Lefties Pretend To Be Religious

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.christianalliance.org/site/c.bnKIIQNtEoG/b.592941/k.CB7C/Home.htm

Just another "frame" for them.

 

[5stringJeff]

There is a minority of Christians who think that homosexuality is acceptable. I can't for the life of me figure out how they arrive at that conclusion, given the Biblical proscriptions against it, but they are out there.

 

[dmp]

I tried to reply to this thread earlier - but I kept feeling the urge to everytime I thought about that site.

 

[Bonnie]

http://www.christianalliance.org/site/c.bnKIIQNtEoG/b.592941/k.CB7C/Home.htm

Just another "frame" for them.

J, whenever you see Christianity and Progress in the same sentence run like hell.......Translation Progress-progressives as in most Christians are stupid and closed minded for sticking to tradition, while the truly enlightened Christians "embrace" deviant behavior to show liberals how "open minded" they are............It's a joke

Great find btw

 

[IControlThePast]

There is a minority of Christians who think that homosexuality is acceptable. I can't for the life of me figure out how they arrive at that conclusion, given the Biblical proscriptions against it, but they are out there.

Many don't, although my Church does. We went on a Mission Trip to Kid's Village, which is affiliated with the Make A Wish Foundation and helps terminally ill children visit Disneyland as part of their wish. We spent our evening time entertaining the children and also helped inventory, clean, generally run and move supplies for Kid's Village during the day. On our day off we went to Disneyworld, and that happened to be GayDay. Some Church leaders apparently had friends in the Gay community they met up with. It is a UCC Church, which operates similarly to UU Churches.

As for our UCC church, it believes that the Hebrew in Leviticus means "little boy" rather than "adult male," and that Leviticus also condemns many actions you have probably performed. Some examples include getting haircuts, eating shellfish, wearing clothing made from two fabrics, and planting two crops in a single field. In addition, even if the passages do ban same sex intercourse, that isn't the same as homosexuality. There are liberal views on a number of passages, such as Soddam and Gomorrah and Jesus's comments on that, etc, and I can go into those if you wish to present them.

But most of all I've seen Christians that don't wish to impose their view of morality onto other people. They don't think we can or should outlaw things just because they are sins, but that people should have freedom and free will to commit those sins if they choose, and that is should be Christian rather than legal doctrine that "saves."

 

[no1tovote4]

Many don't, although my Church does. We went on a Mission Trip to Kid's Village, which is affiliated with the Make A Wish Foundation and helps terminally ill children visit Disneyland as part of their wish. We spent our evening time entertaining the children and also helped inventory, clean, generally run and move supplies for Kid's Village during the day. On our day off we went to Disneyworld, and that happened to be GayDay. Some Church leaders apparently had friends in the Gay community they met up with. It is a UCC Church, which operates similarly to UU Churches.

As for our UCC church, it believes that the Hebrew in Leviticus means "little boy" rather than "adult male," and that Leviticus also condemns many actions you have probably performed. Some examples include getting haircuts, eating shellfish, wearing clothing made from two fabrics, and planting two crops in a single field. In addition, even if the passages do ban same sex intercourse, that isn't the same as homosexuality. There are liberal views on a number of passages, such as Soddam and Gomorrah and Jesus's comments on that, etc, and I can go into those if you wish to present them.

But most of all I've seen Christians that don't wish to impose their view of morality onto other people. They don't think we can or should outlaw things just because they are sins, but that people should have freedom and free will to commit those sins if they choose, and that is should be Christian rather than legal doctrine that "saves."

If you actually read the site they have an agenda to make me pay for their programs and they want to work toward "financial equality". First of all, it is not Christian to sieze money from others to give to another, it isn't alms to do so either it is theft. Christ never once said the government should take over your personal responsibility and never once did He say that everybody should be equal financially.

They have to twist the actual Bible in order to make it fit onto the Democratic Agenda in such a way. Much like Conservatives of the Uber RR sometimes will do. This is simply a way to excuse the way they will force others to live as they want them to. I may not agree with the Uber-RR on a regular basis but at least they read the Bible and make a platform to fit rather than attempting to twist the Bible to fit the agenda that they want it to.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Many don't, although my Church does. We went on a Mission Trip to Kid's Village, which is affiliated with the Make A Wish Foundation and helps terminally ill children visit Disneyland as part of their wish. We spent our evening time entertaining the children and also helped inventory, clean, generally run and move supplies for Kid's Village during the day. On our day off we went to Disneyworld, and that happened to be GayDay. Some Church leaders apparently had friends in the Gay community they met up with. It is a UCC Church, which operates similarly to UU Churches.

