Why Liberals Hate Christians

[-Cp]

Here's an article that NAILS it right on the head...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2007/01/28/why_liberals_hate_christians?page=1

[April15]

The quick answer is because we can!

[truthmatters]

Liberals dont hate Christains.

Some like April 15 might but most of the liberals I know are christians.

I dont hate anyone for what they believe but I do hate to see any belief used to create a more hatefilled world like the author of this article does.

[eighballsidepocket]

I know a few bible Christians that are Democrats, but are not what I'd term liberal in many ways.

Maybe call them conservative Democrats, where they are anti-abortion, but still have strong positions for welfare entitlement, and don't see heavier taxation for social reforms as immoral or unbiblical, but have a passon for the less fortunate of life that are our fellow Americans.

I'm not talking about "dead beat" folks that don't want to work or earn an honest dollar, but I think my party, the Republicans, could stand to have a little more empathy towards those that are having a harder time making it economically, and it isn't because they are stupid white trash, or lazy folks of any ethnicity, but just down on luck, and maybe not as well "egu-ma-cated" as those of us with the Bimmers and Audiis of life.

Jesus, said the poor will always be with us. He wasn't being calloused, but was being confronted with social, or humanitarian issues that were important, but were not exactly the aim of His ministry. He grieved for the poor, and if you recall, He never did any miracles in the area of filling folk's bank accounts with lots of silver, but came to minister, and direct folk's hopes towards God, via renewed or new trust and faith. These riches of human life that He spoke of, were not tangible like two cars in every garage, a chicken in every pot, but was inner peace, security in the storms of life, a desire to not envy or covet other's material possessions or greater material blessings, but to look to God for the ultimate in sustenance. This was radical then and it's radical now, especially in this materialistic craving Western culture of ours.

I know that my party the Repubs. are usually branded the bible party, and that's not a bad moniker, but with that moniker comes a responsibility for that party to have some empathy in a fashion that reflects Christ's life. We conservatives can be awfully caloused, when we are confronted with the "down and out" of life. We often look at those less fortunate and think that they just need to clean up their act, and they will be on the right track.

Sadly, it is often the case that we, have big old pine logs in our eyes, at the same time we see or point out minute wood splinters in the eyes of those we see as deficient by their own doing, or making. Oh, how we all need to walk in a less fortunate brother or sister's shoes for a day or week, or until we finally develope some true divine empathy for our fellow man!

I can't find anywhere in the bible where Jesus exhibited a lofty attitude around those who errored or sinned in big or small ways. In fact, He seemed to be more comfortable around those that were more transparent in their lives and were willing to admit their faults and sins, with contrite, repentant attitudes. Maybe that's why He said that He came for the sick, not the well. This "play" on words, probably meant that the "well" were as sick as the "sick" were, but just didn''t want to admit it. For the bible explicity says that all of mankind has fallen short of the glory of God. That includes Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. They sit on lofty perches or high-ground and judge others who stumble through life at every step and corner.

I think one party who claims the ownership of compassion, has carried compassion out too far to the place of being "enablers" not unlike what is learned in AA meeting with recovering alcoholics or other drug addicted folks. Enabling holds a thin, tenuous line between true help and damaging help. Too much help for a human being can create an crippled-for-life adult or a child in an adult body.

There has to be a balance here, folks. In both parties. One party has an over-abundance of hard, cold, black and white judgementalists, while the other is dominated by over-the-top compassion to the point of ruining individuals human lives, in respect to development in to energized, goal oriented, people, with pride in their own achievements.

I think that there have been politicians in both parties that have claimed or pronounced their Christian faith to garner votes, but have lacked what I would call, the actual, "good fruit" in their lives that is indicative of owning the moniker of "Christian". Those "good fruits" are the out-pouring or resultant behaviour and actions of life that exhibit true charity/love, mercy, compassion, empathy, and so many other positive encouraging traits.

I'd much rather that a person who is a Christian, let the life of Christ be seen and not advertised in their lives. Being a Christian is not a privilege like a driver's license or the right to vote. It is a "life", an "abandonment" of the old ways of life, that centered around "me, myself, and I" as the little man-made god of one's life. It is the acknowledgement that one is not trully lord and commander of one's life, but is a vessel that was designed to bring glory to its Maker and Designer. That's a hard "sell" in this materialistic, self-identity craving world.

Anyway, I think you'll find fine Christians in both major American political partys. I just question some of those in each party that "brandy about" their Christianity in ways and actions that don't really reflect what the bible revealed of the nature of Christ, in whom these Christians claim to belong.

[April15]

Liberals dont hate Christains.

Some like April 15 might but most of the liberals I know are christians.

I dont hate anyone for what they believe but I do hate to see any belief used to create a more hatefilled world like the author of this article does.Oh come on! You don't think anyone will believe you? Just tell them what they think already! You won't change their minds even if you wined up in heaven and they don't.

[Mr. P]

Liberals dont hate Christains.

Some like April 15 might but most of the liberals I know are christians.

I dont hate anyone for what they believe but I do hate to see any belief used to create a more hatefilled world like the author of this article does.

I agree. Actually I've never heard anyone say "I hate Christians".
I have heard some so called 'Christians" say they HATE liberals though.

Go figure.

[actsnoblemartin]

They hate all religion, they just dont have the balls to say it.


Here's an article that NAILS it right on the head...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2007/01/28/why_liberals_hate_christians?page=1

[actsnoblemartin]

hating christians is no better then hating blacks, jews, gays, or women.


Hate is not what we should strive for, for common sense, rational thought, solutions.

sure SOME liberals upset me, but I have met liberals in real , on this board, and even in my own family, who are some of the most kind hearted decent people.

So, I try very hard not to lump people into a catagory.


The quick answer is because we can!

[diuretic]

I would think liberals don't give a toss about someone's religion, just where they are on certain issues. Given the central plank of the article's argument has been taken away I declare it load of old tosh :laugh2:

[darin]

Liberals dont hate Christains.

Some like April 15 might but most of the liberals I know are christians.


