Christian Values

[Outshined]

Originally posted by sgallan@Dec 13 2005, 09:01 AM

No kidding. Perhaps there is a prize...

You get half. I may be a heathen beyond redemption... but I am an honest one.

←

In that case, I hope it isn't a pony...

[sgallan]

I do have a chainsaw....

[Ray]

Originally posted by sgallan@Dec 12 2005, 06:43 PM

Why do you continue to say this, Scott? Are you trying to convince yourself?

You do believe in a god, and I know you know you know that.

You are being silly Ray. But I do believe in an Invisible Fire Breathing Dragon. It lives under my house. I am on the fence about the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

http://www.venganza.org/

←

Heh, if I'm being silly, it is only to show you how silly I think you sound when you say that you don't believe in a God, when I know in fact that you do.

And btw, I also know that you know that I'm not necessarly talking about any God that you may think I'm talking about. I'm simply saying that you do believe in a supreme being, whatever your understanding of that supreme being may be.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Dec 12 2005, 11:06 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Dec 12 2005, 01:12 PM

And just to help you out a little, the word "God" is simply a word we use to refer to the most supreme being in all of existence, so no matter which parameters you use to determine which beings are more supreme than others, you do believe in "God".

←

Nobody but Anslem uses such a ridiculous defintion. I don't. No one does.

←

Instead of merely labeling my definition as "ridiculous", why don't you explain what you believe is so "ridiculous" about it.

And btw, I agree that it is a rather "simplistic" definition, but I see nothing "wrong" about it.

[sgallan]

I'm simply saying that you do believe in a supreme being, whatever your understanding of that supreme being may be.

I believe in billions of them because there are literally billions of people who can do 'something' better than me.

[Ray]

So are you saying that you believe all people who can do something better than you are equally supreme?

If so, you would be saying that God consists of those “literally billions of people” who can do something better than you.

If not, you would be saying than one or more of those “people” are more supreme than the others.

Either way, you do believe in God.

[sgallan]

So are you saying that you believe all people who can do something better than you are equally supreme?

Didn't say that.

*** If not, you would be saying than one or more of those “people” are more supreme than the others.

Either way, you do believe in God. ****

That is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. But it's kinda fun....

[Ray]

Originally posted by sgallan@Dec 13 2005, 12:13 PM

So are you saying that you believe all people who can do something better than you are equally supreme?

Didn't say that.

*** If not, you would be saying than one or more of those “people” are more supreme than the others.

Either way, you do believe in God. ****

That is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. But it's kinda fun....

←

I already knew you weren't going to say something like:

Oh wow, you're right, I do believe in God, don't I !!!

But I still know that you know that you believe in God. :)

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Snow@Dec 12 2005, 11:02 PM

A standard liberal stance is pro-abortion rights and anti-death sentence for murderers.

A standard conservative stance is prolife and often pro-death sentence for murderers.

←

This is why I said that I cannot be a liberal or a conservative.

I am anti-abortion, but I am not sure about whether or not it should be illegal. Undecided.

I am neutral on the death penalty, because life in prison causes suffering, death is liberation...but I am also opposed to killing people for any reason (see my post in the "Tookie" thread). So again...undecided.

So by your definition, I cannot be liberal.

But also by that definition I cannot be conservative.

I tend to sympathize with moderates, or try to retreat from politics altogether and let history run its course, knowing I am not in a position to change anything.

Also, as I mentioned above...as an American...I really find statements like the one you made to be offensive. You apparantly are taking the side of the conservatives (correct me if I am wrong)...and I consider the conservatives to be guilty of the extreme polarization of the nation...but liberals are also guilty...anti-Bush statements and literature are all over the place (whether he deserves it or not)...and this also serves to polarize.

I am NOT totally neutral...I sympathize more with liberals on the War issue. I think Bush is wrong in so many ways in the way he fights terror. The "war on terror" can only be won by economic means...that is, improve the economies of Muslim countries, and remove American businesses (especially oil!) from Arab countries...and by diplomatic means, meaning total neutrality in Israel. That is just my opinion. But that is off topic.

Liberals and Conservatives are destroying America. Personally I think that if a multi-party system is not put in place, there will be civil war, or if we are lucky enough to avoid war...a peaceful breakup of America. Neither scenario is desirable.

[Ray]

Tao,

“Conservative” and “Liberal” are simply words we use to designate both sides of the scale, with a big sliding bar. Try to think of those words in their true meaning, as well as from what you have seen within the arena of politics.

