I Just Couldn't Do It

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flyboy,

[Tell me again how you reconcile either candidate's position with the Constitution. Neither one of them gets it; I've heard both of them speak about the rights the government gives, or the Constitution gives. They're both statists!]

The Constitution gives the Congress the authority to tax and spend, and the president the authority to submit his requirements and to execute budgets and his programs. If they are against the Constitution, they why does someone not bring lawsuits that will go to the US SC? It is because the suit would be thrown out.
The actions of President Bush and the Congress have been well within the boundaries of the Constitution whether you think so or not.


[Again, with the accusatory tone. But, again, I'm sure it was a slip of the tongue (er, fingers). What, exactly, are the "moral issues" of which you speak? As near as I can tell, the biggest moral issue is the morality of government trying to interfere with the rights endowed me by my Creator (among which are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). Which one of the candidates was working to reduce government intervention in my life; which one was trying to reduce the government's immoral and unconscionable interference with my inalienable rights?]

You show little understanding of moral absolutes. They are contained in the Bible. You have life, but there is not right to do as you please to pursue your idea of happiness. Libertarians seem unable to grasp that fact.
To be specific regarding the moral issues that I am primarily speaking of, they are homosexuality, which is an abominable sin, and abortion, which is the murder of the unborn.

Those moral issues, and there are others that the LP holds as rights, are symptoms of a nation that has departed from the moral laws of God, who created us. Once a nation departs from them it becomes a nation that in time loses its liberties, and finally collapses.
The lack of respect for life is manifested in the murders of all ages and by parents, their children, schoolmates or anyone who gets in the way of what they desire.

In this race it is clear that the Dems have reached a point of moral bankruptcy. Those who vote for them or those who do not oppose them are about the same. If the differences in the moral values of the two candidates is not clear to you, then you do not have the proper moral values that are needed to reverse the direction of this nation.

Not necessarily being accusatory, but if the shoe fits wear it.

Jerry
 
I have no desire to see seven or eight candidates, when a vote for any but the main two is a waste of ink..it just confuses the less informed voters, and makes for a more complicated process.

Ah, yes, let's make sure to make things simple for the poor voters. We wouldn't want to confuse them with, say, choices. Why, that might resemble freedom!

And if that doesn't give you the willies, think about it this way: you could simplify it further, to just one party. And nobody said that one party had to be the Republicans. Hint, hint.

Hmm, suddenly, a little complication sounds like it might be a good thing.

I dont care how much some folks want, there will never be a viable candidate for the presidency that isnt from the GOP or DNC...

Excuse me, allow me to rephrase that a bit, in historical context:

1788:
There will never be a viable candidate for the Presidency that isn't from the Federalist Party or the Anti-Federalist Party.

Since then, we've had presidents who were Whigs, Progressives (under the nickname of the Bull Elk Party, among others), Democratic-Republicans, and, in one case, no party affiliation at all. And those are just the ones who were elected; there were plenty of challengers from other parties, some serious. The point is, parties do change from time to time.

Furthermore, the other party (or non-party) candidates don't necessarily have to be viable to affect the election. Pat Buchanan may well have changed the result of the 2000 election, due to the mess in Florida. Certainly, you have to agree that Perot had a effect on policy as a result of his 1992 bid for the Presidency. And, as others have pointed out, both parties actively court undecideds and third-party candidates; those parties can bring change from outside, as the major parties try to appeal to their members.

It's been a long day; I think I'm going to retire for the evening. Good night, all; I'm really enjoying this opportunity to discuss and debate the situation.
 
The most important were the moral issues. If one cannot identify those issues and stand for what is right, then he is not a good citizen. He is a foolish person who does not deserve the liberty which we have.
JerryM, in any group of two people, do you think one is always morally right? If not, your claim that Bush is morally right is just an opinion. I personally don't think someone is obviously morally right when that person:
- Signs a bill (probably many) that he thinks is probably unconstitutional
- Increases the budget and increases the national debt by over $1.5 trillion in 4 years. Sure, we're at (undeclared) war, but we haven't spent $1.5 trillion on it.
(http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm)

There are some others I'm sure, but the only others I can think of right now are religious in nature, and I think the above two are serious enough to make the point.