It's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to hold to today's "Liberal" Ideals and be a christian. Nobody can have conflicting beliefs, either they stand up for, and support Christian principles, or they do not.

[retiredman]

They hate all religion, they just dont have the balls to say it.


bullshit.

I am a liberal by most people's measure...

I am also a devout Christian who JUST logged on after coming home from church where I am a choir member, a deacon, a former trustee and a current member of the church council. Often times in the past, I have been asked to fill in for our minister and lead worship and preach.

I think that you should knock off your insults when you clearly don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[darin]

I am also a devout Christian....a deacon, a former trustee and a current member of the church council...

REALLY??


you clearly don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

lmao. I think you're lying about being a deacon and current member of the church council. I think you're making that up. Nobody who is a 'devout christian' can believe the kind of stuff you spout, OR claim to be so Godly. In fact, I'd bet a REAL 'devout' christian would NEVER 'brag' about their holiness. The fact you do means to me it's yet another fantasy-story you've made up on the spot to make your POV look better. Ironic it makes it look WORSE.

[retiredman]

REALLY??



lmao. I think you're lying about being a deacon and current member of the church council. I think you're making that up. Nobody who is a 'devout christian' can believe the kind of stuff you spout, OR claim to be so Godly. In fact, I'd bet a REAL 'devout' christian would NEVER 'brag' about their holiness. The fact you do means to me it's yet another fantasy-story you've made up on the spot to make your POV look better. Ironic it makes it look WORSE.

you really need to know that I value your opinion of me about as much as I would value a bucket of warm spit.

Being a christian does not require one to not use coarse language.... only to not take the Lord's name in vain... and again...I only mention my religious life to counter martin's assinine suggestion that liberals hate all religion.

[darin]

I think you're a liar. And I'm not talking about coarse language. I'm talking about your attitude with MOST people with whom you disagree. I'm talking about the image you project.

I think Liberals LOVE religion, actually. Global Warming. Macro-Evolution. Sexuality. Social-cripling.

The thing is - DEVOUT Christians know christianity is not 'mere religion' and would likely take exception to being called such.

;)

[Mr. P]

It's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to hold to today's "Liberal" Ideals and be a christian. Nobody can have conflicting beliefs, either they stand up for, and support Christian principles, or they do not.

Ahhhhhh the "perfect" Christian! Haven't met one yet.

[darin]

Ahhhhhh the "perfect" Christian! Haven't met one yet.

Nobody has. The foolish, however, use that as an excuse to avoid God. The wise, however, use that as motivation to strive for Godliness.

[typomaniac]

It's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to hold to today's "Liberal" Ideals and be a christian. Nobody can have conflicting beliefs, either they stand up for, and support Christian principles, or they do not.

Striving for godliness is striving for liberalism. Jesus was nothing if not a far-left liberal.

[darin]

Striving for godliness is striving for liberalism. Jesus was nothing if not a far-left liberal.

You're insane.

[JohnDoe]

I know a few bible Christians that are Democrats, but are not what I'd term liberal in many ways.

Maybe call them conservative Democrats, where they are anti-abortion, but still have strong positions for welfare entitlement, and don't see heavier taxation for social reforms as immoral or unbiblical, but have a passon for the less fortunate of life that are our fellow Americans.

I'm not talking about "dead beat" folks that don't want to work or earn an honest dollar, but I think my party, the Republicans, could stand to have a little more empathy towards those that are having a harder time making it economically, and it isn't because they are stupid white trash, or lazy folks of any ethnicity, but just down on luck, and maybe not as well "egu-ma-cated" as those of us with the Bimmers and Audiis of life.

Jesus, said the poor will always be with us. He wasn't being calloused, but was being confronted with social, or humanitarian issues that were important, but were not exactly the aim of His ministry. He grieved for the poor, and if you recall, He never did any miracles in the area of filling folk's bank accounts with lots of silver, but came to minister, and direct folk's hopes towards God, via renewed or new trust and faith. These riches of human life that He spoke of, were not tangible like two cars in every garage, a chicken in every pot, but was inner peace, security in the storms of life, a desire to not envy or covet other's material possessions or greater material blessings, but to look to God for the ultimate in sustenance. This was radical then and it's radical now, especially in this materialistic craving Western culture of ours.

I know that my party the Repubs. are usually branded the bible party, and that's not a bad moniker, but with that moniker comes a responsibility for that party to have some empathy in a fashion that reflects Christ's life. We conservatives can be awfully caloused, when we are confronted with the "down and out" of life. We often look at those less fortunate and think that they just need to clean up their act, and they will be on the right track.

Sadly, it is often the case that we, have big old pine logs in our eyes, at the same time we see or point out minute wood splinters in the eyes of those we see as deficient by their own doing, or making. Oh, how we all need to walk in a less fortunate brother or sister's shoes for a day or week, or until we finally develope some true divine empathy for our fellow man!

I can't find anywhere in the bible where Jesus exhibited a lofty attitude around those who errored or sinned in big or small ways. In fact, He seemed to be more comfortable around those that were more transparent in their lives and were willing to admit their faults and sins, with contrite, repentant attitudes. Maybe that's why He said that He came for the sick, not the well. This "play" on words, probably meant that the "well" were as sick as the "sick" were, but just didn''t want to admit it. For the bible explicity says that all of mankind has fallen short of the glory of God. That includes Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. They sit on lofty perches or high-ground and judge others who stumble through life at every step and corner.

I think one party who claims the ownership of compassion, has carried compassion out too far to the place of being "enablers" not unlike what is learned in AA meeting with recovering alcoholics or other drug addicted folks. Enabling holds a thin, tenuous line between true help and damaging help. Too much help for a human being can create an crippled-for-life adult or a child in an adult body.

There has to be a balance here, folks. In both parties. One party has an over-abundance of hard, cold, black and white judgementalists, while the other is dominated by over-the-top compassion to the point of ruining individuals human lives, in respect to development in to energized, goal oriented, people, with pride in their own achievements.