As for our UCC church, it believes that the Hebrew in Leviticus means "little boy" rather than "adult male," and that Leviticus also condemns many actions you have probably performed. Some examples include getting haircuts, eating shellfish, wearing clothing made from two fabrics, and planting two crops in a single field. In addition, even if the passages do ban same sex intercourse, that isn't the same as homosexuality. There are liberal views on a number of passages, such as Soddam and Gomorrah and Jesus's comments on that, etc, and I can go into those if you wish to present them.

But most of all I've seen Christians that don't wish to impose their view of morality onto other people. They don't think we can or should outlaw things just because they are sins, but that people should have freedom and free will to commit those sins if they choose, and that is should be Christian rather than legal doctrine that "saves."

Lefty christians insist that all christ's objectives MUST be implemented in goverhment and get all flustered when you suggest they perform personal charity to "help the poor". Where is the choice then?

 

[Bonnie]

IControlThePast

But most of all I've seen Christians that don't wish to impose their view of morality onto other people. They don't think we can or should outlaw things just because they are sins, but that people should have freedom and free will to commit those sins if they choose, and that is should be Christian rather than legal doctrine that "saves."

As does my church and every church I have ever been to, however they do get upset when homosexuals attempt to intrude into something as sacred as marriage, there is civil unions for those that wish to marry legally. For gay people to marry in the church and have an actual mass is an abomination. That's not a judgement that's the way it is and for good reason, of which we have discussed on this board many times previously. What Christians object to is Sin being insinuated into the church by those who don't believe in Christianity but seem happy to make a point of degrading Christians anytime they can publicly and legislatively in an attampt to put morals on the chopping slab as a way to prove they are right and open minded. And even go so far as to change church doctrine to suit their own morality..........

People who wish to not be preached to should themselves respect and show respect, to those who do have Christian morals and ideals. So yeah live and let live, sounds great to me.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

the antichristian movement is designed to destroy western societies (white) by eroding it's moral foundation. Morality has the effect of allowing people to work together according to predefined rules, thus strengthening the society as a whole. Destroy the moral foundation and you weaken the society as the individuals spend more time questioning and mistrusting each other, instead of working together.

 

[Gabriella84]

We Libs have this very slanted view of religion. When we read Our Lord's statement "I am the God of all people," we take him at his word. We don't translate His Word to be "I am the God of all heterosexual white American Christian males with money."
My God is truly the God of ALL people. Which includes females, gays, lesbians, liberals, radicals, non-whites, non-Americans and even those with different religious preferences that you don't understand.

 

[Said1]

the antichristian movement is designed to destroy western societies (white) by eroding it's moral foundation. Morality has the effect of allowing people to work together according to predefined rules, thus strengthening the society as a whole. Destroy the moral foundation and you weaken the society as the individuals spend more time questioning and mistrusting each other, instead of working together.

Actually, the process of politicization did that, but ACM isn't helping to change things.

 

[Gabriella84]

the antichristian movement is designed to destroy western societies (white) by eroding it's moral foundation

This is nothing new. Since we all know that only members of white western societies can have moral values.

 

[no1tovote4]

We Libs have this very slanted view of religion. When we read Our Lord's statement "I am the God of all people," we take him at his word. We don't translate His Word to be "I am the God of all heterosexual white American Christian males with money."
My God is truly the God of ALL people. Which includes females, gays, lesbians, liberals, radicals, non-whites, non-Americans and even those with different religious preferences that you don't understand.

Just because He is the God of ALL People does not mean he condones sinful behavior? Or are you a Christian that doesn't believe in sin?

The assumption that people on the Right that are religious don't also think that their God is also the God of all people is simply disingenuous. You can do better than this Gabby, I have seen it. The Right does not say, "He is the God only of white hetero Males" any more than the Left does. They simply believe in the personal message that Christ gave, he said it is YOUR responsibility, not to attempt to make it the responsibility of all people including those that do not follow your religion. He didn't say, the Government should pay for all things, or that people should be financially equal, it is fundamentally changing the fact that Christ spoke on a personal level and not one at the Government level.

