Christians should not support the war on terror

[KarlMarx]

I hold by my words from the previous thread: Christians who own guns, vote republican, and watch Pat Robertson are pissing on their own religion. That is not what Christianity is about. You wanted proof...here it is:

Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson.... how many Christians do you think take that yo-yo seriously? That's like saying that all Moslems think that Osama Bin Laden is a good man.

First, the most important reason:
Luke 7:27-30--"But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the personwho takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic".

If you want to give all your possessions away, go ahead. Christ often used hyperbole to make His point. The fact is, you don't fight poverty by becoming poor. You fight poverty by accumulating wealth, then using that wealth to do God's will. There is a philosophy of "good stewardship", instead of being ruled by the things of this world, you use the blessings that God has given you to help others. I can tell you that Andrew Carnegie, the founder of US Steel spent the latter half of his life doing just that. In fact many towns in this country have libraries that were started with seed money from Mr. Carnegie's charities.

-->Gun owners: Toss the gun and get a dog. If someone gets in your home just lock yourself in a room, call the cops...Break-ins are rarely ever for the purpose of homicide. You actually are at greater risk if you walk up to a robber with a gun, as he may have one too. Conservatives are mostly pro-war. In the case of the last war, they did not even exhaust diplomacy. Pat Robertson...well he once advocated the assasination of Hugo Chavez, how does a guy like that get a Christian TV show?

And what are the cops going to do when they get there? Sing the guy a lullabye? Has it occurred to you that the cops will use deadly force if necessary?

Guess what? The burglar isn't going to break into your home if he knows you are armed.... because like any sane person, he realizes that getting killed isn't worth the $100 bucks he's likely to make.

It is a documented fact that communities that have a large percentage of gun ownership have a low crime rate. Communities with concealed gun permits even moreso.... have you guessed why?

No one is pro-war, not even conservatives. You are for peace at any cost. Here is a Christian concept, there is such thing as evil in the world and we must fight it. Sometimes that involves use of physical force.

Second, also regarding treatment of others:
Matthew 22:37-40--"He said to him, 'you shall love the lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Loving God means obeying His commandments. Allowing yourself to be victimized by evil people is not showing them you love them, instead it is enabling them to commit sin.

A basic tenant of Christianity is that Human Nature is sinful, people will do evil if they don't have to face consequences.

-->Guns are not the tool of love, that is all there is to say about that. Conservatives support the death penalty, is that loving your neighbor? Many christians may disagree with me on this, but I also believe in the right to abortion. No one fully knows a person's individual circumstances that lead them to abortion, and therefore the right should be granted. I am not necessarily for abortion, I just think the right should be extended. Pat Robertson said hindus should not be allowed in the United States. This shows his ignorance, he obviously has never talked to a hindu. Again, nothing Christian about his statement. Besides, the U.S. should be a secular nation, independent of religion. Whatever you are, you have as much right to be here as Pat Robertson.

I think that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. First you talk about religion and Christianity, then you advocate the killing of unborn children (Psalm 119 - "You knew me when I was in my mother's womb" and this one from the New Testament.... "For whosover offends the least of these children, it will be better if a millstone were hung about his neck and drowned in the sea... for whatever you do to the least of my brethern, the same you did unto Me"). A secular society independent of religion means what? Only one thing, the abolition of religion. Religion does no good if it is not allowed to play a part in public life.

Finally, regarding wealth
Luke 18:25--"For it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven"

Let's see here, King David was rich, Abraham was rich, Isaac was rich, Jacob was rich, Job was rich, many of the early Christians were rich. St. Peter and Paul's missions were supported by the donations of wealthy patrons at home. So, it seems that those rich people used their wealth to establish the Kingdom of God....

-->The conservative politics (republican and democrat) that dominate America are very critical of socialist ideas such as major reallocation of wealth and strict luxury taxes. Yet, we have no problem criticizing state welfare which is not enough to help poor families. It is near impossible for a poor person to make wealth in a society that already punishes the lower classes. The opportunities simply are not there. Yet most politicians are richer than sin...who do you think they are looking out for? Pat Robertson...well, he made a killing off of FM radio. Gun companies: the Government spends more money on tools of war than anything else.

Socialism violates God's commandment to love one another. God commanded us as individuals to give to the poor, not set up large over reaching bureaucracies that force the redistribution of wealth by extorting wealth from people to support inefficient bureaucrats (ever hear of the commandment "Thou shalt not steal"?). Yes, politicians do look out for themselves, so do government bureaucrats, so why do you want to give them more power by funneling all the wealth of society to them? The fact is that we have spent over 5 TRILLION dollars over the past 40 years fighting the war on poverty and guess what? There are still as many poor people as ever. Christ said "For the poor you will always have with you"... there is no such thing as heaven on Earth (at least not until Christ comes back on the Last Day)... so quit trying to create one!!!!! If we had taken that money and invested it at a modest 5% interest rate instead, there would be less poverty

Frankly, Hugo Chavez is an evil man. He exports violence, runs a brutal regime, and don't say he doesn't. Sure, he was elected, and so was Adolph Hitler (look it up, he was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1932 or thereabouts). Frankly, killing the SOB may save lives...

The only difference between Pat Robertson and Muslim extremists is that Robertson only verbally supports killing. Conservative politicians so often call themselves Christians, but they deviate extremely far from the passages above. And there is nothing Christian about a gun.

Well guy, no one is stopping you. If you profess to be the Christian you say you are, and feel that wealth is a bad thing, you can always become a monk. Although I have to wonder which religion...

The philosophies you endorse are more in line with Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, rather than Christ. Extreme pacifism, total abhorrance of possessions, non violence to all living things.

 

[Eightball]

Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson.... how many Christians do you think take that yo-yo seriously? That's like saying that all Moslems think that Osama Bin Laden is a good man.



If you want to give all your possessions away, go ahead. Christ often used hyperbole to make His point. The fact is, you don't fight poverty by becoming poor. You fight poverty by accumulating wealth, then using that wealth to do God's will. There is a philosophy of "good stewardship", instead of being ruled by the things of this world, you use the blessings that God has given you to help others. I can tell you that Andrew Carnegie, the founder of US Steel spent the latter half of his life doing just that. In fact many towns in this country have libraries that were started with seed money from Mr. Carnegie's charities.