I think that there have been politicians in both parties that have claimed or pronounced their Christian faith to garner votes, but have lacked what I would call, the actual, "good fruit" in their lives that is indicative of owning the moniker of "Christian". Those "good fruits" are the out-pouring or resultant behaviour and actions of life that exhibit true charity/love, mercy, compassion, empathy, and so many other positive encouraging traits.

I'd much rather that a person who is a Christian, let the life of Christ be seen and not advertised in their lives. Being a Christian is not a privilege like a driver's license or the right to vote. It is a "life", an "abandonment" of the old ways of life, that centered around "me, myself, and I" as the little man-made god of one's life. It is the acknowledgement that one is not trully lord and commander of one's life, but is a vessel that was designed to bring glory to its Maker and Designer. That's a hard "sell" in this materialistic, self-identity craving world.

Anyway, I think you'll find fine Christians in both major American political partys. I just question some of those in each party that "brandy about" their Christianity in ways and actions that don't really reflect what the bible revealed of the nature of Christ, in whom these Christians claim to belong.

THANK YOU for writing this eightball, I truely believe it was God inspired!

jd

[Mr. P]

Nobody has. The foolish, however, use that as an excuse to avoid God. The wise, however, use that as motivation to strive for Godliness.

Errrrrrrr...Ya sure?

[typomaniac]

You're insane.

Surely you don't believe Jesus was a conservative, do you? If so, you're way more insane than I am.

[darin]

Surely you don't believe Jesus was a conservative, do you? If so, you're way more insane than I am.

You want to play the little "The conservatives of the day were the pharasees" game, don't you?

Wow.

[retiredman]

does any conservative christian really really believe that Jesus would have approved of "shock and awe" as that termis applied to our initial aerial bombardment of the densely populated city of Baghdad at the beginning of the war launched to rid Saddam of HIS weapons of mass destruction that he didn't happen to have?

[darin]

does any conservative christian really really believe that Jesus would have approved of "shock and awe" as that termis applied to our initial aerial bombardment of the densely populated city of Baghdad at the beginning of the war launched to rid Saddam of HIS weapons of mass destruction that he didn't happen to have?

Absolutely. I believe Jesus was saddened, but not surprised. He knows the Evil saddam caused lead to his own downfall.

Your question however, again betrays your dishonesty in claiming the war was to 'rid saddam of his wmd'...The war was to 'ensure the man who claimed to have them; who every major intel source confirmed he had them - did NOT, in fact, have those types of weapons.

[BoogyMan]

bullshit.

I am a liberal by most people's measure...

I am also a devout Christian who JUST logged on after coming home from church where I am a choir member, a deacon, a former trustee and a current member of the church council. Often times in the past, I have been asked to fill in for our minister and lead worship and preach.

I think that you should knock off your insults when you clearly don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

And yet you start a post in which you wish to make a point about your Christianity with profanity and end it the same way.

sniff..... sniff....., smells like hypocrisy to me.

[retiredman]

Absolutely. I believe Jesus was saddened, but not surprised. He knows the Evil saddam caused lead to his own downfall.

Your question however, again betrays your dishonesty in claiming the war was to 'rid saddam of his wmd'...The war was to 'ensure the man who claimed to have them; who every major intel source confirmed he had them - did NOT, in fact, have those types of weapons.

run that past your clergyman...if you know who he is.:finger3:

[retiredman]

And yet you start a post in which you wish to make a point about your Christianity with profanity and end it the same way.

sniff..... sniff....., smells like hypocrisy to me.


Now if you could find where I took the Lord's name in vain, you might have me on that hypocrisy charge.

I'll wait.

This idea that Christians cannot use obscene language is a fictional construct.

[darin]

run that past your clergyman...if you know who he is.:finger3:


You need to understand the little smilie you used there? that's a soft-kind Finger smilie, as buddies would give to one-another.

I have no 'clergyman' - I don't attend any churches where the guide of the congregation has any title other than his first name.

[retiredman]

I was trying to be kind.

So you are saying that your "church" is not led by someone who has studied divinity and been ordained?

Why am I not surprised?

[retiredman]

cler·gy /ˈklɜrdʒi/
–noun, plural -gies. the group or body of ordained persons in a religion, as distinguished from the laity.

I guess if you actually went to any church that worships Jesus Christ as the risen Lord and Son of God, you would KNOW that....brother.

[darin]

I was trying to be kind.

So you are saying that your "church" is not led by someone who has studied divinity and been ordained?

Why am I not surprised?

No - I'm saying BECAUSE I attend church led by somebody divinely-ordained by God, we don't need to call them 'clergy' or 'father' or 'reverend'. I don't call him Doctor (i could), I don't call him pastor (as in Pastor-so-and-so). I call him Art.

Because that's his name. He's no more-holy than anybody; He's a man with a servant's heart and ear for the Holy Spirit.

[BoogyMan]

Now if you could find where I took the Lord's name in vain, you might have me on that hypocrisy charge.

I'll wait.

This idea that Christians cannot use obscene language is a fictional construct.

Yet again I have to teach you who claims to have a knowledge of the word and to be a leader in the church, yet whose speech doesn't meet the design as the word of God describes.

Your hypocrisy knows very little bounds manfrommaine. Would you stand before the congregation and speak to them in that fashion?


5 Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity.

6 Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.


A fictional construct? You have no biblical knowledge upon which to base that assertion, and are simply trying to obfuscate the fact that you just pointed to your own hypocrisy without intending to.


Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.

Now, would you care to defend your assertion that such speech is not condemned?

[retiredman]

Yet again I have to teach you who claims to have a knowledge of the word and to be a leader in the church, yet whose speech doesn't meet the design as the word of God describes.

Your hypocrisy knows very little bounds manfrommaine. Would you stand before the congregation and speak to them in that fashion?



A fictional construct? You have no biblical knowledge upon which to base that assertion, and are simply trying to obfuscate the fact that you just pointed to your own hypocrisy without intending to.



