Originally posted by josephwMy apologies, i was responding to this quote -
What's the matter? Can't you come up with an alternative? Like all good liberals, as soon as your world view is exposed to the light of truth you resort to making accusations.
Is it paranoid to object to the charade the democrats are foisting on us? Is it paranoid to point out the lies and deceit?
Is it paranoid to point out the obvious?
Paranoia is ...[text shortened]... ide of some rhinos, the implementation of socialism and the destruction of the constitution.
We're headed in one direction. World dominance by the Antichrist. The stage is being set.
And now this one -
we are now witnessing the attempt by the democrat party, with the aide of some rhinos, the implementation of socialism and the destruction of the constitution.
Originally posted by karoly aczelTry the Middle East. It seems to work great for them. Or you can refer back to when Christiandom had theocracies back in the dark ages. Again, it seemed to be a great idea at the time.....well....you know the rest of the story. 😞
Are there any other societies where the governmental leader is also the spiritual leader?[/b]
Originally posted by knightmeisterI heard him infer on tape that Christ came for the soul purpose of social justice. So is this social justice the redistribution of wealth? He obviously believes that the government run redistribution of wealth is "Christ-like". In fact, he left his church because they were not politically active enough. So the question begs, is this the example left by Christ who was apolitical? Is the Marxist notion of the redistribution of welath the will of God? The article then goes on to say that one of his organizations focuses on "spreading the good redistribution news" so to speak.
I've seen Wallace(I think it's actully Wallis?) talk and thought a lot of him. He was intelligent and radical for Christ.
What's the problem here? Could you make your objection to him more specific and clear. I actually liked him.
Originally posted by josephwconservative: 1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
You know I'm a conservative. Do you even know what conservatism is?
2.cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4.(often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5.(initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6.having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7.Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
liberal: 1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10.given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11.not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12.of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13.of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
I know with whom I'd rather be associated with😉😀
Originally posted by whodeyYour point is duly noted.
Try the Middle East. It seems to work great for them. Or you can refer back to when Christiandom had theocracies back in the dark ages. Again, it seemed to be a great idea at the time.....well....you know the rest of the story. 😞
Now what about Tibet?
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelTibet? Tibet has its hands full with Red China. As a result, I don't think it matters much what form of government they have. As it stands, they can only do so much.
Your point is duly noted.
Now what about Tibet?
Speaking of Red China, they are an interesting case. They are moving towards capitalism as where the US is moving towards communism. My guess is that the two shall meet one day.
8 edits
Originally posted by duecerI would agree that the traditional definition of liberalism means the opposite of an authoritarian appoach. However, what do we see today? We see a government that will soon impose us all buying health care, or else. We will soon see a government that will impose cap and trade, thus, monitoring and controlling all of our energy expenditures etc. I invision the EPA turning into a KGB of sorts. They talk of doing such things as forcing the EPA to come into your home before you sell it to make sure it is "energy efficient". If it is not, you must make it so before selling it. There is also talk of putting GPS systems into your car and taxing you on your milage. But perhaps the most limiting factor of all will be the cost of heating your home and driving your car. I invision a time where they make it financially unfeasible to live in larger homes and drive larger cars. So for large families who need SUV's to get from point A to point B will either have to use public transportation or buy a horse. Of course, this large family is out of luck in terms of owning a large home. Perhaps they can squeeze them all in a row house? My guess, however, is that they will simply discourage large families like they do in China. In short, soon we will have our government tell us what to do in about every aspect of our lives rangining from what doctors we see to how high we can keep our heat on in our houses. Freedoms my arse. The new term for these political control freaks are statists not liberals. Orwell was but a prophet. From a Biblical perspective, we are told that these statists will someday require a "mark" to buy or sell. Already there is talk of national ID cards and we already are marked by social security numbers. Just think of the efficiency of government if they implanted a microchip to monitor your every financial movement. No more cheating on taxes or printing money etc. In fact, if the chip has a GPS system, no more missing persons or running from the law. It makes "sense" to do these things now. The technology is here, all we need is to be told to do these things.
[
4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
Originally posted by whodeyits idiots like you that fall prey to the hysteria driven conservative talk machines of Fox and Rush Limpballs
I would agree that the traditional definition of liberalism means the opposite of an authoritarian appoach. However, what do we see today? We see a government that will soon impose us all buying health care, or else. We will soon see a government that will impose cap and trade, thus, monitoring and controlling all of our energy expenditures etc. I invisio ...[text shortened]... these things now. The technology is here, all we need is to be told to do these things.
My imitation of whodey: Aaaaaaaagh the apocolypse is coming. People are making me be a responsible memeber of society. This is the work of Satan. Look Look Lokk Obama's the anti-Christ aaagh run for your lives!!! social justice = communism, they're taking my rights away waaaahhh! Nyyarrg!
Originally posted by whodeyMan are you people hard to communicate to...
Tibet? Tibet has its hands full with Red China. As a result, I don't think it matters much what form of government they have. As it stands, they can only do so much.