And what are the cops going to do when they get there? Sing the guy a lullabye? Has it occurred to you that the cops will use deadly force if necessary?

Guess what? The burglar isn't going to break into your home if he knows you are armed.... because like any sane person, he realizes that getting killed isn't worth the $100 bucks he's likely to make.

It is a documented fact that communities that have a large percentage of gun ownership have a low crime rate. Communities with concealed gun permits even moreso.... have you guessed why?

No one is pro-war, not even conservatives. You are for peace at any cost. Here is a Christian concept, there is such thing as evil in the world and we must fight it. Sometimes that involves use of physical force.



Loving God means obeying His commandments. Allowing yourself to be victimized by evil people is not showing them you love them, instead it is enabling them to commit sin.

A basic tenant of Christianity is that Human Nature is sinful, people will do evil if they don't have to face consequences.


I think that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. First you talk about religion and Christianity, then you advocate the killing of unborn children (Psalm 119 - "You knew me when I was in my mother's womb" and this one from the New Testament.... "For whosover offends the least of these children, it will be better if a millstone were hung about his neck and drowned in the sea... for whatever you do to the least of my brethern, the same you did unto Me"). A secular society independent of religion means what? Only one thing, the abolition of religion. Religion does no good if it is not allowed to play a part in public life.


Let's see here, King David was rich, Abraham was rich, Isaac was rich, Jacob was rich, Job was rich, many of the early Christians were rich. St. Peter and Paul's missions were supported by the donations of wealthy patrons at home. So, it seems that those rich people used their wealth to establish the Kingdom of God....


Socialism violates God's commandment to love one another. God commanded us as individuals to give to the poor, not set up large over reaching bureaucracies that force the redistribution of wealth by extorting wealth from people to support inefficient bureaucrats (ever hear of the commandment "Thou shalt not steal"?). Yes, politicians do look out for themselves, so do government bureaucrats, so why do you want to give them more power by funneling all the wealth of society to them? The fact is that we have spent over 5 TRILLION dollars over the past 40 years fighting the war on poverty and guess what? There are still as many poor people as ever. Christ said "For the poor you will always have with you"... there is no such thing as heaven on Earth (at least not until Christ comes back on the Last Day)... so quit trying to create one!!!!! If we had taken that money and invested it at a modest 5% interest rate instead, there would be less poverty

Frankly, Hugo Chavez is an evil man. He exports violence, runs a brutal regime, and don't say he doesn't. Sure, he was elected, and so was Adolph Hitler (look it up, he was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1932 or thereabouts). Frankly, killing the SOB may save lives...



Well guy, no one is stopping you. If you profess to be the Christian you say you are, and feel that wealth is a bad thing, you can always become a monk. Although I have to wonder which religion...

The philosophies you endorse are more in line with Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, rather than Christ. Extreme pacifism, total abhorrance of possessions, non violence to all living things.

Three cheers for Marx...........that was a beautiful post!!!!

 

[KarlMarx]

Three cheers for Marx...........that was a beautiful post!!!!

 

[Stephanie]

hairs
hairs
hairs

The post eightball was talking about was great also

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And people of faith are not? You know, like "you are going be damned to hell for all eternity for not believing" etc?

What we dont do is hold non Christians to a higher standard than we hold ourselves, NON CHRISTIAN, Christian bashers outta try it.

 

[Dr Grump]

What we dont do is hold non Christians to a higher standard than we hold ourselves, NON CHRISTIAN, Christian bashers outta try it.

hhhhmmmmmmmmm...you don't hold non-Christians to a higher standard? So if I don't believe Jesus is the son of God , you and I are gonna end up in the same place in the afterlife?

 

[Emmett]

Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson.... how many Christians do you think take that yo-yo seriously? That's like saying that all Moslems think that Osama Bin Laden is a good man.



If you want to give all your possessions away, go ahead. Christ often used hyperbole to make His point. The fact is, you don't fight poverty by becoming poor. You fight poverty by accumulating wealth, then using that wealth to do God's will. There is a philosophy of "good stewardship", instead of being ruled by the things of this world, you use the blessings that God has given you to help others. I can tell you that Andrew Carnegie, the founder of US Steel spent the latter half of his life doing just that. In fact many towns in this country have libraries that were started with seed money from Mr. Carnegie's charities.





Since I cannot power you with some rep points (all three of them) I must just say that you write well, your point is well taken and that was a GREEAAAAAT piece sir. Keep up the good work!


And what are the cops going to do when they get there? Sing the guy a lullabye? Has it occurred to you that the cops will use deadly force if necessary?

Guess what? The burglar isn't going to break into your home if he knows you are armed.... because like any sane person, he realizes that getting killed isn't worth the $100 bucks he's likely to make.

It is a documented fact that communities that have a large percentage of gun ownership have a low crime rate. Communities with concealed gun permits even moreso.... have you guessed why?

No one is pro-war, not even conservatives. You are for peace at any cost. Here is a Christian concept, there is such thing as evil in the world and we must fight it. Sometimes that involves use of physical force.



Loving God means obeying His commandments. Allowing yourself to be victimized by evil people is not showing them you love them, instead it is enabling them to commit sin.

A basic tenant of Christianity is that Human Nature is sinful, people will do evil if they don't have to face consequences.


I think that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. First you talk about religion and Christianity, then you advocate the killing of unborn children (Psalm 119 - "You knew me when I was in my mother's womb" and this one from the New Testament.... "For whosover offends the least of these children, it will be better if a millstone were hung about his neck and drowned in the sea... for whatever you do to the least of my brethern, the same you did unto Me"). A secular society independent of religion means what? Only one thing, the abolition of religion. Religion does no good if it is not allowed to play a part in public life.


Let's see here, King David was rich, Abraham was rich, Isaac was rich, Jacob was rich, Job was rich, many of the early Christians were rich. St. Peter and Paul's missions were supported by the donations of wealthy patrons at home. So, it seems that those rich people used their wealth to establish the Kingdom of God....