Now, would you care to defend your assertion that such speech is not condemned?

yeah....sure I will. My speech is often "seasoned with salt".... and that is what you all are criticizing.

and please show me some biblical definition of "unwholesome". For you to suggest that a word written in Aramaic, translated into greek and then latin and then, after a millenium into english means the same thing as "unwholeseome" means today is really pretty silly, wouldn't you think?

And of COURSE I would not speak to my congregation using such language...they do not need to be spoken to the way idiots like you do...and the scripture clearly states that the needs of the moment dictate the content.

[darin]

And of COURSE I would not speak to my congregation using such language...they do not need to be spoken to the way idiots like you do...and the scripture clearly states that the needs of the moment dictate the content.

Ya know? You just HAD to put in that little barb about 'us' idiots here on the forums, didn't you? Your arrogance is nauseating.

[retiredman]

Ya know? You just HAD to put in that little barb about 'us' idiots here on the forums, didn't you? Your arrogance is nauseating.

the "you" was singular....and aimed squarely at the idiot to whom I was replying....but, I guess...if the shoe fits....

are you puking yet? I sure as hell hope so.

[darin]

the "you" was singular....and aimed squarely at the idiot to whom I was replying....but, I guess...if the shoe fits....

are you puking yet? I sure as hell hope so.

That wasn't even a NOBLE attempt to backpedal.

[retiredman]

That wasn't even a NOBLE attempt to backpedal.

that is correct. It was not an attempt to backpedal by any measure.

[darin]

that is correct. It was not an attempt to backpedal by any measure.

You have NO credibility in this thread. To insult BoogyMan for his rational, well-thought-out post, which was free from attack or flame? You are desperate; Most people in that category result to insults. You're no different.

[BoogyMan]

yeah....sure I will. My speech is often "seasoned with salt".... and that is what you all are criticizing.

and please show me some biblical definition of "unwholesome". For you to suggest that a word written in Aramaic, translated into greek and then latin and then, after a millenium into english means the same thing as "unwholeseome" means today is really pretty silly, wouldn't you think?

And of COURSE I would not speak to my congregation using such language...they do not need to be spoken to the way idiots like you do...and the scripture clearly states that the needs of the moment dictate the content.

The salt spoken of in the context of those verses makes the speech better manfrommaine, not profane. What I am criticizing is the complete hypocrisy you represent here. You make a claim to preach and to be a deacon in your church, yet you speak like one who has no self control and no respect for the bible you claim to represent and obviously have little knowledge of.

If taking you to task over the complete hypocrisy of your position with regard to the scripture makes me an idiot, let me be so for eternity. The casual reader will notice that I backup my claims in this regard WITH scripture and do not pretend to speak AROUND scripture as do you.

As for your asinine assertion that the needs of the moment justify your foul mouth in the eyes of God, you should actually read the bible sometime, you will be aghast at how utterly, completely, and foolishly wrong you are.

The greek word sapros which is translated as rotten or corrupt or unwholesome is pretty clear manfrommaine. With regard to speech it becomes crystal clear.

[retiredman]

that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree with it, and suggest that unwholesome does not equate to profane regardless of your wanting to make it so.

I remember the most foul mouthed and salty naval officer I EVER served with was a catholic chaplain.

I am sure he would disagree with you as well.

I think that "dirty" language is not at all hypocritical for Christians/

"Christians" supporting war in Iraq...supporting shock and awe...now THAT is hypocritical.

[Gaffer]

that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree with it, and suggest that unwholesome does not equate to profane regardless of your wanting to make it so.

I remember the most foul mouthed and salty naval officer I EVER served with was a catholic chaplain.

I am sure he would disagree with you as well.

I think that "dirty" language is not at all hypocritical for Christians/

"Christians" supporting war in Iraq...supporting shock and awe...now THAT is hypocritical.

Your back to shock and awe again. No matter what the topic is in a thread, for you its always shock and awe. Talk about being stuck on stupid. You really need to get new talking points.

[-Cp]

I firmly believe that God allows Liiberals to run amuck in order that Christians can get some practice doing what what Christ said "Love your enemies (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=44&version=31&context=verse)". :)

[BoogyMan]

that is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I disagree with it, and suggest that unwholesome does not equate to profane regardless of your wanting to make it so.

I remember the most foul mouthed and salty naval officer I EVER served with was a catholic chaplain.

I am sure he would disagree with you as well.

I think that "dirty" language is not at all hypocritical for Christians/

"Christians" supporting war in Iraq...supporting shock and awe...now THAT is hypocritical.

You cannot, however, make your point with the exceedingly straightforward definition of the greek word sapros. I would like for you to show me your basis in scripture for the dubious claim that foul language is not hypocritical for a Christian to engage in.

The chaplain probably knew as little of the scripture as you apparently do manfrommaine.

[retiredman]

greek: rotten or corrupt or unwholesome???

calling someone a prick is not rotten.... it certainly is not corrupt and I am not even sure what "unwholesome" means through the veil of the centuries....

I mean, just a little over a hundred years ago, when Queen Victoria called something "awful", it was a compliment. Ancient greek is the language that aramaic was translated into and from there to latin....and there to english.... let's play "telephone" through two millenia and four different languages and try to make a big deal out of using words as some sort of litmus test for someone's faith.

like I said.... getting wrapped around the axle of "dirty words" while approving of shock and awe is really pretty much the definition of hypocritical.

My using the words shit piss and fuck in sentences has absolutely no bearing on my belief in Jesus as the risen Lord.

[darin]

My using the words shit piss and fuck in sentences has absolutely no bearing on my belief in Jesus as the risen Lord.

Satan himself believes Christ is the risen Lord. Your gratuitous use of such language shows you may be lacking 'understand' of what it means to live a spirit-filled life.

[retiredman]

that may be.... but trust me, it really is none of your concern.

I happen to doubt your 'understandING' of that same thing, but I try not to rub my unsupported opinions in your face.

[darin]

I haven't seen you support ANY of your positions in this thread.

When I see people Claim Christ, but their behavior (words) point to the contrary, it IS my concern to set the record straight.