Certainly he does not embrace the values upon which this nation was founded and made the greatest nation in the history of the world. Those were the Judeo/Christian ethic.
You are aware that many of the founding fathers, while religious, were deists? You are aware that deism is not christianity? You are aware that the person who runs this server is muslim/islamic? You are aware that continuation of this intolerant Judeo-Christian talk will probably kindle a fire and get this thread locked?
 
I'll make my post short and concise.

First, the original poster gets a pat on the back and a brew of his choosing from me. It is your right to vote the way you want to and no one can tell you that you are wrong. If you voted for Kerry, I'd still give you a pat on the back (you'd buy your own beer though ;) )

Next, a vote for Bush is a vote for the same system that has let down countless Americans year after year. Many of them excercise their disgust by not voting. I considered it, but decided to vote mainly because of local issues. I voted for Badnarik because he best suits my beliefs. Some may compromise and vote for Bush. While it is your right to do so, and I support your actions, I cannot support your logic and I will not compromise.
Bush is the man who instituted the Patriot Act, toppled two sovreign nations in three years, has lined his own pockets with government money and said we would extend the AWB if it reached his desk. This man is truly a bad president. On the other hand we have Kerry. Kerry may go on about how bad Bush is screwing up, but he supports the same things. He voted FOR the Patriot Act. To his credit, he said it is too broad, but he never said it is a violation of privacy. Kerry's anti-gun behavior is well known and his stances on the invasion of sovreign nations are right there with Bush. Kerry said Bush should have had a better plan...but he still supported the wars we have waged.

Times are in desparate need of changin'
I'll be there to change them, you can continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :fire:
 
… To be specific regarding the moral issues that I am primarily speaking of, they are homosexuality, which is an abominable sin, and abortion, which is the murder of the unborn.

The morality of abortion aside, why should you know what goes on inside a woman’s body? The morality of homosexuality aside, why should you know what kind of sexual activity goes on inside of someone else’s bedroom?

~G. Fink
 
This thread is rapidly departing politics for religion, but I'll try to keep it relevant.

To be specific regarding the moral issues that I am primarily speaking of, they are homosexuality, which is an abominable sin

Says who?

Some sects of Christianity feel that way, yes. Some don't. The Episcopalians have gone so far as to induct homosexuals into positions of authority within their church; their faith seems able to accept people as they were Created.

Incidentally, the Episcopalians have given us more presidents than any other faith, including none other than George Washington.

But, as I said, this isn't about religion, this is about politics. You're arguing that these laws are necessary because you believe that a given behavior is wrong, based on religious canon. In effect, you're saying that we should pass these laws, because the Bible says so. There are two problems with that theory.

First, making it impossible to sin also makes it impossible to be virtuous. The Creator imbued us with free will, with the intent that we would choose His way. If He had wanted mindless sycophants, He could easily have created them. He didn't. There's an old philosophical question that asks if you can have light without the darkness, or good without evil. If you do the right thing (assuming there's only one interpretation, which there isn't), but you have no other options, what have you done? It's neither right nor wrong; it merely is. Without choice, without options, without the capability to do wrong, there is no morality, just existence.

Second, and more importantly: you argue for laws with religious justification. There's a term for such things. That term is "theocracy." You don't want one. It is all well and good to argue for morality, and for individuals to comport themselves along the path of Right; the government, however, should not be in the business of determining what is Right. You can argue for laws against murder, or rape, or theft, on secular grounds: those actions infringe upon the rights of the victim. The actions of consenting adults cannot justly be regulated by a government that exists only to protect the rights of individuals. When you get into the business of saying "you can't do that, because it's bad," you establish a precedent that will ultimately extend to you. Think about it: what if, instead of a Christian, we had Muslims in office. Do you want to live under Islamic law (I am not, of course, disparaging that religion; rather, I'm pointing out that different religions have different beliefs, and that no single faith would satisfy everybody)? Even staying within Christianity, which branch? The Catholics say that any form of contraception is a sin. The Nazarenes believe that consumption of alcohol is a sin. Some branches of Mormon believe that polygamy is acceptable, or even encouraged. Yet they all fall under the general umbrella of Christianity. Which one do we use?