Socialism violates God's commandment to love one another. God commanded us as individuals to give to the poor, not set up large over reaching bureaucracies that force the redistribution of wealth by extorting wealth from people to support inefficient bureaucrats (ever hear of the commandment "Thou shalt not steal"?). Yes, politicians do look out for themselves, so do government bureaucrats, so why do you want to give them more power by funneling all the wealth of society to them? The fact is that we have spent over 5 TRILLION dollars over the past 40 years fighting the war on poverty and guess what? There are still as many poor people as ever. Christ said "For the poor you will always have with you"... there is no such thing as heaven on Earth (at least not until Christ comes back on the Last Day)... so quit trying to create one!!!!! If we had taken that money and invested it at a modest 5% interest rate instead, there would be less poverty

Frankly, Hugo Chavez is an evil man. He exports violence, runs a brutal regime, and don't say he doesn't. Sure, he was elected, and so was Adolph Hitler (look it up, he was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1932 or thereabouts). Frankly, killing the SOB may save lives...



Well guy, no one is stopping you. If you profess to be the Christian you say you are, and feel that wealth is a bad thing, you can always become a monk. Although I have to wonder which religion...

The philosophies you endorse are more in line with Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, rather than Christ. Extreme pacifism, total abhorrance of possessions, non violence to all living things.

Great piece !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[liberalogic]

While I can't speak for 1549, I do want to add some more depth to some of these points.

1) Pat Robertson
I have faith that most christians here ignore the ramblings of this ignoramus. His comments on subjects ranging from Dover, Pennsylvania to Ariel Sharone are deplorable, offensive, and, dare I say it, immoral.

With that said, though, he is entitled to his opinion and has the freedom to express it. But remember: if he can use Christianity as a tool to criticize others, then Christianity is fair game to be criticized itself. His insensitive comments have offended many non-christians just as shows such as South Park have offended many Christians. I'm all for freedom of the press, but it goes both ways.

Personally, I think Mr. Robertson has earned himself a first class ticket to hell. And I, along with my liberal colleagues, will be waiting for him with pitch forks. :dev1:

2) Guns
I think we can all agree that Jesus would not want people running around and shooting each other for no reason. There are criminals, murderers, rapists, etc. who attempt to rob many of the gift of life. We, as human beings, are entitled to life and we, therefore, need the appropriate tools to protect it. I can't see how God would deny anyone the right to bear arms in the act of SELF-DEFENSE.

From a legal standpoint, though, I do support strict gun control. It's irrational to legally sell someone a weapon who has a past that makes him prone to using it inappropriately (not in self-defense).

3) Economic Policy
Is God a commy? I doubt it. The tradition of hard work has been deeply entrenched in christian values. But there will always be those who are subject to poverty. The premise behind christianity for the past 2000 years has been that those who suffer now will be rewarded in the after-life. Yet that does not mean that wealthy christians should turn their backs to the poor. After all, Christ's greatest message was charity and kindness.

If we want to reduce poverty while maintaining the traditional work ethic, we need to put some limits on capitalism. There is no way that a kid born in the gutter of Brooklyn will be able to compete with a kid born to a wealthy family in Westchester. Unrestrained capitalism reinforces the divide in social class.

Regardless, though, if you're a christian, you can always chalk poverty up to salvation in the end. Personally, I think it's a bunch of bullshit, but with the beliefs that christians have, I can understand how they would accept poverty.

4) War
Same with guns: self-defense. I've argued over and over again about how christians can't support the current war in Iraq. I highly doubt that God would not exercise diplomacy to its fullest. Obviously, that was not done in Iraq. And obviously, we haven't learned because we are heading down the same road with Iran.

A secular society independent of religion means what? Only one thing, the abolition of religion. Religion does no good if it is not allowed to play a part in public life.

After reading through the posts, this troubled me the most. It is possible to separate religion and public policy. And it does not mean the abolition of religion.

No matter how absurd I think many of the christian religious beliefs are, I have no right to strip you of them. You are free to believe in God, to believe that gays are the devil, to believe that abortion is baby-killing, and to believe in creationism. I disagree with all of the above, but at the same time, they are your beliefs and that's how they should remain.

BUT, no christian, jew, muslim, hindu, etc. has the right to force those views upon the rest of us, thereby restricting how we live. There's a difference between personal opinion and fairness; when we legislate we are supposed to distinguish the two.

If you go into the voting booth to vote for gay marriage, you're not voting against God. You're voting to give other people freedom follow their desires within the boundaries of law, not religion. No one is asking you personally to saddle up.

Religion is a personal belief and it should remain outside public policy. Otherwise, who's to say that we don't make laws based on Islam instead of Christianity?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

hhhhmmmmmmmmm...you don't hold non-Christians to a higher standard? So if I don't believe Jesus is the son of God , you and I are gonna end up in the same place in the afterlife?

It is not I who makes the judgement as to where you will end up in the afterlife. Besides, even if it was I who did that, I would be holding you to the SAME standard as myself, a requirement to believe and accept Jesus can forgive your sins.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

While I can't speak for 1549, I do want to add some more depth to some of these points.

1) Pat Robertson
I have faith that most christians here ignore the ramblings of this ignoramus. His comments on subjects ranging from Dover, Pennsylvania to Ariel Sharone are deplorable, offensive, and, dare I say it, immoral.?

Im not a fan of Pats, but its hard to argue against what you said since you provided NO FACTUAL information or quotes.

With that said, though, he is entitled to his opinion and has the freedom to express it. But remember: if he can use Christianity as a tool to criticize others, then Christianity is fair game to be criticized itself.

So, you are saying that what Pat Robertson says about Christian doctrine is always 100% accurate? If not, then your comment is like saying,, if a ten year old is going to use math incorrectly to criticize my book keeping, then math techniques are fair game to be criticized as being wrong.

His insensitive comments have offended many non-christians just as shows such as South Park have offended many Christians. I'm all for freedom of the press, but it goes both ways.?

Yet you feel its ok to call him an ignoramous? Can you spell hypocracy?
Dont judge Christianity by one who mis uses it.