[BoogyMan]

greek: rotten or corrupt or unwholesome???

calling someone a prick is not rotten.... it certainly is not corrupt and I am not even sure what "unwholesome" means through the veil of the centuries....

I mean, just a little over a hundred years ago, when Queen Victoria called something "awful", it was a compliment. Ancient greek is the language that aramaic was translated into and from there to latin....and there to english.... let's play "telephone" through two millenia and four different languages and try to make a big deal out of using words as some sort of litmus test for someone's faith.

like I said.... getting wrapped around the axle of "dirty words" while approving of shock and awe is really pretty much the definition of hypocritical.

My using the words shit piss and fuck in sentences has absolutely no bearing on my belief in Jesus as the risen Lord.

Unfortunately for you and your unfounded and foolish assertions, manfrommaine, most of the texts of the New Testament were written in Koine greek, a dead language that has not changed in thousands of years. I am using a greek-english interlinear to make my assertions, what are you using? It truly is a silly question as you are simply using your "I think so" which is nothing in the face of reason and truth.

Next time you hypocritically get up in front of your congregation, go ahead and "salt" your speech with those words, we will see just how quickly those folks remove the hypocrisy from among themselves.

[retiredman]

the "record" of my faith is not altered by my use of language that YOU don't approve of...and it is certainly nothing that needs to be set straight by you.

[retiredman]

Unfortunately for you and your unfounded and foolish assertions, manfrommaine, most of the texts of the New Testament were written in Koine greek, a dead language that has not changed in thousands of years. I am using a greek-english interlinear to make my assertions, what are you using? It truly is a silly question as you are simply using your "I think so" which is nothing in the face of reason and truth.

Next time you hypocritically get up in front of your congregation, go ahead and "salt" your speech with those words, we will see just how quickly those folks remove the hypocrisy from among themselves.

Please... I really don't need you to edit my sermons. The congregation loves them the way they are.

[darin]

the "record" of my faith is not altered by my use of language that YOU don't approve of...and it is certainly nothing that needs to be set straight by you.

Yet you're driving your 'witness' (the image of christ ppl are SUPPOSED to see) down into the toilet...that doesn't bother you, eh?

Keep in mind - i don't care about the words you choose, but the message you convey with them.

[darin]

Please... I really don't need you to edit my sermons. The congregation loves them the way they are.

Oh my. I REALLY pray God shows you Mercy. If you...YOU are in a position to influence others in their faith...that's dreadfully-scary.

[gabosaurus]

The original post is complete and utter bullshit. As have been many of the responses. Total garbage. Along with some of the posters.

Whether you are a liberal or conservative has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian. A Christian is someone who has given their life to Christ. Such as myself. Believe it or not, I am a Christian.
I am not going to argue semantics with you. Your interpretation of what is "Christian," or what makes a "good Christian," is no more meaningful or relevant than mine.
There are those of you that openly proclaim your love of God, and how you are the perfect Christian. Do you honestly believe our Father would not see through your veil of hate, deceit and bigotry?
Christ is the focal point of all religion. Yet, many of you openly express hatred toward a different religion. That translate into a hatred of the Word of God.
Deny it all you want. You will be a liar.

[BoogyMan]

The original post is complete and utter bullshit. As have been many of the responses. Total garbage. Along with some of the posters.

Whether you are a liberal or conservative has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian. A Christian is someone who has given their life to Christ. Such as myself. Believe it or not, I am a Christian.
I am not going to argue semantics with you. Your interpretation of what is "Christian," or what makes a "good Christian," is no more meaningful or relevant than mine.
There are those of you that openly proclaim your love of God, and how you are the perfect Christian. Do you honestly believe our Father would not see through your veil of hate, deceit and bigotry?
Christ is the focal point of all religion. Yet, many of you openly express hatred toward a different religion. That translate into a hatred of the Word of God.
Deny it all you want. You will be a liar.

Wow, gabbo, you claim those who call for man to adhere to the word of God as the N.T. calls it out as those being involved in hate, bigotry, and other sins while posting a hateful and bigoted post.

The circular logic and hypocrisy of having posted such a condemnation while participating whole-heartedly in its contents is mind boggling and indicative of a lack of knowledge.

[retiredman]

Oh my. I REALLY pray God shows you Mercy. If you...YOU are in a position to influence others in their faith...that's dreadfully-scary.

boo


Yet you're driving your 'witness' (the image of christ ppl are SUPPOSED to see) down into the toilet...that doesn't bother you, eh?

Keep in mind - i don't care about the words you choose, but the message you convey with them.

let me be very clear: I am not bothered one iota by the idea that my faith causes YOU, in particular, any concern.

The people who inhabit my REAL world - my fellow parishioners, my friends, my co-workers, my family.... they all know me and the vast majority of them think quite highly of me and vice versa.

the opinion of some yahoo in cyberspace on a power trip does not bother me in the least.

[darin]

boo



let me be very clear: I am not bothered one iota by the idea that my faith causes YOU, in particular, any concern.

The people who inhabit my REAL world - my fellow parishioners, my friends, my co-workers, my family.... they all know me and the vast majority of them think quite highly of me and vice versa.

the opinion of some yahoo in cyberspace on a power trip does not bother me in the least.

You may-well be an example of somebody who lives two lives. To your family and friends you're one thing - online you're a self-loving braggart without any capacity for love or gentleness.

It reminds me of some of those pastors from the news. Those guys who preach on sunday, then do Meth with a male prostitute on monday.

[retiredman]

You may-well be an example of somebody who lives two lives. To your family and friends you're one thing - online you're a self-loving braggart without any capacity for love or gentleness.

It reminds me of some of those pastors from the news. Those guys who preach on sunday, then do Meth with a male prostitute on monday.

I really can't recall you reaching out for my love and gentleness. Did I miss that?

[darin]

I really can't recall you reaching out for my love and gentleness. Did I miss that?

hah...you're incorrigible and insufferable.

[Abbey Marie]

Ephesians 5:1-6 (KJV)

Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;


Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.


Eph 5:3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;


Eph 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.


Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.


And of course, we have one of the Commandments:

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."