Even more troubling is the fact that the Church can, in fact, be wrong; we're only human, after all. To wit: it was only recently (1997, IIRC) that the Catholic church pardoned Galileo for his heresy in suggesting that (get this!) the Earth orbits the Sun! Can you imagine that? And here we've known for centuries that the Earth is the center of the universe! What a nutcas...er, what? You mean he was right? Oh, well, scratch that. What were we saying? Oh, yeah, something about the Church, being run as it is by men, who are (nearly by definition) fallible, making mistakes.

Furthermore, don't you think that the Creator can handle enforcing his own laws? If He really thinks something is a problem, don't you think that He can take care of the problem? Isn't there a line in the Bible somewhere about not judging other people, lest ye be judged?

The point to all of this is that a theocracy, in whatever form, is a bad form of government. I'm not saying that religion, or morality, is bad, but rather that it's not the legitimate function of government to define what we believe. The most basic premise of our government is that it exists to protect our rights. To wit:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Governments are instituted to secure these rights. Notice it says nothing about morality, or enforcing Biblical law. Leave religion to the church, and politics to the government.
 
Hi Flyboy, Tyme, and Gordon,

I’ll see how many of your points that I can address in the “space allotted.â€

Let me quote George Washington a couple of times. However, when it comes to moral absolutes no man is the authority, but only God. He has spoken in His Word, the Bible.

“I am sure that never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a Divine interposition in their affairs, than those in the United States; and I would be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.â€

‘It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.â€

[JerryM, in any group of two people, do you think one is always morally right? If not, your claim that Bush is morally right is just an opinion. I personally don't think someone is obviously morally right when that person:
- Signs a bill (probably many) that he thinks is probably unconstitutional
- Increases the budget and increases the national debt by over $1.5 trillion in 4 years. Sure, we're at (undeclared) war, but we haven't spent $1.5 trillion on it.]

One is only right, morally, if he agrees with the moral absolutes which God has established. It is easy to have 100 people and they all be wrong if they are at odds with what God has said.
The issues of the budget are not moral issues as such. It does not mean that they are not exceedingly important, but they are not moral in nature. They are not unconstitutional, but may not be the best things to do at a particular time. Reagan was criticized for deficits, but he did what was necessary to cause the Soviet Union to collapse. We are a safer nation and world, and more people are free. It was worth it.

GWB has had to deal with terrorism. It is easy to be critical of what is being done, but I do not hear any viable plan to do it better. Most plans I hear are not specific, and simply make statements that a grade schooler could see is too general to be put into practice.

I have not agreed with either party on the “job export†issues, but that has been approved by both parties.

But the moral issues are clearly homosexuality and abortion. The Bible is clear on those issues. We can disagree about the budget, what we do about social security, or how the war is fought. We might reach compromises on such issues, and I think we will. But there can be no compromise on an issue which God has said is an abomination to Him, or the murder of the unborn. Those are not negotiable.

[You are aware that many of the founding fathers, while religious, were deists? You are aware that deism is not christianity? You are aware that the person who runs this server is muslim/islamic? You are aware that continuation of this intolerant Judeo-Christian talk will probably kindle a fire and get this thread locked.]

I think the quotes by George Washington make my point, and the posting of the Ten Commandments, manger scenes, and many other signs which confirm the Judeo/Christian ethic of the founders.