Speaking of Red China, they are an interesting case. They are moving towards capitalism as where the US is moving towards communism. My guess is that the two shall meet one day.
One more time: What about Tibet BEFORE the Chinese occupation? Did they not have a happy,prosperous and harmonious society?
2 edits
Originally posted by duecerEr...um.....the apocolypse is coming, or at least, I thought you believed that.
its idiots like you that fall prey to the hysteria driven conservative talk machines of Fox and Rush Limpballs
My imitation of whodey: Aaaaaaaagh the apocolypse is coming. People are making me be a responsible memeber of society. This is the work of Satan. Look Look Lokk Obama's the anti-Christ aaagh run for your lives!!! social justice = communism, they're taking my rights away waaaahhh! Nyyarrg!
Er....um.....I am a resposible member of society. In addition, I give to the poor.
Er....um.....I never said Obama was the anti-Christ.
Er....um....social justice does not equal communism, and neither does the redistribution of wealth. If it does, then send all your money to Haiti and you will still be wealthier then they. Otherwise you are contributing to social injustice.
Er....um....they are taking my rights away. If not, I will decline to buy health coverage because Duecer told me I still had the right not to purchase any.
Er....um.....I have run out of er...um's and don't call me an idiot. I am rather sensitive you know. :'(
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelHave you read anything about Tibet indicating it was a happy, harmonous, and propserous society? From what I can ascertain, with all of their wars and civil wars and assassinations and expulsions of Christians in 1745 and eventually of all foriegners in 1850, they have the same sorted history as any other nation on earth.
Man are you people hard to communicate to...
One more time: What about Tibet BEFORE the Chinese occupation? Did they not have a happy,prosperous and harmonious society?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet
You can glorify the lamas all you want, but from all indication they are no different from the Popes during their theocratic rule in Europe.
Originally posted by whodeyYou make it sound as if they were doing the will of God by selecting a king when this cleary is not the case.
Why is this clear? Did God not say that the people rejected him by choosing a king? You make it sound as if they were doing the will of God by selecting a king when this cleary is not the case. What is clear, however, is that God allows the people their own free will by selecting their king, only, don't expect him to come runing to help them fix their mess ...[text shortened]... ge on the rights of others. Therefore, I favor any type of limited government within my grasp.
I understand that part, but I find it hard to believe that God did not foreordain that Christ would be King David's descendant.
My only point here is that the government God set up was extremely libertarian. People were free to do as they thought best so long as they did not infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, I favor any type of limited government within my grasp.
I disagree. God's rule of Israel was anything but libertarian. If God were a libertarian, he would consider it kosher if an Israelite chose to film a porn video in his basement, or smoke marijuana at the kitchen table, etc. As long as it didn't infringe on the rights of others or harm others, it's OK. That's a decent political philosophy, for the most part, but I don't think the ten commandments were meant to be interpreted that way.
Originally posted by whodeyI agree, if the state requires you to do that which is unjust in the eyes of God, you ought to disobey. However, the authority of the state, in all other respects, comes from God. And therefore, disobedience to human law, if the law is just, is also disobedience to God. It would be expected, as a Christian, for you to disobey a government which requires you to abort your child. Killing children is obviously evil. However, that is not in the same vicinity as the new health care reform bill, or most of what conservatives complain about. Forcing someone to buy health insurance makes sense, not only for that person's own good, but also for the financial greater good. Yes, extremely wealthy people will see their taxes increase to pay for it, but the rich have been getting lower tax rates ever since Reagan anyway, so it's about time we start moving in the other direction. The American system couldn't be more geared toward benefiting the rich as it is, and there's nothing particularly Christian about that.
There should be no less dedication to God today as there was in the days of Moses. As Deuteronomy 30:15 declares, I set before you blessing and cursing, life and death, so choose life and blessing. Moses utterred the words to the children of Israel before they entered the promised land, and it is no less applicable to us today. In fact, if the state someho ...[text shortened]... ack to your "Atheism as idolatry" thread. Statism is one of those idolatrous gods mentioned.
Originally posted by duecerTwo hundred years from now, the conservatives will be standing by today's liberal policies as if they were God's honest truth, while the liberals of tomorrow will still be exploring and implementing new ideas.
conservative: 1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4.(often initial capital letter) of or pertaining t ...[text shortened]... to, or befitting a freeman.
[b] I know with whom I'd rather be associated with😉😀[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat about our tax money in Obamacare that will be going to fund abortions? What about the massive debt the government is taking on? What about all the under the table deals made that were unfair to the tax payers? What about a government that may end up telling you what doctor you can see or what test or operation you can have? You make this bill sound as if God himself ordained it.
[b]I agree, if the state requires you to do that which is unjust in the eyes of God, you ought to disobey. However, the authority of the state, in all other respects, comes from God. And therefore, disobedience to human law, if the law is just, is also disobedience to God. It would be expected, as a Christian, for you to disobey a government which requires you to abort your child. Killing children is obviously evil.