[retiredman]

Eph 5:4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.



filthiness? not me. I bathe daily. I do not find anything I say to be foolish - but I acknowledge that others might not share that opinion. I certainly never INTEND to be foolish. I am guilty of jesting from time to time, however. I wonder why the sanctimonious bible beaters aren't going after Jay Leno and Dave Letterman and John Stewart for their incessant "jesting"? Don't comedians know that they ain't gonna get to heaven by jesting?

[retiredman]

hah...you're incorrigible and insufferable.

feel free to put me on "ignore"... but last I checked, incorrigibility and insufferability were not against the rules here.

[Abbey Marie]

filthiness? not me. I bathe daily. I do not find anything I say to be foolish - but I acknowledge that others might not share that opinion. I certainly never INTEND to be foolish. I am guilty of jesting from time to time, however. I wonder why the sanctimonious bible beaters aren't going after Jay Leno and Dave Letterman and John Stewart for their incessant "jesting"? Don't comedians know that they ain't gonna get to heaven by jesting?

Actually, many interpretations show this is as "coarse jesting". You know, like what Kathy whatsername did at the Emmy's? Off-color joking, etc. I think you know what coarse means, right? No one is criticizing humor on the whole.

Why do you choose to interpet the Bible so mockingly, or am I just missing your coarse jesting here? ;):)

[retiredman]

Actually, many interpretations show this is as "coarse jesting". You know, like what Kathy whatsername did at the Emmy's? Off-color joking, etc. I think you know what coarse means, right? No one is criticizing humor on the whole.

Why do you choose to interpet the Bible so mockingly, or am I just missing your coarse jesting here? ;):)

So anyone who tells a dirty joke is going to hell? Anyone who tells an off color story cannot be a Christian?

I do not interpret the Bible mockingly. I mock people who interpret the Bible literally....and only after they have done so in conjunction with diatribes that claim I cannot be a christian if I don't do the same.

My denomination, the United Church of Christ, which traces its lineage to the pilgrims, is one that does NOT interpret the bible literally. I have grown up in its traditions and I consider myself to be a devout committed Christian who keeps the mission of the church a major part of my life.

[Abbey Marie]

So anyone who tells a dirty joke is going to hell? Anyone who tells an off color story cannot be a Christian?

I do not interpret the Bible mockingly. I mock people who interpret the Bible literally....and only after they have done so in conjunction with diatribes that claim I cannot be a christian if I don't do the same.

My denomination, the United Church of Christ, which traces its lineage to the pilgrims, is one that does NOT interpret the bible literally. I have grown up in its traditions and I consider myself to be a devout committed Christian who keeps the mission of the church a major part of my life.

I understand the letters from the Apostles as an attempt to help people live fuller Christian lives. I don't believe anyone here or in the Bible said you can't be a Christian if you tell a crude joke. I think you are an intelligent man, so I must assume you are exaggerating that to try to win a point.

As for your relationship with God and with the Bible, that is your choice to make. Someday, we will all find out how right or wrong we were. Until then, God bless you.

[retiredman]

I understand the letters from the Apostles as an attempt to help people live fuller Christian lives. I don't believe anyone here or in the Bible said you can't be a Christian if you tell a crude joke. I think you are an intelligent man, so I must assume you are exaggerating that to try to win a point.

As for your relationship with God and with the Bible, that is your choice to make. Someday, we will all find out how right or wrong we were. Until then, God bless you.

and you, too!

[Abbey Marie]

and you, too!

:beer:

[BoogyMan]

So anyone who tells a dirty joke is going to hell? Anyone who tells an off color story cannot be a Christian?

Man sins and should be of the mind to repent of such sin. Your view is that man can simply continue in such error because you reject the teachings in the book left for us by the God you claim to serve manfrommaine.


I do not interpret the Bible mockingly. I mock people who interpret the Bible literally....and only after they have done so in conjunction with diatribes that claim I cannot be a christian if I don't do the same.

I always enjoy this particular argument above all others as the scriptures destroy it so handily.


19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Obviously the bible is to be taken for what it is, the will of God as delivered by His inspired writers.



My denomination, the United Church of Christ, which traces its lineage to the pilgrims, is one that does NOT interpret the bible literally. I have grown up in its traditions and I consider myself to be a devout committed Christian who keeps the mission of the church a major part of my life.

Why attempt to serve manfrommaine, you reject His will as delivered plainly and clearly in His book? With the ideology that you seem to be purporting here, why even make any attempt to be good as you have no basis in scripture for your actions.

[retiredman]

let me get this straight.... you are claiming that a literal interpretation of a passage from one of the epistles in the New Testament of the Bible destroys my argument that the Bible should not be taken literally? Have I got that right?

And look, pal.... you live your faith anyway you want to.... and you can condemn my faith with sanctimonious and righteous indignation if you care to, but don't expect me to do anything other than laugh at your faux piety and pity your narrow vision when you do. OK?

[BoogyMan]

let me get this straight.... you are claiming that a literal interpretation of a passage from one of the epistles in the New Testament of the Bible destroys my argument that the Bible should not be taken literally? Have I got that right?

And look, pal.... you live your faith anyway you want to.... and you can condemn my faith with sanctimonious and righteous indignation if you care to, but don't expect me to do anything other than laugh at your faux piety and pity your narrow vision when you do. OK?

I find it truly interesting, and for that matter very telling, that you claim to stand for a God whose word you disdain.

Yes, I am pointing to the fact that you have nothing upon which to base your supposition manfrommaine. I have condemned your action with scripture and nothing that I have come up with manfrommaine, so your angst isn't aimed at me.

[retiredman]

I find it truly interesting, and for that matter very telling, that you claim to stand for a God whose word you disdain.