What anyone here is does not change the truth, and the truth of the election. This is basically a Christian nation in its beliefs and laws. We have freedom of religion here, but that does not make all religions equal. They are not and I do not intend to try to accommodate anyone to try to indicate that they are all equal. There is only one way to God, and that is through His Son, Jesus Christ. There is no other way. Does tolerance mean that I accept all religions as equal? If so, then I am not tolerant, and have no intention of becoming tolerant regardless of the consequences.

[The morality of abortion aside, why should you know what goes on inside a woman’s body? The morality of homosexuality aside, why should you know what kind of sexual activity goes on inside of someone else’s bedroom?]

Because it is detrimental to all the nation when one group is considered not worth preserving, and permitted to be murdered.
In some sense a nation is considered a whole, instead of individuals without the whole. The old saying that “No man is an island†makes that point. What individuals do impacts all in many instances. A nation that permits the murder of the unborn is a nation that will suffer God’s judgment in time.

A nation that approves homosexuality is a nation ripe for His judgment. God said this about such.
“Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25. And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.â€

“Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.â€

I do not desire to see my nation deteriorate to the degree that we suffer judgment, although we deserve it.

Flyboy,
[Says who?
Some sects of Christianity feel that way, yes. Some don't. The Episcopalians have gone so far as to induct homosexuals into positions of authority within their church; their faith seems able to accept people as they were Created.
Incidentally, the Episcopalians have given us more presidents than any other faith, including none other than George Washington.]

It is not so important what any sect of Christianity feels, but it is important what God has said. Most denomination, including The Episcopalians, have departed from the faith. They are no longer following Christianity. George Washington, and the old time Episcopalians would be appalled at what that denomination has fallen to.
People are now born with fallen natures. They have all sorts of immoral desires and propensities. Some are inclined to violence, or wanting every member of the opposite sex they see, or sex with children, or stealing, or lying, or homosexuality. But we do not excuse those, except homosexuality, and say that since they were born with those desires it is OK for them to practice them. However, some make an exception for homosexuality. It is the same as other sinful lusts, and should be treated as such.

Although this is about politics, what a nation does and the laws it passes reflects the moral values of that nation. Ours is departing from those values that stood us in good stead for 200 years. No, we were not perfect, but we were a far better nation 50 years ago than now. That issue was a major part of the election, and was responsible for Bush being elected instead of Kerry.

Now those who do not vote do not shape the nation, but are at the mercy of those who do. If Kerry had been elected you and others who voted third party or none, would whine about loss of gun rights. But you ignored the fact that there will be Supreme Court justices, and many federal judges appointed the next four years. You decided that you would leave that to the luck of the draw, and if Kerry had been elected you might imagine the anti-gun type liberals he would have appointed, if he could. You would soon be jailed for hate speech for stating your views.

Jerry
 
Personally, I think not voting at all is positively unamerican.

It is a shame so many decide not to. They deserve whatever they get.

Actually voting, but not for President is a little like taking your ball and going home.

Life is one big compromise...you rarely get it your way.

There are times when you simply have to choose between 2 less than perfect (to you) options.

Or, you can decide " I can't have it my way, so I don't want to play this game"

Both leaders and followers will vote...the rest are just along for the ride!
 
But the moral issues are clearly homosexuality and abortion. The Bible is clear on those issues.…

Jerry, did God write the Bible? I submit that He did not and suggest that you not presume to speak for Him.

~G. Fink
 
Would you (the original poster) settle for a neighbor with a clear conscience? Here in Texas, we had Michael Badnarik (a.k.a. "the Libertarian guy") on the ballot. He got my vote.

I'm a moderate, and the consistency to my votes is freedom.

I wish the Republicans would not gloat, and that the Democrats would get over it, quit moping, and get their act together. We need a system of at least two strong parties--preferably more--to keep each other honest.