This attempt to twist the Bible to fit a political agenda that doesn't exist in the religion is simply bad form, regardless of which side it comes from.

 

[5stringJeff]

Just because He is the God of ALL People does not mean he condones sinful behavior? Or are you a Christian that doesn't believe in sin?

The assumption that people on the Right that are religious don't also think that their God is also the God of all people is simply disingenuous. You can do better than this Gabby, I have seen it. The Right does not say, "He is the God only of white hetero Males" any more than the Left does. They simply believe in the personal message that Christ gave, he said it is YOUR responsibility, not to attempt to make it the responsibility of all people including those that do not follow your religion. He didn't say, the Government should pay for all things, or that people should be financially equal, it is fundamentally changing the fact that Christ spoke on a personal level and not one at the Government level.

This attempt to twist the Bible to fit a political agenda that doesn't exist in the religion is simply bad form, regardless of which side it comes from.

Once again, you said exactly what I was trying to figure out how to say!

 

[IControlThePast]

If you actually read the site they have an agenda to make me pay for their programs and they want to work toward "financial equality". First of all, it is not Christian to sieze money from others to give to another, it isn't alms to do so either it is theft. Christ never once said the government should take over your personal responsibility and never once did He say that everybody should be equal financially.

They have to twist the actual Bible in order to make it fit onto the Democratic Agenda in such a way. Much like Conservatives of the Uber RR sometimes will do. This is simply a way to excuse the way they will force others to live as they want them to. I may not agree with the Uber-RR on a regular basis but at least they read the Bible and make a platform to fit rather than attempting to twist the Bible to fit the agenda that they want it to.

I was referring to Jeff's comment on general Christians and homosexuality, and those who call themselves liberal and christian at the same time, not specifically to the people in the article.

Lefty christians insist that all christ's objectives MUST be implemented in goverhment and get all flustered when you suggest they perform personal charity to "help the poor". Where is the choice then?

I think the general sentiment is that helping the poor alleviates suffering immediately and visibly, while elimination of homosexuality would only do so in Heaven/Hell. Performing personal charity to help the poor is great, and I do it myself in terms of volunteer hours as well as money, but there is also a sentiment that the government is partially responsible for the personal welfare of its citizens and are thus has a legal debt to help the poor as well as the Christian thing to do, instead of just a religious debt as homosexuality would have. Choice should not be an option for legal debts of the government; imagine "charity" taxes where you can give as much or as little as you want.

IControlThePast

As does my church and every church I have ever been to, however they do get upset when homosexuals attempt to intrude into something as sacred as marriage, there is civil unions for those that wish to marry legally. For gay people to marry in the church and have an actual mass is an abomination. That's not a judgement that's the way it is and for good reason, of which we have discussed on this board many times previously. What Christians object to is Sin being insinuated into the church by those who don't believe in Christianity but seem happy to make a point of degrading Christians anytime they can publicly and legislatively in an attampt to put morals on the chopping slab as a way to prove they are right and open minded. And even go so far as to change church doctrine to suit their own morality..........

People who wish to not be preached to should themselves respect and show respect, to those who do have Christian morals and ideals. So yeah live and let live, sounds great to me.

Some homosexuals wish to live according to their interpretation of the Bible and Jesus's word, and feel that in their interpretation that it is not against homosexuality or sodomy (only bisexuality or not against sodomy at all), but feel that sex outside of marriage is a sin and they want to get married within the Church to have sex. That deserves a long ewwwwww. Ok, now I could certainly understand complaints if your denomination allowed same sex marriages to be performed or if there was a move to allow them, but if they were married within other denominations that allow gay marriage I couldn't see having any objections.

 

[GotZoom]

If you actually read the site they have an agenda to make me pay for their programs and they want to work toward "financial equality". First of all, it is not Christian to sieze money from others to give to another, it isn't alms to do so either it is theft. Christ never once said the government should take over your personal responsibility and never once did He say that everybody should be equal financially.

They have to twist the actual Bible in order to make it fit onto the Democratic Agenda in such a way. Much like Conservatives of the Uber RR sometimes will do. This is simply a way to excuse the way they will force others to live as they want them to. I may not agree with the Uber-RR on a regular basis but at least they read the Bible and make a platform to fit rather than attempting to twist the Bible to fit the agenda that they want it to.