Yes, I am pointing to the fact that you have nothing upon which to base your supposition manfrommaine. I have condemned your action with scripture and nothing that I have come up with manfrommaine, so your angst isn't aimed at me.

disdain? If you would come up with any quote from me where I "disdain" the word of God, I would love to see it.

to provide some perspective for you:

dis·dain [dis-deyn, di-steyn]
–verb (used with object) 1. to look upon or treat with contempt; despise; scorn.
2. to think unworthy of notice, response, etc.; consider beneath oneself: to disdain replying to an insult.
–noun 3. a feeling of contempt for anything regarded as unworthy; haughty contempt; scorn.

[darin]

disdain? If you would come up with any quote from me where I "disdain" the word of God, I would love to see it.

You ask impossible things. It's not that you 'say' you have disdain for the word of God, it's HIM asking you to BACK UP your position WITH the word of God, and you not doing a very good job of it. Because you aren't backing up your position with SCRIPTURE, it's logical, at least reasonable to assume you have disdain for His Word. That's what he's getting at.

happy to help! :)

To provide perspective for you:

im·pos·si·ble /ɪmˈpɒsəbəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-pos-uh-buhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc.
2. unable to be done, performed, effected, etc.: an impossible assignment.
3. incapable of being true, as a rumor.
4. not to be done, endured, etc., with any degree of reason or propriety: an impossible situation.
5. utterly impracticable: an impossible plan.
6. hopelessly unsuitable, difficult, or objectionable.

say1 /seɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sey] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, said, say·ing, adverb, noun, interjection
–verb (used with object)
1. to utter or pronounce; speak: What did you say? I said “Hello!”
2. to express in words; state; declare; word: Say it clearly and simply. It's hard to know how to say this tactfully.
3. to state as an opinion or judgment: I say her plan is the better one.
4. to be certain, precise, or assured about; determine: It is hard to say what is wrong.
5. to recite or repeat: to say one's prayers.
6. to report or allege; maintain: People say he will resign.
7. to express (a message, viewpoint, etc.), as through a literary or other artistic medium: a writer with something to say.
8. to indicate or show: What does your watch say?
9. to assume as a hypothesis or estimate: Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it's true.
–verb (used without object)
10. to speak; declare; express an opinion.
–adverb
11. approximately; about: It's, say, 14 feet long.
12. for example: If you serve, say tuna fish and potato chips, it will cost much less.
–noun
13. what a person says or has to say.
14. the right or opportunity to speak, decide, or exercise influence: to have one's say in choosing the candidate.
15. a turn to say something: It is now my say.
–interjection
16. (used to express surprise, get attention, etc.)
—Idiom
17. that is to say, that is what is meant; in other words: I believe his account of the story, that is to say, I have no reason to doubt it.

po·si·tion /pəˈzɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puh-zish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. condition with reference to place; location; situation.
2. a place occupied or to be occupied; site: a fortified position.
3. the proper, appropriate, or usual place: out of position.
4. situation or condition, esp. with relation to favorable or unfavorable circumstances: to be in an awkward position; to bargain from a position of strength.
5. status or standing: He has a position to maintain in the community.
6. high standing, as in society; important status: a person of wealth and position.
7. a post of employment: a position in a bank.
8. manner of being placed, disposed, or arranged: the relative position of the hands of a clock.
9. bodily posture or attitude: to be in a sitting position.
10. mental attitude; stand: one's position on a controversial topic.
11. the act of positing.
12. something that is posited.
13. Ballet. any of the five basic positions of the feet with which every step or movement begins and ends. Compare first position, second position, third position, fourth position, fifth position.
14. Music.
a. the arrangement of tones in a chord, esp. with regard to the location of the root tone in a triad or to the distance of the tones from each other. Compare close position, inversion (def. 8a), open position, root position.
b. any of the places on the fingerboard of a stringed instrument where the fingers stop the strings to produce the variouspitches.
c. any of the places to which the slide of a trombone is shifted to produce changes in pitch.
15. Finance. a commitment to buy or sell securities: He took a large position in defense stocks.
16. Classical Prosody. the situation of a short vowel before two or more consonants or their equivalent, making the syllable metrically long.
–verb (used with object)
17. to put in a particular or appropriate position; place.
18. to determine the position of; locate.

Scrip·ture /ˈskrɪptʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skrip-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Often, Scriptures. Also called Holy Scripture, Holy Scriptures. the sacred writings of the Old or New Testaments or both together.
2. (often lowercase) any writing or book, esp. when of a sacred or religious nature.
3. (sometimes lowercase) a particular passage from the Bible; text.

[GW in Ohio]

They hate all religion, they just dont have the balls to say it.

It's really ignorant to take a whole group of people (liberals) and say they hate all religion.

I don't hate Christians, just the whiny ones. Like you.

As for the Bible, some of it seems to be transmitted from on high, but I wouldn't take the Bible as my guide through life.

(However, there is a great bluegrass song, called I'm using My Bible for a Roadmap, which I love.)

[BoogyMan]

disdain? If you would come up with any quote from me where I "disdain" the word of God, I would love to see it.

to provide some perspective for you:

dis·dain [dis-deyn, di-steyn]
–verb (used with object) 1. to look upon or treat with contempt; despise; scorn.
2. to think unworthy of notice, response, etc.; consider beneath oneself: to disdain replying to an insult.
–noun 3. a feeling of contempt for anything regarded as unworthy; haughty contempt; scorn.

You don't believe the word of God is of any use manfrommaine or you wouldn't shun its instruction.

God gives us His will through the apostles and tells us how important it is in 2 Timothy 3:17.


16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

We are told to study His will.


15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

He also tells us that the word makes Christians.


Ro 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

So when you claim that we are not to take the word as God as written you obviously are not doing so based upon any understanding of that word, and thus the comment that you have a disdain for it.

[retiredman]

You ask impossible things. It's not that you 'say' you have disdain for the word of God, it's HIM asking you to BACK UP your position WITH the word of God, and you not doing a very good job of it. Because you aren't backing up your position with SCRIPTURE, it's logical, at least reasonable to assume you have disdain for His Word. That's what he's getting at.


Let me get this straight: Your position is that it is reasonable to assume that I have disdain for the word of God because I do not endorse a totally literal interpretation of the Bible? Have I got that right?