Personally, I think Mr. Robertson has earned himself a first class ticket to hell. And I, along with my liberal colleagues, will be waiting for him with pitch forks. :dev1:

2) Guns
I think we can all agree that Jesus would not want people running around and shooting each other for no reason. There are criminals, murderers, rapists, etc. who attempt to rob many of the gift of life. We, as human beings, are entitled to life and we, therefore, need the appropriate tools to protect it. I can't see how God would deny anyone the right to bear arms in the act of SELF-DEFENSE.

From a legal standpoint, though, I do support strict gun control. It's irrational to legally sell someone a weapon who has a past that makes him prone to using it inappropriately (not in self-defense).

3) Economic Policy
Is God a commy? I doubt it. The tradition of hard work has been deeply entrenched in christian values. But there will always be those who are subject to poverty. The premise behind christianity for the past 2000 years has been that those who suffer now will be rewarded in the after-life. Yet that does not mean that wealthy christians should turn their backs to the poor. After all, Christ's greatest message was charity and kindness.?

No it wasnt. His greatest message was SALVATION, the opportunity for SALVATION. I just cant believe how good you liberals are at cramming so many inaccurate and blatantly wrong statements into one post.

If we want to reduce poverty while maintaining the traditional work ethic, we need to put some limits on capitalism. ?

Why? Capitalism in the US has created a situation where the poor of this country would be considered quite rich in a majority of countries in the world. What you say "might" sound nice, but what logic is there to support you that putting a brake on capitalism will benefit poor people? Would you prefer to be in a Russia where everyone is equal, that is, equally poor, or in a country where you have more than those in Russia, but there are some in your country who have 1000 more than you do?

There is no way that a kid born in the gutter of Brooklyn will be able to compete with a kid born to a wealthy family in Westchester. Unrestrained capitalism reinforces the divide in social class.?

WRONG !
Actually, a kid born in the gutter of Brooklyn has all the opportunity he will ever need to suceed financailly in this country. If he fails it will be only due to his own decisions, lake of good values and NOT because of a lack of opportunity. The goal of our govt should not be to ensure that everyone TURNS OUT EQUAL, but only that everyone has an opportunity to provide for himself and his family and to be sucessful financially if a person desires to. I have NEVER met one person who truly wanted to be financailly sucessful and didnt become so. There are many who claim they want to be rich, but their actions bely their words.

Regardless, though, if you're a christian, you can always chalk poverty up to salvation in the end. Personally, I think it's a bunch of bullshit, but with the beliefs that christians have, I can understand how they would accept poverty.?

Well, your beliefs of what Christianitie's values are , are in great error here. Please quote me where the Bible says that to be poor is what will lead you to salvation? MAJOR CLUE: saying that being rich makes it difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven DOES NOT = being poor makes it easy to go to Heaven.

4) War
Same with guns: self-defense. I've argued over and over again about how christians can't support the current war in Iraq.

I highly doubt that God would not exercise diplomacy to its fullest.
Obviously, that was not done in Iraq. And obviously, we haven't learned because we are heading down the same road with Iran..?

Diplomacy was offered and attempted to a degree that went beyond was most would consider reasonable. But you anti war nuts will continue to spout that lie over and over no matter how many times it is proven wrong.

After reading through the posts, this troubled me the most. It is possible to separate religion and public policy. And it does not mean the abolition of religion.

No matter how absurd I think many of the christian religious beliefs are, I have no right to strip you of them. You are free to believe in God, to believe that gays are the devil, to believe that abortion is baby-killing,

and yet up above you stated "We, as human beings, are entitled to life and we, therefore, need the appropriate tools to protect it.",,,so, you dont think the unborn child is entitled to protection of its life? Why should they be exempt from that right? Oh, or are you saying that little creature in the womans womb, that creature that wiggles its fingers and toes, that has brain waves independent of the mom, that has thoughts, feelings and DNA unique to a human being, isnt a human?

but at the same time, they are your beliefs and that's how they should remain.

BUT, no christian, jew, muslim, hindu, etc. has the right to force those views upon the rest of us, thereby restricting how we live. There's a difference between personal opinion and fairness; when we legislate we are supposed to distinguish the two.,.?

Wow, cant believe you are still in that caveman mentality. FAIRNESS: it is not the governments job to create. Using Christian values is NOT forcing religion down someones throat.
If we base our laws upon atheist values, then using your logic, you would be forcing atheism down Christians throats.
You also should go back and read some history. The men who wrote, signed and risked their lives in warfare so that the Constitution we are governed by today, would become law, wrote in their personal writings about how Christianity and God are irreplacable in influencing and guiding our laws, government and country. They also wrote and supported laws ESTABLISHING STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES. Now, please inform me of the amendment to the Constitution that has reversed that core principal of having CHRISTIANITY being the basis of our laws and govt.
Just because you might hate Christianity or the idea of Christianity playing a major influence regulating the laws that govern you, doesnt give you license to lie and make up stories about our history, govt, laws and basis of those laws. Recite history and law to support your claim that Christianity should not influence our laws.

Here is mine, from George Washington: "And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. "
NOW IF YOU BOTHER reading that section of his Thanksgiving day speech withn an open mind, you will notice that he not only declares that our nation is based on Religion, but that JESUS is actually the RULER OF OUR NATION. I dont think you can possibly be more ruled by Christian values than that.

If you go into the voting booth to vote for gay marriage, you're not voting against God. You're voting to give other people freedom follow their desires within the boundaries of law, not religion. No one is asking you personally to saddle up..?

Well, actually, you are. Hmmm, so you are an atheist, but yet you think you know more than Christians do, what their Christian God wants? can you spell arrogance?
And the people have gone in and voted overwhelmingly AGAINST gay marriage. By the way, marriage is NOT A RIGHT, it is a privledge, just as a drivers license is. And if you vote for anything that will support and encourage homosexuality, then YES, that is a vote against God.

Religion is a personal belief and it should remain outside public policy. Otherwise, who's to say that we don't make laws based on Islam instead of Christianity?

