1 edit
Originally posted by Wulebgr=================================
Deep prejudice?
I've tried to be clear, but as you say, you ignore the major points and harp on the minors.
I am a historian. The connections between modern Republicanism and modern Christianity are FACT, probably to the detriment of both.
If there was a similar unholy alliance with the Green Party, the Democratic Party, the American Communist Part ence of beliefs when the Bible condemns nearly everything central to the Republican platform.
I'm inquiring why they seem to think they have a convergence of beliefs when the Bible condemns nearly everything central to the Republican platform.
======================================
In making a statement like this, how different are you from someone saying "the Bible condemns nearly everything central to the Democrat platform"?
Is there a nickel's worth of difference? I don't think so.
Okay, with great aplume you inform us that the Bible condemns nearly everything central to the Republican platform. Meanwhile somone like Ann Coulter or Ralph Reed proclaims with equal confidence that it is nearly unthinkable that one could be a Christian and sympathetic to the Democrat platform.
In your attempt to critique them you become exactly like them. Yet you say yours is the objective research of a historian.
Are we suppose to be impressed with your unbiased and objective research ? You'll have to do a little better than that to impress me.
You've got me wondering about the convergence of modern historical scholarship and with their biased methods and the religious activisim of the religious Right.
How come you both seem to have the same flavor ? "The Bible condemns nearly everything that party stands for, ya know?"
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillCongratulations, you succeeded in finding the weakest statement in my questions.
In your attempt to critique them you become exactly like them. Yet you say yours is the objective research of a historian.
Are we suppose to be impressed with your unbiased and objective research ? You'll have to do a little better than that to impress me.
You've got me wondering about the convergence of modern historical scholarship and w ...[text shortened]... same flavor ? [b]"The Bible condemns nearly everything that party stands for, ya know?"[/b]
Who said anything about objectivity?
I get the facts correct. Ann Coulter lies. That's the difference.
You picked a statement at the end of two pages--such selective reading is not the whole flavor. One need not nibble at the edges to taste the same from Glenn Beck.
Let's rephrase the statement:
The Bible supports nearly everything in the platform of the Republican party, and the GOP is a logical alliance for true Christians.
The Bible states that Christians should be pawns of the insurance lobby.
The Bible states that the poor want to be that way, and that people of color are disproportionately in prison because of defects of character.
The Crusades were a bright moment in Western history. Renewing them should be a high priority for the United States--the New English Israel (Cotton Mather).
The flat tax is biblical.
That I have not found the Bible passages supporting these contentions is not because they are not there. It is because I need the filling of the H.S. to read things correctly.
Originally posted by WulebgrLike I said they are all filled with things that I find less than.
Congratulations, you succeeded in finding the weakest statement in my questions.
Who said anything about objectivity?
I get the facts correct. Ann Coulter lies. That's the difference.
You picked a statement at the end of two pages--such selective reading is not the whole flavor. One need not nibble at the edges to taste the same from Glenn Beck.
...[text shortened]... use they are not there. It is because I need the filling of the H.S. to read things correctly.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by Wulebgr===============================
Congratulations, you succeeded in finding the weakest statement in my questions.
Who said anything about objectivity?
I get the facts correct. Ann Coulter lies. That's the difference.
You picked a statement at the end of two pages--such selective reading is not the whole flavor. One need not nibble at the edges to taste the same from Glenn Beck.
use they are not there. It is because I need the filling of the H.S. to read things correctly.
That I have not found the Bible passages supporting these contentions is not because they are not there. It is because I need the filling of the H.S. to read things correctly.
=======================================
Why don't you seek the filling of the Holy Spirit ? Not for the purpose of finding this or that little ethical issue in the Bible, but just because it is profitable to be filled with the Holy Spirit in reading the Bible and in life and in all things.
Originally posted by jaywillI was sitting in Bible study with a group of spirit filled believers--hard to tell who truly filled was and who was deceived into believing that she or he was filled. The consistent pattern seemed to be this: if the biblical arguments (and yes the issues were tending toward support of Uncle Ron's outlandish beliefs about the economy and the nature of evil) were illogical applications of the verse if read in context, but seemingly logical through biblical hop-scotch, the hermeneuticians believed themselves spirit-filled and their adversaries, well, filled with the spirit of THE ADVERSARY.
[b]===============================
That I have not found the Bible passages supporting these contentions is not because they are not there. It is because I need the filling of the H.S. to read things correctly.
=======================================
Why don't you seek the filling of the Holy Spirit ? Not for the purpose of finding this ...[text shortened]... rofitable to be filled with the Holy Spirit in reading the Bible and in life and in all things.[/b]
Several years earlier, a couple of elders about my age wearing black ties and riding bicycles handed me a book and directed that I should pray to know the truth while I read. I did this, and my heart confirmed that the book was full of lies. Secular scholarship confirmed the light from this inner spirit (probably the Deceiver).
Originally posted by WulebgrWhat is your point here Wulebgr?
