81 replies to this topic

[arunma]

True, Steve (at least, I hope they care about protecting our rights). But why, then, do they try to pass themselves off as a Christian group by having church choirs sing at their convention? I'd prefer they not mock Christianity.

[SteveT]

That is a solid argument. It probably counts it as a violation of the third commandment, especially if these people are aware of the problems.

[arunma]

All right! Now we're getting somewhere. Perhaps I'll try to address the devil-worshiping argument more gently this time.

Here's my point. It's clear that Republicans do not obey Jesus' commandments. If they did, they wouldn't participate in slanderous campaign advertisements, favor violent policies, and they wouldn't favor unrestrained capitalism. But they do all of these things. The difference between the GOP and the DFL is that Democrats don't claim to be a religious affiliation. Republicans do (at least implicitly).

Now, there's nothing wrong with a Christian political party. But such a party would act as a leader in the Christian community. In the pastoral epistles, Paul sets fourth some strict requirements for all Christian community leaders. Do the Republicans meet these requirements? Clearly not. And what happens to "evangelists" who misrepresent the Bible? "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8).

Therefore, the Republican party should either step down as religious leaders, or start to adopt some Christian platforms.

[Hero of Winds]

Originally posted by arunma
True, Steve (at least, I hope they care about protecting our rights). But why, then, do they try to pass themselves off as a Christian group by having church choirs sing at their convention? I'd prefer they not mock Christianity.

Who said they were mocking Christianity? Who said they were trying to pass themselves off as Christians by having church choirs sing at the RNC? Plus, wouldn't a church choir know better than to sing at a gathering of Christian hypocrites?

I think you're looking into this too much.

[SteveT]

they wouldn't participate in slanderous campaign advertisements

Not exclusive to Republicans.

favor violent policies

There are times when one must stand up for his faith. Matters of American foreign policy are generally not those times.

they wouldn't favor unrestrained capitalism

Unrestrained capitalism is good for the poor. They can start businesses, flourishing businesses can give them jobs. What happens, though, is that the government imposes so much paperwork and legislation on entrapreneurs that it's near impossible to get a business going. Also, breaking up monopolies isn't restraining capitalism, it's forcing capitalists not to put restraints on other capitalists. In other words, by leaving monopolies and such alone, the Republican party is actually allowing capitalism to be restrained. Which is bad. Democrats, however, throw off the balance even more by overreacting.

But such a party would act as a leader in the Christian community. In the pastoral epistles, Paul sets fourth some strict requirements for all Christian community leaders. Do the Republicans meet these requirements? Clearly not.

I agree.

And what happens to "evangelists" who misrepresent the Bible? "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Galatians 1:8).

The difficulty is, Scripture is subject to interperetation. You could, in truth, be just as wrong as you claim they are.

[arunma]

The majority of evangelicals are decieved into voting Republican. So no, a church choir wouldn't know better. Besides, it takes a very devoted believer to resist an invitation to the RNC. A fasting Jesus refused the devil's offer of bread, but most Christians wouldn't.

[Hero of Winds]

I am not being decieved into anythinig, arunma, and I'd wish you'd stop saying such things.

[arunma]

Originally posted by Hero of Winds@Sep 16 2004, 11:46 AM
I am not being decieved into anythinig, arunma, and I'd wish you'd stop saying such things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But what if I'm right?

[arunma]

Originally posted by TanakaBros06@Sep 16 2004, 04:21 PM
And how could you not like the RNC? Ah-nud's "economic girly-men" speech was hilarious. Seriously, I want him to be the next president. I don't know how well things would work out, but it would sure be funny.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No...just...no.

[SteveT]

Originally posted by arunma
But what if I'm right?

You can play the what-if game all day, and it's still a hypothetical question.

[arunma]

Originally posted by SteveT@Sep 16 2004, 04:28 PM
You can play the what-if game all day, and it's still a hypothetical question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good point. However, I've presented my case against the Republican party, and no one seems to be disagreeing with it. Everyone says that I'm mean for making these charges against the Republican party. But it seems that even Republican Christians are aware that they don't serve a godly party.

My case isn't really against Christians who happen to be Republican. It's against people who say that you can't be a Christian unless you're Republican.

By the way, Pat Robertson said precisely this on the 700 Club several years ago.

[Hero of Winds]

Who's saying you can't be a Christian unless you're Republican?

[arunma]

Originally posted by Hero of Winds@Sep 16 2004, 04:34 PM
Who's saying you can't be a Christian unless you're Republican?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat Robertson.

And George Bush. At least he implied it by Christianizing a political convention.

Not that there's anything wrong with Christianizing an event. But you mock Christianity if you don't back up your claims by acting Christian.

[Hero of Winds]

He's not Christianizing anything! You're trying to make a case for some right wing evangelist conspiracy, where all you have to go is a choir singing at the RNC. I ask you, where do you get that idea?

[arunma]

I know there's no conspiracy. It's pretty open and well known to the public. The Republican party pitches itself as a religious, Bible believing party. But it has few deeds to back its claim.

[Hero of Winds]

It doesn't pitch itself as anything of the sort. Is it more obvious that Republicans are more religious than Democrats? Yeah, maybe. But I fail to see how it has "few deeds to back it's claim", especially considering YOU were just accusing them of using their religion to convert people through politics.