For instance, someone who is “conservative” is more likely to want to "conserve" or “keep” "traditional" values within society, while someone who is “liberal” is more likely to want to "liberate" or “free” society from at least some "traditional" values, usually while urging that we as a society embrace more "free" or "liberal" views.

And btw, a “multi-party” system has already been put in place, with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and several other “parties” consisting of people with both conservative and liberal values.

[prisonchaplain]

And btw, a “multi-party” system has already been put in place, with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and several other “parties” consisting of people with both conservative and liberal values.

Yeah! Time for me to jump in. This is an obscure, but passionate issue with me. I do not support a multiparty system. As contentious as having two parties can be, at least we get something close to a leader elected by a majority (or overwhelming plurality). Advocacy groups (be they from the 'religious right' or 'environmentalists' or 'libertarians') generally end up lobbying the most receptive majority party. It's a clumsy system, but it is also a moderating one, that is ponderous, and therefore not given to sudden, radical shifts.

My support of the two-party system is also why I would never support a specifically Christian third party. My guess is, there may be an issue or two that folk like Jason, Sgallon and I might agree on (increased government support for young Olympic hopefuls, perhaps ). Third parties, and multi-party systems encourage political ghettoism, and extremism. If you think polarization is bad now--just see what a third or fourth contender-party would do to our politics

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 13 2005, 01:02 PM

Tao,

“Conservative” and “Liberal” are simply words we use to designate both sides of the scale, with a big sliding bar.  Try to think of those words in their true meaning, as well as from what you have seen within the arena of politics.

For instance, someone who is “conservative” is more likely to want to “save” or “keep” “traditional” values, while someone who is “liberal” is more likely to be “free” and “permissive” to new values or ideas.

←

Ok, I understand what you mean by a sliding scale...but in practice, it is extreme conservatives who control our government, while extreme liberals are the ones with the voice against them.

The moderates are rarely or never heard from.

And as long as that continues, I see the approach of the breakup of our nation.

And btw, a “multi-party” system has already been put in place, with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and several other “parties” consisting of people with both conservative and liberal values.

But in practice, only the Democrats and Republicans can win an election.

I doubt any independent party will ever defeat a Democrat or Republican in our lifetime.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Dec 13 2005, 01:35 PM

Ok, I understand what you mean by a sliding scale...but in practice, it is extreme conservatives who control our government, while extreme liberals are the ones with the voice against them.

The moderates are rarely or never heard from.

I don't know your news sources, but I hear from people all over the scale.

CNN and CSPAN are pretty good about giving good coverage.

I doubt any independent party will ever defeat a Democrat or Republican in our lifetime.

They would if enough people voted for them.

And btw, we elect the electorates, so if you're not happy with how things have been going, try becoming more active in politics!

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain@Dec 13 2005, 01:26 PM

And btw, a “multi-party” system has already been put in place, with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and several other “parties” consisting of people with both conservative and liberal values.

Yeah! Time for me to jump in. This is an obscure, but passionate issue with me. I do not support a multiparty system. As contentious as having two parties can be, at least we get something close to a leader elected by a majority (or overwhelming plurality). Advocacy groups (be they from the 'religious right' or 'environmentalists' or 'libertarians') generally end up lobbying the most receptive majority party. It's a clumsy system, but it is also a moderating one, that is ponderous, and therefore not given to sudden, radical shifts.

My support of the two-party system is also why I would never support a specifically Christian third party. My guess is, there may be an issue or two that folk like Jason, Sgallon and I might agree on (increased government support for young Olympic hopefuls, perhaps ). Third parties, and multi-party systems encourage political ghettoism, and extremism. If you think polarization is bad now--just see what a third or fourth contender-party would do to our politics

←

What about coalition governments? If more than one party is in power and keep the other in check, aren't more people represented...as opposed to the 50% who are represented by Republicans...the party in power?

I admit I don't know much about this...but what if there was a "Moderate" party consisting of ex-Democrats and ex-Republicans...say it is 33% of the population. Let's say they form a coalition with the Republicans, who are...let's say 40%. Then don't we have 73% of the population being represented by the party's in power...and the ability for both parties to keep an eye on each other so the other one doesn't do something stupid (like start an unpopular war)?

I used to live in Canada, and although I never paid attention to the politics in my youth, I do know one thing...I did not see this polarization. I don't know if that is because of a multiparty system, or because Canadians are just more polite. The only polarization I saw was the Quebec separatist issue...but that was not a problem of ideology...it was nationalism.

