn't a training ground for terrorists until we invaded. Iraq didn't have anything to do with 911 either.

I don't understand how Osama is relevant to the iraq invasion.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

posted by zoopnfunk
Oh brother... what does Osama have to do with Iraq? Iraq wasn't a training ground for terrorists until we invaded. Iraq didn't have anything to do with 911 either.





An October 17th statement posted on an Islamist website and published in al-Qaeda's military journal Mu`askar al-Battar claiming to be from the Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTJ) group led by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi began with a personal pledge of allegiance from Zarqawi and his fighters to Osama bin Laden: "[Let it be known that] al-Tawhid wal-Jihad pledges both its leaders and its soldiers to the mujahid commander, Sheikh "Osama bin Laden"... Numerous messages were passed between ‘Abu Musab' (God protect him) and the al-Qaeda brotherhood over the past eight months, establishing a dialogue between them. No sooner had the calls been cut off than God chose to restore them, and our most generous brothers in al-Qaeda came to understand the strategy of the Tawhid wal-Jihad organization in Iraq, the land of the two rivers and of the Caliphs, and their hearts warmed to its methods and overall mission." [1]


www.jamestown.org...

Iraq has everything to do with Al Qaeda NOW. Living in the past won't help us NOW. We fight them there, or we fight them here.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

posted by ed littlefox
BUT, the Babe that leaped was that of Elizabeth, who was also pregnant (6 months) and delivered a son, also.


Who cares which it was, it was obviously a sign of recognition. Unless you have an agenda, that is. You've obviously found a way to justify infanticide. Therefore, I will not respond again to it here in the interests of staying on topic. U2U on this if you wish.




"If men smite thee on thy left cheek, then turn to him the other".




War is a terrible thing! War is always the result of sin (Romans 3:10-18). In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to: “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites” (Numbers 31:2). See also Deuteronomy 20:16-17, “However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you.” Exodus 17:16 proclaims, “He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation." Also, 1 Samuel 15:18, “Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out.” So, obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God’s will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).



It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes a war is necessary to prevent even greater evil. If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions of Jews would have been killed? If the Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African Americans have had to suffer as slaves? We must all remember to base our beliefs of the Bible, not on our emotions (2 Timothy 3:16-17).


www.gotquestions.org...



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 01:51 PM
link   
The bible says a lot of things, many of them contridictary, but that is really besides the point. On the topic of this thread, Dem's deceiving christians:

It would be a fair assessment to say that the Democrats are trying to change the way they message their politics to Christian voters because the democratic party believes it is losing a lot of 'values based voters' based primarily on the issue of abortion and based on the false meme that democrats are 'godless'.

Although the Bible never specifically mentions abortion it does talk about taking care of the poor, stewardship over the environment among other things. Democrats would like to emphasize that values don't begin and end with the single issue of abortion -- and that there are many issues on which Democrats and 'values based' voters agree.

I wouldn't call that deception.

IMHO, you should be asking the same question about Republicans given the recent news:



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




[edit on 3-11-2006 by zoopnfunk]



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Just for what it's worth and in the light of who is trying to deceive who.

Washington Post





Calling them "thugs" and "bullies" in recent interviews, Armey says that "Dobson and his gang" have split the conservative Christian movement into two camps: those who want to "practice their faith independent of heavy-handed government" and "big government sympathizers who want to impose their version of 'righteousness' on others."


These two used to be strong Allies-----!

CNN Ouside Source


COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) -- The president of the National Association of Evangelicals resigned Thursday after accusations by a male prostitute that the pastor paid him for sex over three years.

The Rev. Ted Haggard said he also is temporarily stepping aside from the pulpit of his church in Colorado Springs pending an internal investigation by the church.

The church official who temporarily has assumed Haggard's post said late Thursday that there has been "some admission of guilt," but not to all of the allegations. He did not give any more details.


"Do not let thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth"

As Jesus said, "Ye shall know my people by their Fruits" ----and there appears to be quite a number of "Fruits" in the Religious Right.
Remember Bob and Tammy, Jerry Faldwell, Pat Robinson? All "evangelicals", all Religious Right, (in fact, the grandfathers of it), and all completely discredited. Don't talk to me about Religious Deception and False Prophesy. If it isn't Love, it isn't God. If it's Fear, then it's False.

For myself, I am NOT deceived by any of it, nor do I attempt to deceive others. The Truth is the Truth and quite self-proving, and self-evident. There are no Gray Areas in Truth, no if, ands. or buts --and no escape from it, either. If I want to Live under the auspices of Ecclesaiatical government, I will do so by my own free will, and NEVER by the Dictates of Caesar, as Ceasar is no, and has no, Authority over God.
It has been the primary goal of the radical Christian Right to ultimately have Christianity confirmed as the National religion of America. It has continued to support
the destruction of the Constitution of the United States, and thereby threatened the very foundations of Freedom and Liberty, and the very foundations upon which this Nation is built--Religious Freedom and Individual Liberty.

I'm sorry, but I remember all too well the insidious justification tauted by the Right to Lifers as they bombed medical clinics and murdered pregnant women, and doctors, in the process, not to mention kidnapping in the name of God. Who took the responsibility for the deaths of those un-born Children and their murdered Mothers? Such is the form and reasoning behind any act of Terror. I find, in my experience with Right Wing Christians that the common mentality is all too kindred to that of other "organizations"--such as the KKK, Arien Nation, and Skinheads. the phillisophy and self-rightious focus is the same--not to mention the arrogance and Fear-mongering.

My advice--given both unasked and freely--- know these people by their Fruits and not what they say. Gague all of it by the Truth and do not be deceived.

[edit on 3-11-2006 by Ed Littlefox]

[edit on 3-11-2006 by Ed Littlefox]



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   

posted by zoopnfunk
taking care of the poor, stewardship over the environment among other things. Democrats would like to emphasize that values


There is more wealth in the hands of Democratic Congressmen than Republican. They're not about the poor, they're about themselves. Elitists to the core. Flying around in their private jets, burning more fuel in one day than I will in a lifetime. Save the planet, right!





and that there are many issues on which Democrats and 'values based' voters agree.



Such as? It definitely won't be moral issues.



posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   


They're not about the poor, they're about themselves.


They will raise the national min wage, something the republicans have not done. I have a link to back that claim up a page or two back -- I am assuming you read it already.

[edit on 3-11-2006 by zoopnfunk]






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join