What a notoriously ridiculous concept. Who is to say we dont make laws based on Islam is the 98% of the voting public who would vote against it. THATS WHO!, THATS YOU, ME, everyone on this board,,,,,,,,,,,any more questions???

 

[Harmageddon]

Although I do agree with several points raised by you, KarlMarx, I disagree with about as many. Jesus Christ, be it the son of God, a son of God, or just a plain mortal man, raised some serious questions regarding the way we humans could live our lives, were we to think before we act. That is something I think we can all agree on.

Neither was Jesus a pacifist: although he condemned the killing of a fellow man, he nigh ripped the tapestries of the wall and used his carpenter skills to the destruction of the wooden benches, when he threw the moneychangers out of the temple. Word has it he was foaming at the mouth while doing so.

Things like these make Jesus the respected individual he is today, amongst both believers (Christian or otherwise) and nonbelievers.

Jesus never stated he is the one true son of God – the reason why he did not say so has been reason for much speculation as well as fights amongst followers of different faiths (atheism included).

Originally posted by KarlMarx
No one is pro-war, not even conservatives. You are for peace at any cost. Here is a Christian concept, there is such thing as evil in the world and we must fight it. Sometimes that involves use of physical force.

A basic tenant of Christianity is that Human Nature is sinful, people will do evil if they don't have to face consequences.

Frankly, Hugo Chavez is an evil man. He exports violence, runs a brutal regime, and don't say he doesn't. Sure, he was elected, and so was Adolph Hitler (look it up, he was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1932 or thereabouts). Frankly, killing the SOB may save lives...

I have taken the liberty of quoting some parts of your post that I cannot fully agree with.
Some people are actually pro-war (though not necessarily conservative). Mostly these are people that can gain large profits out of the war, while paying hardly any cost – in your words: evil people that must be fought.
And yes, these people do so because they can get away with it: there are no consequences for their actions. People that need not pay consequences are often those in power – presidents, dictators, directors and the like. Because there is no institution to hold them accountable – and if there is, it can be bought.

The fact that you think Hugo Chavez is an evil man, shows you are on to the general guidelines I just described. Look further than Venezuela – in fact, take a very hard look at politicians around the world, and tell me which ones do not qualify.

To summarize, I’ll leave you with a few famous quotations:

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russell

I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen L. Roberts

The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.
-- Larry Hardiman

 

[Eightball]

hhhhmmmmmmmmm...you don't hold non-Christians to a higher standard? So if I don't believe Jesus is the son of God , you and I are gonna end up in the same place in the afterlife?

That's not a standard, that's a reality for true Christians, and that's why Christians are so impassioned to "pass it on" so-to-speak. It's their concern for the lives of those that aren't "saved" literally.

This passion by concerned Christians is mis-interpretted as holding others to a higher standard, when all along, it's an impassioned desire to bring others to a Saving faith/knowledge that ='s conversion or being Born Again by God's Spirit.

Again, the Christian is not trying to get notches so-to-speak in their gun handle, but are impassioned by the concern and fear of the ultimate destiny/fate of the unconverted's life after death.

They(Christians) are rebuffed by the unconverted via false analogies, stereotypes etc......and down right false assumptions of their motives.

 

[Hobbit]

The misconception of Christianity is that true Christianity doesn't hold a high standard. In fact, one of the first admissions of Christianity is that it is impossible to live up to the standard required for heaven, and that no matter how good someone is, they aren't good enough. Accepting Jesus is sort of a 'pardon.' And since nobody lives up to the standard, everyone needs a pardon, and no Christian wants to see anyone, especially a friend, go to hell. So, if any of you get asked to become a Christian, stop looking at it as some sort of recruitment quota, and see the love for what it is.

 

[Eightball]

The misconception of Christianity is that true Christianity doesn't hold a high standard. In fact, one of the first admissions of Christianity is that it is impossible to live up to the standard required for heaven, and that no matter how good someone is, they aren't good enough. Accepting Jesus is sort of a 'pardon.' And since nobody lives up to the standard, everyone needs a pardon, and no Christian wants to see anyone, especially a friend, go to hell. So, if any of you get asked to become a Christian, stop looking at it as some sort of recruitment quota, and see the love for what it is.

Oh, so true! It is an expression of love with the true Christian. It truly has nothing to do with winning "brownie points" with the Man upstairs.

It's the desire to have others experience/share in the peace, joy, relief, that comes with this Spiritual conversion.
*
This mantra out there that says, that Christians act like they are more special, or whatever, is not the case.

In fact the very act of conversion convinces the new Christian that it's isn't by their merit, but by Jesus's merit that they have received eternal life.

If it isn't by man's work but by God's alone that man is saved, then man's response should be of gratitude and humility. With that comes the impassioned concern for others that haven't received this special gift of grace(unmerited favor) from God via Jesus Christ. It's as though Christ Himself is calling the "lost" through those that He has "saved".

Coming to the cross removes all vestiges of haughtiness, and pride. The cross is a place of humiliation, and transparency of one's life. Even the Apostle Paul said, "When I am weak, He is strong!" Paul even desired weakness if it brought him closer Spiritually to his creator. We are speaking soulically, that the "self" needed to take a back row seat to Christ in a man's soul. This is totally contrary to human nature, but not when true conversion has taken place. At conversion, the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ, now resides in the human soul. No longer does the converted man/women find carnality(me first/self first) of life as the "end all", but starts to find peace in letting God have the credit, glory, and direction in his/her life.

 

[liberalogic]

Im not a fan of Pats, but its hard to argue against what you said since you provided NO FACTUAL information or quotes.

So, you are saying that what Pat Robertson says about Christian doctrine is always 100% accurate? If not, then your comment is like saying,, if a ten year old is going to use math incorrectly to criticize my book keeping, then math techniques are fair game to be criticized as being wrong.

Yet you feel its ok to call him an ignoramous? Can you spell hypocracy?
Dont judge Christianity by one who mis uses it.

Yes, I can spell hypocrIsy. Obviously, you didn't read that part of my post with an open mind.

First off, google "Pat Robertson quotes" and you'll find some of his beautiful rhetoric. When the President, a devout "christian" even ignores what he said about Ariel Sharone, you know Pat has crossed the line.