I admit I don't know enough about politics...maybe multi-party is a bad idea...but SOMETHING has to be done about polarization. Maybe separation into two nations is the only answer. For people who love America...is two America's better than one?

I would hope that people could get along well enough to keep the country in one piece, but maybe that is a romantic idea that is not based in reality.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 13 2005, 01:42 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Taoist_Saint@Dec 13 2005, 01:35 PM

Ok, I understand what you mean by a sliding scale...but in practice, it is extreme conservatives who control our government, while extreme liberals are the ones with the voice against them.

The moderates are rarely or never heard from.

I don't know your news sources, but I hear from people all over the scale.

CNN and CSPAN are pretty good about giving good coverage.

Maybe so...but politicians are not listening to them.

I doubt any independent party will ever defeat a Democrat or Republican in our lifetime.

They would if enough people voted for them.

The problem is that they won't.

And btw, we elect the electorates, so if you're not happy with how things have been going, try becoming more active in politics!

Ugh...I would if I thought there was hope for this country, but I have given up all hope.

Although I still consider polarization a problem, I should not have complained because there is nothing I can do about it.

I think I will retreat from politics and let history run its course.

[sgallan]

Ugh...I would if I thought there was hope for this country, but I have given up all hope.

Other than local elections I am pretty much the same way anymore, a pox on both their houses.....

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Ok, this whole thing is making me sick. I shouldn't let those polarizing comments get to me.

I am going to take a serious retreat from the world (ignore it) and find some inner peace within myself and my home, where I at least have some control.

[prisonchaplain]

What about coalition governments?  If more than one party is in power and keep the other in check, aren't more people represented...as opposed to the 50% who are represented by Republicans...the party in power?

I admit I don't know much about this...but what if there was a "Moderate" party consisting of ex-Democrats and ex-Republicans...say it is 33% of the population.  Let's say they form a coalition with the Republicans, who are...let's say 40%.  Then don't we have 73% of the population being represented by the party's in power...and the ability for both parties to keep an eye on each other so the other one doesn't do something stupid (like start an unpopular war)?

The problem is you get situations where "the tail wags the dog." Yes, the Republicans got 42% of the vote. But the ultraright White Antiimmigration Brigade (yes I made the WABs up) got 6%, and the Libertarians got 4%. So, to beat the Democrats, the coalition is made, and now we get Green Berrets patroling our borders, and legalized drug use as policies.

Or...to conjur a scenario that scares the likes of Sgallon, Jason, and even most LDS members, the Republicans align with the newly formed Christian Coalition Party, and Creationism becomes the mandatory science curriculum in all public schools.

So, why coalitions may make up larger majorities than one party, in a two-party system, our current system proves much more moderate, because advocacy groups must make their case within majority-party structures, rather than being able to tilt the balance of power.

BTW, IMHO, despite the sometimes heated rhetoric, both the Democrat and Republican parties are quite moderate, by European standards.

I used to live in Canada, and although I never paid attention to the politics in my youth, I do know one thing...I did not see this polarization.  I don't know if that is because of a multiparty system, or because Canadians are just more polite.

Canadians are just more polite. Also, despite the huge land mass of Canada, the issues the national government deals with are mostly similar to those most U.S. states deal with individually.

I admit I don't know enough about politics...maybe multi-party is a bad idea...but SOMETHING has to be done about polarization.  Maybe separation into two nations is the only answer.  For people who love America...is two America's better than one? 

I am convinced the #1 issues that causes the red/blue division to seem so hot is abortion. When Roe v. Wade is overturned, and this issue gets battled out in the legislative branch, then a social consensus will develop, and the rhetoric will diffuse. Perhaps never settled, but diminished. Why? At least both sides will have had their say. As it stands now, pro-lifers believe they were co-opted by a few judges who invented law and so-called rights. Even some prochoicers realize this. So, let's forget a civil war, or a division of the country, and just get Roe v. Wade overturned.

[Snow]

Originally posted by sgallan@Dec 13 2005, 05:16 AM

Yes - the horror! Spending forever with an all-kind, all just God whose primary purpose is to make man happy.

But only if you kiss his butt and act like a conseravtive Christian in this particular theology. At least that is the popular definition of the LDS god. Other definitions are better, and others are worse....

←

What has gotten into you lately Scott?

You didn't used to pretend to be a deliberate jerk.

[Winnie G]

Prison chaplain did you take what I posted personally?

Jesus told us to do both--not to be ashamed of him, to be ready to give an answer for our faith, yet at the same time to love our neighbor, love our enemy, pray for those who despitefully use us, etc.