I was sitting in Bible study with a group of spirit filled believers--hard to tell who truly filled was and who was deceived into believing that she or he was filled. The consistent pattern seemed to be this: if the biblical arguments (and yes the issues were tending toward support of Uncle Ron's outlandish beliefs about the economy and the nature of evil) w ...[text shortened]... f lies. Secular scholarship confirmed the light from this inner spirit (probably the Deceiver).
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayC'mon KJ, who said anything about "perfect" or about what "God must accept"?
You are suggesting that people filled with the Spirit of God cannot
attach themselves to any group that you believe has issues?
I have pointed out every one of our groups are flawed! They are
filled with flawed people, that includes all of our churches too. You
think there is some "perfect" human group/club/whatever that God
must accept?
Kelly
Hopefully you realize that some groups are much less reconcilable with righteousness than others. I don't think that the KKK is reconcilable with righteousness either. Do you think that the KKK is reconcilable with righteousness? Based on what you said here, it seems the answer would be, "Yes", because its just one of many flawed groups.
Originally posted by jaywillThat your assumptions got ahead of your argument. That should be enough.
What is your point here Wulebgr?
Nevertheless, also that the plain sense of Scripture read as it should be, as all oral traditions in print should be: as whole stories, is sufficient, and that the so-called filling is a power game played by those who cannot stand on reason and textual analysis.
We all remember Mitt Romney's impressive religion speech--one of the true high points of the 2008 campaign season--and we remember how religious bigotry led to the need for that speech. The spirit that fills LDS believers leads most of them to the same political positions as that which fills Southern Baptists, yet on points of theology, agreement seems elusive. Indeed, the disagreement is so profound that some even allege that the others are filled not with the Spirit of God but with the Angel of Darkness.
3 edits
Originally posted by Wulebgr==========================
That your assumptions got ahead of your argument. That should be enough.
Nevertheless, also that the plain sense of Scripture read as it should be, as all oral traditions in print should be: as whole stories, is sufficient, and that the so-called filling is a power game played by those who cannot stand on reason and textual analysis.
We all remember Mi en allege that the others are filled not with the Spirit of God but with the Angel of Darkness.
That your assumptions got ahead of your argument. That should be enough.
==============================
Yea. That sounds like me. What else you got?
==================================
Nevertheless, also that the plain sense of Scripture read as it should be, as all oral traditions in print should be: as whole stories, is sufficient, and that the so-called filling is a power game played by those who cannot stand on reason and textual analysis.
=================================
Oh. So should we seek the filling of the Holy Spirit or no?
===========================
We all remember Mitt Romney's impressive religion speech--one of the true high points of the 2008 campaign season--and we remember how religious bigotry led to the need for that speech. The spirit that fills LDS believers leads most of them to the same political positions as that which fills Southern Baptists, yet on points of theology, agreement seems elusive. Indeed, the disagreement is so profound that some even allege that the others are filled not with the Spirit of God but with the Angel of Darkness.
=============================
But you and I don't have to be that way. One of the fruits of the Holy Spirit is "self control". I don't have to be stopped in my pursuit of Christ by what this other person did. I don't have to be afraid that I will end up like him.
So I think I can pursue the Spirit of Christ in full measure not being discouraged by the errors of the other person.
As Jesus told Peter when Peter asked about John "What is that to you? [You] follow Me."
Originally posted by WulebgrI don't agree with what you call "historic facts". I don't care to do any research into the voting patterns of various denominatios, but I'm quite sure that not ALL churched people vote Republican. I'd bet the fdarm that if you could look at the votes from every Unitarian Universalist, every Jehovah's Witness, and every Church of the Adventist, you'd get a majority voting Democrat in all the groups. Are you just going to say "Christians only encompass Southern Baptists and rich people who go to church not to worship but to network?" A GREAT many denominations in Christendom lean pretty far left, in case you haven't noticed. I currently attend a Lutheran Church; it's a "Missouri Synod" church, so they're pretty conservative/traditional. By and large, they are anti lottery/gambling, abortion, women in the pulpit, and (as has been widely reported of late) VERY opposed to allowing gays to serve as pastors. A different branch of Lutheranism, the ELCA I believe is the correct acronym, is more liberal and within the last 2 or 3 weeks announced that they WOULD allow homosexuals to preach in their churches. A similar stance was taken by one of the Episcopalean branches last year. Many people are upset and left their respective churches over these incidents, but then, many others stayed.
The last two posts by PinkFloyd and KellyJay both miss the core point: hundreds of thousands of self-professed Christians have embraced the Republican Party as the Party of God. Many churches have even become inhospitable to anyone refusing to espouse the central talking points of Republicans.
It is a historic fact that Republicans and modern American Chr ...[text shortened]... seems to me that almost nothing Republicans espouse is consistent with genuine Christian faith.
So you see, you whole premise that Christians vote Republican exclusively is full of......holes 😉