Regardless, I said that he is entitled to express his beliefs as he does. It's called freedom of speech. But it also means that I have the right to call him an asshole as well. I don't understand how you can find that hypocritical.

And you're right about forming a judgment about christianity simply based on Pat Robertson. I shouldn't do that. But watch any other evangelical preacher on television and you'll see them using christianity to denounce others who do not conform to their standards. In a public forum, they trash those who get abortions and call homosexuality evil. Again, those ARE parts of christian belief and that's fine. But when you use it in a public forum, then you and the religion that you practice are open to criticism as well. I'm not saying that they can't or shouldn't preach those values, but if they choose to do it publically, then they need to swallow the shit as well. It's only fair.

No it wasnt. His greatest message was SALVATION, the opportunity for SALVATION. I just cant believe how good you liberals are at cramming so many inaccurate and blatantly wrong statements into one post.

And how might you achieve salvation? By being a greedy whore? No, by acting compassionately towards others, treating them with respect, and believing in God and Christ. Jesus helped those in need. To turn your back on them is acting contrary to Christ.

Well, your beliefs of what Christianitie's values are , are in great error here. Please quote me where the Bible says that to be poor is what will lead you to salvation? MAJOR CLUE: saying that being rich makes it difficult to enter the kingdom of heaven DOES NOT = being poor makes it easy to go to Heaven.

You misinterpreted what I said. It's not stated in the Bible, but Saint Augustine's Great Chain of Being designated everyone's position relative to God. At the top was God, followed by angels, then clergy, then rulers, then the nobility, then common men, then those who lived in their own piss. The idea was that if you fulfilled your role on the chain, then you could blissfully achieve salvation. Basically, it's a way to preserve the unbalanced social structure, creating security for those on top. If a peasant believes that living his life in filth and without food is his station, then he will live that way WITHOUT QUESTIONING ANYTHING, because he believes he will spend eternity with God. It's a corrupt christianization of Plato. And that's why it broke down when the plague struck and the church wet itself because it couldn't answer the questions of those who began to see beyond it.

Why? Capitalism in the US has created a situation where the poor of this country would be considered quite rich in a majority of countries in the world. What you say "might" sound nice, but what logic is there to support you that putting a brake on capitalism will benefit poor people? Would you prefer to be in a Russia where everyone is equal, that is, equally poor, or in a country where you have more than those in Russia, but there are some in your country who have 1000 more than you do?
WRONG !
Actually, a kid born in the gutter of Brooklyn has all the opportunity he will ever need to suceed financailly in this country. If he fails it will be only due to his own decisions, lake of good values and NOT because of a lack of opportunity. The goal of our govt should not be to ensure that everyone TURNS OUT EQUAL, but only that everyone has an opportunity to provide for himself and his family and to be sucessful financially if a person desires to. I have NEVER met one person who truly wanted to be financailly sucessful and didnt become so. There are many who claim they want to be rich, but their actions bely their words.

Capitalism is great. In my mind (just like democracy), it's the best of a bunch of bad systems. Yes, we are all equal in the sense that the government does not hinder our financial progress as it does in communism. Yet, the distinct attributes of poverty (and I don't mean middle class America), limit, if not obliterate, the chances of someone making something of himself. From poor family structure (a true conservative value), to deplorable education standards, to starting out with NOTHING in your pocket-- the chances of living comfortably are slim. It is highly unlikely that one born to these conditions can adequately compete with someone born into wealth and privilege. Yes, there are stories that defy this notion, but the majority don't.

If you don't want to limit capitalism, then reform welfare and make sure it's going to the right people and that it is used properly. But you probably support small government and believe that it's not the government's job to help us live comfortably. If that's true, then again you have not read of Christ's actions in helping the poor.

Diplomacy was offered and attempted to a degree that went beyond was most would consider reasonable. But you anti war nuts will continue to spout that lie over and over no matter how many times it is proven wrong.

Well, if he didn't have any weapons, then our diplomacy really COULDN'T work. I remember the president coming on tv and saying that Saddam had 48hours to leave Iraq before we invaded. Is that a joke? Did the president REALLY think Saddam was going anywhere?

Not to mention that besides diplomacy, Iraq was not the biggest threat at the time. Our invasion was not in self-defense, considering that we still haven't captured the man responsible for 9/11-- Osama Bin Laden.

and yet up above you stated "We, as human beings, are entitled to life and we, therefore, need the appropriate tools to protect it.",,,so, you dont think the unborn child is entitled to protection of its life? Why should they be exempt from that right? Oh, or are you saying that little creature in the womans womb, that creature that wiggles its fingers and toes, that has brain waves independent of the mom, that has thoughts, feelings and DNA unique to a human being, isnt a human?

I'm not going to even touch this one because it's a discussion in and of itself.

Wow, cant believe you are still in that caveman mentality. FAIRNESS: it is not the governments job to create. Using Christian values is NOT forcing religion down someones throat.
If we base our laws upon atheist values, then using your logic, you would be forcing atheism down Christians throats.
You also should go back and read some history. The men who wrote, signed and risked their lives in warfare so that the Constitution we are governed by today, would become law, wrote in their personal writings about how Christianity and God are irreplacable in influencing and guiding our laws, government and country. They also wrote and supported laws ESTABLISHING STATE SPONSORED RELIGIONS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES. Now, please inform me of the amendment to the Constitution that has reversed that core principal of having CHRISTIANITY being the basis of our laws and govt.
Just because you might hate Christianity or the idea of Christianity playing a major influence regulating the laws that govern you, doesnt give you license to lie and make up stories about our history, govt, laws and basis of those laws. Recite history and law to support your claim that Christianity should not influence our laws.

Here is mine, from George Washington: "And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. "
NOW IF YOU BOTHER reading that section of his Thanksgiving day speech withn an open mind, you will notice that he not only declares that our nation is based on Religion, but that JESUS is actually the RULER OF OUR NATION. I dont think you can possibly be more ruled by Christian values than that.

I did read that with an open mind. I didn't see a direct reference to JESUS, only the "Lord," which I see as God. Maybe we're a jewish nation!