Did I say I was ashamed? No

I have family members who quietly whisper behind my back how I am going to burn in hell.

Yup their Christians.

You did not get my points did you?

I am here doing the missionary work the Lord puts in my path with love for others with out finding fault in their own faiths. I have learned much from them and I hoped they have also. Leading one to Christ though loving acts and teaching is being a Christian.

The whole believe or you burn theology is ludicrous and gives the rest of us a bad name.

Those so called Christians are just as bad as the men and women who commit hate crimes disguised under the constitution at Temple square twice a year.

Those that disguise their hate crimes under the label as a Christians are criminals nothing more.

Calling vocal pushy Christians as Jerks does not cut it and in other country’s their criminals.

By the way if I’m asked I tell them I am a Christian and a LDS member for 28 years.

There are ten roads to heaven some take longer to get there but they do get there just the same.

Not every one was destined to be church members. Their eternal progression will be done though temple work and in the millennium.

HF chose others to be Jews Muslims etc how else are we to learn Christ like love.

Why missionary work at all? Faith can not be tested and learned if the whole world is a ice-cream social.

We must learn to love and care for are fellow man not drag them to the river and hold them under till they See The Light!

Just my two cents

Winnie G

[sgallan]

What has gotten into you lately Scott?

You didn't used to pretend to be a deliberate jerk.

You deserved it because you knew what I was talking about. The God you worship is hardly the conventional LDS version.

Or maybe it's too much testosterone....

[prisonchaplain]

Prison chaplain did you take what I posted personally?

No, I don't think so. I'd have to go back and see...we seem to have side-tracked into a political discussion on this string. But, I do not remember being upset or offended.

I have family members who quietly whisper behind my back how I am going to burn in hell.

Yup their Christians. 

You don't have to agree with them. You might consider them wrong, misguided, or even hateful. But, at least know that they believe you are going to hell because you have embraced a false gospel. That is why they may try to deter you, convince you, and worry that you will burn in hell. They don't hate you. They love you. So, you'll either have to agree to disagree, and love each other despite your different theologies, or one side will have to convert.

Keep in mind also, that LDS theology grants them passage into a lesser heaven, and perhaps a second chance after death. Their theology has no promise for you. So, you can be nice, and subtle, and polite and friendly and nonchalante. They feel an urgency to see you change.

The whole believe or you burn theology is ludicrous and gives the rest of us a bad name.

Jesus did not think so, or he wouldn't have told about the Rich Man and Lazurus. The Father would not have issued so many warning about what would happen to the Hebrews if they did not obey his commandments, if he thought warnings and punishments were "ludicrous."

Here's another anecdote from history. Jonathan Edwards is famous for his sermon, "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." It turns out that he seldom taught about hell, and the portion that is excerpted was about five minutes out of his two-hour sermon (normal for the Puritan colonies). After the sermon, the call to repentence was given, and it is said that so many responded, and that throughout the day and into the evening, if you walked the streets of the community, you could hear people callling out to God.

I'm not suggested that "Hellfire and brimstone" should be anyone's regular spiritual dietary staple. However, the teaching is in the Bible, so to totally disregard it would seem perilous.

Those so called Christians are just as bad as the men and women who commit hate crimes disguised under the constitution at Temple square twice a year.  Those that disguise their hate crimes under the label as a Christians are criminals nothing more.  Calling vocal pushy Christians as Jerks does not cut it and in other country’s their criminals.

It would be nice if we could disagree without being disagreeable. However, be careful what you wish for. In France, they would be criminals. But, so would LDS missionaries, Jehovah's Witnesses, evangelicals, and charismatic Catholics. We all get lumped together as "mind control cults," for our "aggressive evangelism." Nobody guaranteed that free speech would be pretty, but the alternative will indeed land some of us in jail--as criminals.

We must learn to love and care for are fellow man not drag them to the river and hold them under till they See The Light!

Oh yes, we're to love them. No doubt. But, we're also to "go and make disciples." That means teaching what Jesus taught. Sometimes that's offensive. Ironically, Jesus' toughest words were usually for religious folk. He was gentle towards sinners, and demanding of those who claimed to know God.

[Snow]

Originally posted by sgallan@Dec 14 2005, 05:50 AM

What has gotten into you lately Scott?

You didn't used to pretend to be a deliberate jerk.

You deserved it because you knew what I was talking about. The God you worship is hardly the conventional LDS version. 

Or maybe it's too much testosterone.... 

←

Hardly - I am pretty orthodox. There is nothing that I believe that isn't generally accepted or taught in official circles or scripture.