JerryM:
I find your remarks offensive.
I am an Episcopalian woman who is a moderate Libertarian. I was not born with a 'fallen nature' (as if you'd know--you don't know me), nor would I *whine* about a Kerry victory--I take action! If you want to preach, go start your own church and take your prejudices elsewhere. :fire:

Best to all,
 
Gordon,

[Jerry, did God write the Bible? I submit that He did not and suggest that you presume not to speak for Him.]

God inspired the authors of the various books of the Bible to write the things they wrote. He did it so that His Word would be correct and given to mankind to reveal much about His nature, mankind, the requirements that would have to be met to be acceptable to Him, and His plan of redemption for mankind in Christ.

I can only speak for Him when I state what He has said. I did not, and could not, originate the message, but just carry it.

It is a ploy to deny that God inspired the Bible, and that it is an accurate book of what He has said. If it was just a bunch of men, then it has no authority, and your view is as good as mine. However, since it is divinely inspired, it is authoritative, and one disobeys at his peril, and ultimate judgment. When I say what He has said, I am just stating His word.

Jerry
 
Jerry, I think that God did inspire the Bible, but I also think that the men who wrote it were human and fallible and probably let their own social and political agendas color their interpretations of God’s inspiration.

Either way, by law, the United States is not a Christian republic.

~G. Fink
 
It is a ploy to deny that God inspired the Bible, and that it is an accurate book of what He has said.

Inspired, yes; wrote, no. And, even if he did write it, how many times has it been transcribed, and translated, by flawed--"fallen"--men? Ever played "telephone?"

Unless, of course, you're reading the original copies. How is your Ancient Aramaic, anyway?
 
God inspired the authors of the various books of the Bible to write the things they wrote.

God also inspired the authors of the Koran, the Torah, the Sacred Writings of Baha'u'llah (Bahai Faith) and the Book of Mormon, among others. How the messengers interpreted and wrote it is another thing entirely.
 
TamThompson ,

[JerryM:
I find your remarks offensive.
I am an Episcopalian woman who is a moderate Libertarian. I was not born with a 'fallen nature' (as if you'd know--you don't know me), nor would I *whine* about a Kerry victory--I take action! If you want to preach, go start your own church and take your prejudices elsewhere. ]

Tam, while it was not my intention to offend, it is a fact that the truth of God’s Word offends those who are disobedient to it.
If you do not understand that you were born with a fallen nature, then you know almost nothing about the Bible, and mankind. The Bible makes it clear that ALL mankind is born with a fallen nature. Have you never read the Bible? Why do you think that you need to be saved/born again to become acceptable to God? Yet the Episcopalians, among other denominations, evidently do not teach or recognize that fact, and think that they are saved when they are not truly born again. Their eternal future is in the balance. Please realize that you are a fallen sinner and need to be saved to have eternal life. The Bible says that there is none good, no not one. That means you and me, but Jesus can make us righteous and does when we come to Him recognizing our fallen condition, repenting, and asking Him for salvation.

I have the responsibility to carry the truth of Gospel to all who I can reach. Christ commanded it. Part of that responsibility is to be a good citizen and seek to have my nation and it laws and practices a nation of righteousness. That is my intent.

I am not sure what you mean by prejudices as such. If you mean that I believe, honor, and obey as well as I can, the Word of God, and do not try to distort what He has said to be popular or make people feel good, then I plead guilty.
God has said that some particular things are sin, and He is clear on that. I want my nation to reflect the godly attitudes that were the basis of this nation in the beginning.

If you find that attitude and the things that I have posted in regard to that offensive, then so be it. If you will study the Bible and have a desire to be obedient to God, then you will not be offended, but will join me in the quest to improve this nation through acceptance of correct moral values. Our nation’s future is at stake.

Jerry
 
God inspired the Bible, and has preserved it so that mankind can know and understand what He requires, and Who He is. He has not left it to chance that we could get it right, because we could not. He has preserved His Word, and it is the ultimate authority. He did not permit the authors of the Bible to write anything they desired in their human understanding, but required that they write what He desired. They did so and it is still protected and preserved. In fact they did not completely understand some of the things that they wrote. But they wrote as God inspired them.