First off-- the state-sponsored religions. Did it ever occur to you that those who escaped persecution were just as crazy in their own beliefs as those who persecuted them in England? To use this as proof is not logically sound. These people are saying let's escape persecution from a different sect of christianity so that we can do the same thing to others in the New World. That is quite hyppocritical, and it just so happens that the first ammendment takes care of that lunacy.

You're George Washington quote obviously shows that he believed in God. To me though, that sounds like more of a prayer than a legitimate legal precedent.

He also said: "Religious controversies are always more productive of acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those springing from any other cause...it is my hope that the enlightened and liberal policy of the present age would put a stop to this animosity."

James Madision, the author of the constitution, opposed established religion. He said that "ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption." He also made speeches "in opposition to those who would 'sneak' religion into the state."

Look, we can throw around quotes and interpretations all day long. It's not going to get us anywhere.

If we break down legitimate law and morality to its core, we come up with don't kill and don't steal. Yes, that is part of the 10 commandments. But do these two notions not seem fairly obvious in the first place? How else are we going to maintain order if we don't enforce those two principles?

Yet, those two standards are simply attributed to Christianity-- as if we needed divine intervention to tell us this. WRONG! For example: Read the "Analects." It's a collection of Confucian sayings based on morality.

Confucius was not influenced by God, instead he used reason to set down moral guidelines. He sought to maintain order by establishing a fundamental respect for every human being, regardless of social rank. This included not stealing and not killing. He also attempted to reform the war-hungry rulers in the divided chinese empire. In fact, he said the same thing as Jesus Christ, 500 years BEFORE Jesus walked the earth: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Except, here, God didn't influence him.

The basic laws that you call Christian values are simply common sense, many of which were obtained by others around the world without divine intervention. You simply brand them as solely Christian and then attempt to spread more radical christian doctrine in law.

Well, actually, you are. Hmmm, so you are an atheist, but yet you think you know more than Christians do, what their Christian God wants? can you spell arrogance?
And the people have gone in and voted overwhelmingly AGAINST gay marriage. By the way, marriage is NOT A RIGHT, it is a privledge, just as a drivers license is. And if you vote for anything that will support and encourage homosexuality, then YES, that is a vote against God.

I'm actually not an Atheist. But I value the separation of church and state--even though you have a different interpretation of the first ammendment. The difference between forcing non-religious morality down your throat and you forcing christian morals down my throat is that I'm not stopping you from worshipping, practicing, or abiding by the moral standards of your religion. Yet, your religion tells others what they can and can't do if it is made into law.

Being gay yourself would be against your religion. Voting to marry gays in church would be against your religion. But state-sponsored marriage is economically-motivated and is not dependent upon your religious perspective.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Dude, Im not going to waste my time answering point by point, as almost everything you said was once again false.
FIRST: learn about Christianity, NO you dont gain salvation by being compassionate, you become compassionate because you gained salvation first.
SECOND: In the days of Washington, to use the term LORD was equivalent to saying Jesus, just as today we interchange the term CHRIST (which is a title, like a governor, or president) with JESUS. Plus he also stated "Ruler of all nations" now that is a direct reference to JESUS. To claim otherwise would be like saying so and so is a "jarhead" then responding, "oh you never called him a marine",,,they are one and the same.

Due to this high level of ignorance, I shall refrain from responding to any other points.

Yes, I can spell hypocrIsy. Obviously, you didn't read that part of my post with an open mind.

First off, google "Pat Robertson quotes" and you'll find some of his beautiful rhetoric. When the President, a devout "christian" even ignores what he said about Ariel Sharone, you know Pat has crossed the line.

Regardless, I said that he is entitled to express his beliefs as he does. It's called freedom of speech. But it also means that I have the right to call him an asshole as well. I don't understand how you can find that hypocritical.

And you're right about forming a judgment about christianity simply based on Pat Robertson. I shouldn't do that. But watch any other evangelical preacher on television and you'll see them using christianity to denounce others who do not conform to their standards. In a public forum, they trash those who get abortions and call homosexuality evil. Again, those ARE parts of christian belief and that's fine. But when you use it in a public forum, then you and the religion that you practice are open to criticism as well. I'm not saying that they can't or shouldn't preach those values, but if they choose to do it publically, then they need to swallow the shit as well. It's only fair.




And how might you achieve salvation? By being a greedy whore? No, by acting compassionately towards others, treating them with respect, and believing in God and Christ. Jesus helped those in need. To turn your back on them is acting contrary to Christ.




You misinterpreted what I said. It's not stated in the Bible, but Saint Augustine's Great Chain of Being designated everyone's position relative to God. At the top was God, followed by angels, then clergy, then rulers, then the nobility, then common men, then those who lived in their own piss. The idea was that if you fulfilled your role on the chain, then you could blissfully achieve salvation. Basically, it's a way to preserve the unbalanced social structure, creating security for those on top. If a peasant believes that living his life in filth and without food is his station, then he will live that way WITHOUT QUESTIONING ANYTHING, because he believes he will spend eternity with God. It's a corrupt christianization of Plato. And that's why it broke down when the plague struck and the church wet itself because it couldn't answer the questions of those who began to see beyond it.



Capitalism is great. In my mind (just like democracy), it's the best of a bunch of bad systems. Yes, we are all equal in the sense that the government does not hinder our financial progress as it does in communism. Yet, the distinct attributes of poverty (and I don't mean middle class America), limit, if not obliterate, the chances of someone making something of himself. From poor family structure (a true conservative value), to deplorable education standards, to starting out with NOTHING in your pocket-- the chances of living comfortably are slim. It is highly unlikely that one born to these conditions can adequately compete with someone born into wealth and privilege. Yes, there are stories that defy this notion, but the majority don't.

If you don't want to limit capitalism, then reform welfare and make sure it's going to the right people and that it is used properly. But you probably support small government and believe that it's not the government's job to help us live comfortably. If that's true, then again you have not read of Christ's actions in helping the poor.



Well, if he didn't have any weapons, then our diplomacy really COULDN'T work. I remember the president coming on tv and saying that Saddam had 48hours to leave Iraq before we invaded. Is that a joke? Did the president REALLY think Saddam was going anywhere?