[arunma]

[quote]Originally posted by Dirk+-->

The message of Christianity simply doesn't gel with the seperation of church and state. Most religions believe that God should be in everything you do. I don't think politics and religion should be totally apart from each other. Nor do I believe that the government should demand that all people in a nation convert. But polititians should be able to discuss religion just like you and I can.[/b][/quote]

OK, I agree with you so far. But you said one thing earlier which was a bit bothersome.

[quote]Originally posted by Dirk@
Firstly, George Bush didn't Christianize politics-- Constantine did. Heck, Jesus himelf did.[/quote]

Jesus Christianized politics? I'm not so sure about that. If there's one thing Jesus didn't care about, it was politics. Why else do you think he refused the zealots' offer to crown him king?

#51 Hero of Winds

Hero of Winds

Quiet Riot

• 
• ZL Staff
• 
• 2,428 posts

Posted 16 September 2004 - 06:40 PM

^Then what does said sword refer to?

• Back to top

---

#52 SteveT

SteveT

100% a Dick

• 
• Members
• 
• 5,060 posts

• Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2004 - 06:47 PM

It means that there are a lot of people who wouldn't like what Jesus and his followers would have to say about the world. Thus, his teachings would be a source of conflict in that sense.

• Back to top

---

#53 arunma

arunma

Physics and math maniac

• 
• Members
• 
• 3,615 posts

• Location:University of Minnesota
• Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2004 - 06:50 PM

What Steve said.

• Back to top

---

#54 Guest_Dirk Amoeba_*

Guest_Dirk Amoeba_*

• 
• Guests

Posted 16 September 2004 - 06:54 PM

I think Jesus christianized politics because he himself was a Jewish political issue at the time of his life. It may, however, be slightly more apropriate to say that it was Constantine that Christianized politics, so I do concede.

As for the sword, my point was that there would be conflict, and Jesus didn't intend to resolve conflicts. Do you seriously think Jesus would prefer if we just ignored out conflicts with the middle east?

• Back to top

---

#55 Alakhriveion

Alakhriveion

Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki

• 
• Members
• 
• 4,718 posts

• Location:Connecticut

Posted 16 September 2004 - 06:58 PM

Unrestrained capitalism is good for the poor. They can start businesses, flourishing businesses can give them jobs.

I'd agree with you, on the condition that everyone MUST start with an equal chance for it to work.

• Back to top

---

#56 arunma

arunma

Physics and math maniac

• 
• Members
• 
• 3,615 posts

• Location:University of Minnesota
• Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2004 - 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Dirk Amoeba@Sep 16 2004, 06:54 PM
As for the sword, my point was that there would be conflict, and Jesus didn't intend to resolve conflicts. Do you seriously think Jesus would prefer if we just ignored out conflicts with the middle east?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's a question on that note. Assume America is a Christian nation (which it isn't, since our country contains pagan deities). Why should we support Jews over Muslims in the Middle East?

Or if you're pro-Muslim, why support them over the Jews?

• Back to top

---

#57 Hero of Winds

Hero of Winds

Quiet Riot

• 
• ZL Staff
• 
• 2,428 posts

Posted 16 September 2004 - 08:06 PM

Who said America was pro-Jew and anti-Muslim? America is in support of Israel.

• Back to top

---

#58 Alakhriveion

Alakhriveion

Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki

• 
• Members
• 
• 4,718 posts

• Location:Connecticut

Posted 16 September 2004 - 08:10 PM

That's right.

• Back to top

---

#59 Guest_Dirk Amoeba_*

Guest_Dirk Amoeba_*

• 
• Guests

Posted 16 September 2004 - 08:10 PM

The same reason we supported the Allies in World War II: Because they were the side we believed was fighting for the right cause.

• Back to top

---

#60 Alakhriveion

Alakhriveion

Anyone who tells you chemistry is an exact science is overthinki

• 
• Members
• 
• 4,718 posts

• Location:Connecticut

Posted 16 September 2004 - 08:10 PM

Which side? Israel or Palestine?

• Back to top

---

[Hero of Winds]

^Then what does said sword refer to?

[SteveT]

It means that there are a lot of people who wouldn't like what Jesus and his followers would have to say about the world. Thus, his teachings would be a source of conflict in that sense.

[arunma]

What Steve said.

[Alakhriveion]

Unrestrained capitalism is good for the poor. They can start businesses, flourishing businesses can give them jobs.

I'd agree with you, on the condition that everyone MUST start with an equal chance for it to work.

[arunma]

Originally posted by Dirk Amoeba@Sep 16 2004, 06:54 PM
As for the sword, my point was that there would be conflict, and Jesus didn't intend to resolve conflicts. Do you seriously think Jesus would prefer if we just ignored out conflicts with the middle east?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's a question on that note. Assume America is a Christian nation (which it isn't, since our country contains pagan deities). Why should we support Jews over Muslims in the Middle East?

Or if you're pro-Muslim, why support them over the Jews?

[Hero of Winds]

Who said America was pro-Jew and anti-Muslim? America is in support of Israel.

[Alakhriveion]

That's right.

[Alakhriveion]

Which side? Israel or Palestine?