I can start a website called "Christians for Cannibalism" and solicit donations. This is just another way for someone to make some Benjamins while pushing their political agenda.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I was referring to Jeff's comment on general Christians and homosexuality, and those who call themselves liberal and christian at the same time, not specifically to the people in the article.



I think the general sentiment is that helping the poor alleviates suffering immediately and visibly, while elimination of homosexuality would only do so in Heaven/Hell.

Helping the poor can be achieved just as effectively through private means.

but there is also a sentiment that the government is partially responsible for the personal welfare of its citizens and are thus has a legal debt to help the poor as well as the Christian thing to do, instead of just a religious debt as homosexuality would have. Choice should not be an option for legal debts of the government; imagine "charity" taxes where you can give as much or as little as you want.

Yes. A sentiment on the left called socialism. Christianity itself speaks to individuals. And also, private charities SHOULD have the right to at least speak to recipients of their aid about the faith which has inspired the giving; we all know the aclu would not allow this if government was responsible for charity programs. Socialists steal from the rich against their will and STILL deride them for being rich. There's gratitude for ya. Optional charity tax? That's just dumb. I trust private charities anyday over another bloated government program staffed by hateful apparatchiks.

 

[IControlThePast]

Helping the poor can be achieved just as effectively through private means.

Yes. A sentiment on the left called socialism. Christianity itself speaks to individuals. And also, private charities SHOULD have the right to at least speak to recipients of their aid about the faith which has inspired the giving; we all know the aclu would not allow this if government was responsible for charity programs. Socialists steal from the rich against their will and STILL deride them for being rich. There's gratitude for ya. Optional charity tax? That's just dumb. I trust private charities anyday over another bloated government program staffed by hateful apparatchiks.

I seem to remember a "general welfare" clause from the constitution, but I don't think our founders were socialist. We have a mixed economy, which is the best for a developed nation, and part of that is incorporating a graduated income tax, while leaving out big parts like control of the factors of production.

As far as I know, private charities are allowed to include a little bit about the faith that gave, ours did.

An optional charity tax is as dumb an idea as considering private charity to be sufficient to cover the needs of the poor, just as normal taxation should not be charity based. You read fast and get all in a huff and miss things, like the fact that I was speaking against tax by charity. Most people will always think they are being taxed too much, and there would be no way the government could meet what it needs if everyone decided how much or how little to pay in all taxes, including a charity tax.

 

[Annie]

I seem to remember a "general welfare" clause from the constitution, but I don't think our founders were socialist. We have a mixed economy, which is the best for a developed nation, and part of that is incorporating a graduated income tax, while leaving out big parts like control of the factors of production.

As far as I know, private charities are allowed to include a little bit about the faith that gave, ours did.

An optional charity tax is as dumb an idea as considering private charity to be sufficient to cover the needs of the poor, just as normal taxation should not be charity based. You read fast and get all in a huff and miss things, like the fact that I was speaking against tax by charity. Most people will always think they are being taxed too much, and there would be no way the government could meet what it needs if everyone decided how much or how little to pay in all taxes, including a charity tax.

I'm kind of confused at why you brought up the "general welfare" clause. Seems that you were trying to make it broad, then narrow it. Can you clarify, please...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I seem to remember a "general welfare" clause from the constitution, but I don't think our founders were socialist. We have a mixed economy, which is the best for a developed nation, and part of that is incorporating a graduated income tax, while leaving out big parts like control of the factors of production.

Sometimes the welfare is served best by keeping the tentacles of government out.

As far as I know, private charities are allowed to include a little bit about the faith that gave, ours did.

Right. The point is that government run charity would not allow this, because the separation of church/state radical extremists and the aclu. When your paying someone else's way, they SHOULD be exposed to your 2 cents.

An optional charity tax is as dumb an idea as considering private charity to be sufficient to cover the needs of the poor, just as normal taxation should not be charity based. You read fast and get all in a huff and miss things, like the fact that I was speaking against tax by charity. Most people will always think they are being taxed too much, and there would be no way the government could meet what it needs if everyone decided how much or how little to pay in all taxes, including a charity tax.

No. I don't miss things. You're all over the map with your rantings. I would wager that private charities are more effective than government schlock programs. I also contend that major tax restructuring, flat tax, consumption tax or otherwise, would free up funds that would eventually find their way into private charities.