Not to mention that besides diplomacy, Iraq was not the biggest threat at the time. Our invasion was not in self-defense, considering that we still haven't captured the man responsible for 9/11-- Osama Bin Laden.




I'm not going to even touch this one because it's a discussion in and of itself.



I did read that with an open mind. I didn't see a direct reference to JESUS, only the "Lord," which I see as God. Maybe we're a jewish nation!

First off-- the state-sponsored religions. Did it ever occur to you that those who escaped persecution were just as crazy in their own beliefs as those who persecuted them in England? To use this as proof is not logically sound. These people are saying let's escape persecution from a different sect of christianity so that we can do the same thing to others in the New World. That is quite hyppocritical, and it just so happens that the first ammendment takes care of that lunacy.

You're George Washington quote obviously shows that he believed in God. To me though, that sounds like more of a prayer than a legitimate legal precedent.

He also said: "Religious controversies are always more productive of acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those springing from any other cause...it is my hope that the enlightened and liberal policy of the present age would put a stop to this animosity."

James Madision, the author of the constitution, opposed established religion. He said that "ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption." He also made speeches "in opposition to those who would 'sneak' religion into the state."

Look, we can throw around quotes and interpretations all day long. It's not going to get us anywhere.

If we break down legitimate law and morality to its core, we come up with don't kill and don't steal. Yes, that is part of the 10 commandments. But do these two notions not seem fairly obvious in the first place? How else are we going to maintain order if we don't enforce those two principles?

Yet, those two standards are simply attributed to Christianity-- as if we needed divine intervention to tell us this. WRONG! For example: Read the "Analects." It's a collection of Confucian sayings based on morality.

Confucius was not influenced by God, instead he used reason to set down moral guidelines. He sought to maintain order by establishing a fundamental respect for every human being, regardless of social rank. This included not stealing and not killing. He also attempted to reform the war-hungry rulers in the divided chinese empire. In fact, he said the same thing as Jesus Christ, 500 years BEFORE Jesus walked the earth: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Except, here, God didn't influence him.

The basic laws that you call Christian values are simply common sense, many of which were obtained by others around the world without divine intervention. You simply brand them as solely Christian and then attempt to spread more radical christian doctrine in law.



I'm actually not an Atheist. But I value the separation of church and state--even though you have a different interpretation of the first ammendment. The difference between forcing non-religious morality down your throat and you forcing christian morals down my throat is that I'm not stopping you from worshipping, practicing, or abiding by the moral standards of your religion. Yet, your religion tells others what they can and can't do if it is made into law.

Being gay yourself would be against your religion. Voting to marry gays in church would be against your religion. But state-sponsored marriage is economically-motivated and is not dependent upon your religious perspective.

 

[liberalogic]

Dude, Im not going to waste my time answering point by point, as almost everything you said was once again false.
FIRST: learn about Christianity, NO you dont gain salvation by being compassionate, you become compassionate because you gained salvation first.
SECOND: In the days of Washington, to use the term LORD was equivalent to saying Jesus, just as today we interchange the term CHRIST (which is a title, like a governor, or president) with JESUS. Plus he also stated "Ruler of all nations" now that is a direct reference to JESUS. To claim otherwise would be like saying so and so is a "jarhead" then responding, "oh you never called him a marine",,,they are one and the same.

Due to this high level of ignorance, I shall refrain from responding to any other points.

I resent your claim of ignorance because much of what we have discussed is ambiguous. For all of the quotes that you cite regarding the Christian intentions of the founding fathers, I can find just as many that mean the opposite. It's always going to lead to a dead end.

Please, though, at least explain what you mean by gaining salvation first and then becoming compassionate. When I say salvation, I mean entry into heaven. Am I using the word incorrectly?

I was brought up Roman Catholic and I was taught that the goodness of our deeds, motives, and attitudes determines our acceptance to or denial from heaven. That is why I emphasize helping those in need. Can you please explain my misconception? Not for argument's sake, but simply to inform me.

And just for the record, I don't hate Christianity even though it may come across that way. I just don't think that it should be infused in public policy. And I apologize if I came off as arrogant, that's never what I intend, but often how it comes out.

 

[Gunny]

I resent your claim of ignorance because much of what we have discussed is ambiguous. For all of the quotes that you cite regarding the Christian intentions of the founding fathers, I can find just as many that mean the opposite. It's always going to lead to a dead end.

Please, though, at least explain what you mean by gaining salvation first and then becoming compassionate. When I say salvation, I mean entry into heaven. Am I using the word incorrectly?

I was brought up Roman Catholic and I was taught that the goodness of our deeds, motives, and attitudes determines our acceptance to or denial from heaven. That is why I emphasize helping those in need. Can you please explain my misconception? Not for argument's sake, but simply to inform me.

And just for the record, I don't hate Christianity even though it may come across that way. I just don't think that it should be infused in public policy. And I apologize if I came off as arrogant, that's never what I intend, but often how it comes out.

While everyone wants to argue the intent of the Founding Fathers, I see the issue as moot. First, most were the intellectual elitists of their day, thinking they knew what was best for everyone else. Second, the Nation they created, and the laws to govern that Nation is a far cry from what this Nation has become today.

At any rate, I will argue that Western law in general is based on Judeo-Christian ethic/law. Most lawmakers were Christian, and based the laws on their beliefs. All denying that accomplishes is attempting to remove the history and reasoning for our laws; which, results in words lefty literalists can misconstrue to suit their own agendas.

 

[5stringJeff]

I was brought up Roman Catholic and I was taught that the goodness of our deeds, motives, and attitudes determines our acceptance to or denial from heaven. That is why I emphasize helping those in need. Can you please explain my misconception? Not for argument's sake, but simply to inform me.

Actually, it's faith in Jesus Christ that determines one's salvation, not good deeds or attitudes.

 

[Annie]

Actually, it's faith in Jesus Christ that determines one's salvation, not good deeds or attitudes.

That is one of the things that separates the Protestants from the Catholics. Catholics believe they must have a relationship with Christ, they also believe in good deeds, NOT indulgences.