Folks, do not tell me that you believe it and then try to explain it away by saying that men wrote it and said what they desired, and it was not what God said. If you believe that then you do not believe the Bible, and there is no ultimate authority for you to live by. That permits you a wide latitude of moral interpretation, and when the Bible does not suit you then you say it is not accurate. That is nonsense.

No, the Koran, Book of Mormon, and other writings, were not inspired by God. He has said that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and there is not other way. The other writings that were mentioned are not God’s Word.

Jerry
 
Duck hunt,
You can believe that if you desire, but common sense tells you that it cannot be true.
God does not contradict Himself. If He did then one could not know what He has said, and what is expected of mankind. His Word says that He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, and that He changes not.

Those other books contradict the Bible, and so cannot be inspired by God. Impossible. The Bible tells us that there is only one way of salvation, and that way is Jesus and Him alone, which is disputed by the other books. It further tells us that Jesus is God, and that there is only one God. It tells us that God is one, He is eternal, and that there is not nor have been any other gods.

Mormonism disputes that. Joseph Smith said that God the Father had a father, and Jesus had a grandfather.

Jerry
 
But Jerry, Islam says the only way to salvation is to accept that there is only one true God and Mohammed is his prophet. So one could say that the Bible contradicts that and therefore could not be true.

Common sense tells me that all of these books were written by people -- simple humans -- who felt that they were inspired by God and wrote down what they felt he was saying to them as best they could.

Common sense also tells me as humans they are fallible.

Common sense then allows me to conclude that they are all very valuable and interesting works of historical fiction inspired by faith.
 
duck hunt,

You are simply wrong. Your common sense is that of a fallen human who is at enmity with God. You cannot understand the things of God, and accordingly make assumptions based upon that lack of understanding.

You may believe as you will, but in the end you will learn the truth too late, usless you change.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

A couple of things demonstrate that man cannot make correct determinations regarding spiritual things.
1. Man could never conceive of the way of salvation. Mankind is taught that he must earn what he gets. While it is true in the professional world, the Bible tells us that we cannot earn our salvation. The Ten Commandments show us that we can never meet the standards of God. There is no tolerance, and no person ever has or can obey them perfectly, which is the requirement. Only Jesus could and did. It does not make sense that He, who died 2000 + years ago, could pay that price for my sins. But He did. Man would never think of that or accept it on his own.

2. The Jew has survived in spite of many nations and rulers attempts to wipe them from the face of the earth. God said thay were His chosen nation and He would preserve them. No other nation in history has been scattered and then become a nation again.

3 I must add that the prophecies of the Bible have come to pass exactly as the prophets said hundreds of years before they were fulfilled.

You are simply incorrect in your thinking. Consider the following.

Proverbs 1:7 ¶The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

Jerry
 
Jerry --

You are not going to change my mind on this, so let's call it a day.

For future reference, though, using Scripture in an argument over whether or not the Bible is the word of God is a failing of basic debate logic. You can't use your conclusion as evidence when trying to prove your point.
 
OK, I don't know about anybody else...

...but I've reached my limit. We've drifted well off the original topic of politics, and are now coming perilously close to arguing which religion is correct. Rather than stray (further) from the High Road, I think it's time for us to call it a thread, and accept that we're not going to convince each other either way. I'll keep reading as long as the thread stays active, but I won't be posting any more unless it's related to the original (political) topic. Thanks to everybody for providing me a spirited, well-argued debate; these sorts are discussions are truly one of the joys of this place, providing as they do the chance to compare viewpoints without devolving into a shouting match. I've really enjoyed this thread.
 
Yeah, this has gone far enough.

The problem about discussions of religions is that the beliefs can be very, very strong for some. This usually leads to dogmatic statements of belief; somebody else disagrees, and tempers start rising. Bummer.

Which is why we try to keep religious discussions out of THR. Flame-fests ain't fun for anybody...

Art
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top