[retiredman]

So when you claim that we are not to take the word as God as written you obviously are not doing so based upon any understanding of that word, and thus the comment that you have a disdain for it.

OK...I just wanted to clarify that. You ARE, in fact, using a literal interpretation of passages from the epistles of the New Testament as a defense against my argument that the Bible should not be taken literally.

I think we're done here. Rest assured, there are many many Christians on this planet who do not view either testament of the Bible as a verbatim rule book, but more as an instructive guide for living one's life as Christ wanted us to live it. You clearly think otherwise. We should just agree to disagree... and you should quit attacking my faith. That would be my suggestion, and my fondest wish.

an interesting aside, however:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

do you really think that when Paul was writing this letter to his pal, Timothy, that he considered the letter to be "scripture"?

[BoogyMan]

OK...I just wanted to clarify that. You ARE, in fact, using a literal interpretation of passages from the epistles of the New Testament as a defense against my argument that the Bible should not be taken literally.

I think we're done here. Rest assured, there are many many Christians on this planet who do not view either testament of the Bible as a verbatim rule book, but more as an instructive guide for living one's life as Christ wanted us to live it. You clearly think otherwise. We should just agree to disagree... and you should quit attacking my faith. That would be my suggestion, and my fondest wish.

an interesting aside, however:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

do you really think that when Paul was writing this letter to his pal, Timothy, that he considered the letter to be "scripture"?

I guess I should appreciate the approximately 7 minutes you took to consider my argumentation manfrommaine.

You have nothing upon which to stand here and your line of argumentation that infers your own will can take precedence over that of the God whom you claim to stand for belies your position. I have shown you where the word of God as delivered by the apostles calls for adherance to His word, your choosing not to heed that admonition certainly is disdain.

[GW in Ohio]

I have tried Christianity.

I grew up Catholic and went to church until my late 20s. I've also tried Presbyterianism and Methodism.

My impression of all those church services.....terribly boring and terribly irrelevant.

But if it works for you, that's great. While you're in church on Sunday morning, I'll be doing other stuff. (Some denominations attend church for most of the day, Sunday, don't they? They have services in the morning, then social stuff, then Bible instruction, etc.)

[retiredman]

I guess I should appreciate the approximately 7 minutes you took to consider my argumentation manfrommaine.

You have nothing upon which to stand here and your line of argumentation that infers your own will can take precedence over that of the God whom you claim to stand for belies your position. I have shown you where the word of God as delivered by the apostles calls for adherance to His word, your choosing not to heed that admonition certainly is disdain.

You can call my faith disdaining the word of God until the cows come home. I certainly do not look to you for spiritual guidance and do not value your opinion on this issue. I try pretty hard to follow the words written in red... I may not succeed, but I am pretty sure that Jesus does not think that lack of success makes me a failure. But I suppose you would know that better than me, eh Mr. Piety?

and you never did answer that question about Paul and his letter to Tim.... do you think he was considering that letter as "scripture" as he wrote, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"? Do you think that Barnabas or any of the other authors of the apocrypha thought that THEIR works were "scripture? I bet they are pissed that they didn't make the cut. And clearly, the Council of Trent was far from divinely inspired when they adopted the canon.....

[BoogyMan]

You can call my faith disdaining the word of God until the cows come home. I certainly do not look to you for spiritual guidance and do not value your opinion on this issue. I try pretty hard to follow the words written in red... I may not succeed, but I am pretty sure that Jesus does not think that lack of success makes me a failure. But I suppose you would know that better than me, eh Mr. Piety?

and you never did answer that question about Paul and his letter to Tim.... do you think he was considering that letter as "scripture" as he wrote, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"? Do you think that Barnabas or any of the other authors of the apocrypha thought that THEIR works were "scripture? I bet they are pissed that they didn't make the cut. And clearly, the Council of Trent was far from divinely inspired when they adopted the canon.....

Interesting diversion tactic, trying to discredit the writings of the apostles of Christ. You can choose to disdain the writings of the inspired apostles as you will, and you will still be wrong as shown by scripture. I have done my job here, and that is to point that out to you.

I may now have to change the text under my avatar from "Standup Philosopher" to "Mr. Piety."

I can square my belief by the instuctions in the book manfrommaine, simply put, you cannot.

[Hagbard Celine]

Here's an article that NAILS it right on the head...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2007/01/28/why_liberals_hate_christians?page=1

Liberals, for the most part, don't hate Christians. In fact, most liberals are Christians. This is another in the never-ending line of "bash libs" threads. The source you've linked is the most biased, far-right, Rush-worshipping nazi rubbish site you could've linked to. The article is nothing more than a negative review of a television show and you've somehow seen fit to read deep meaning into it. What a joke. Your conclusive proof that "nails" the so-called reasons why libs supposedly hate Christians is a tv show review. :lol:

[JohnDoe]

Whoever Is Not Against Us Is for Us
38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.



I think it is time for the two of you to accept that you come to Christianity from different perspectives, but you are supporters of Christ, NONE THE LESS.

This is getting to the point of ridiculousness, and hurtful things are being said, that shouldn't be said imo.

Agree to disagree and move on, please.

jd

[BoogyMan]

I think it is time for the two of you to accept that you come to Christianity from different perspectives, but you are supporters of Christ, NONE THE LESS.

This is getting to the point of ridiculousness, and hurtful things are being said, that shouldn't be said imo.

Agree to disagree and move on, please.

jd

Debate can sometimes get testy JohnDoe.

Since when is open and honest discussion ridiculous? We are all adults here are we not?

[JohnDoe]

Debate can sometimes get testy JohnDoe.

Since when is open and honest discussion ridiculous? We are all adults here are we not?

When it gets to the point of one implying one is less sinful than the other....

When it gets to the point of implying the other will be in hell.....

When it gets to the point of implying one's Christianity and belief in Christ is not good enough for you....

When it gets to the point where non-believers can sit back and get their jollies off because 2 Christians are fighting with eachother over mere words, and not Faith in our Lord.

Time to take it off the board....

I agree it has been informative and I have enjoyed reading the scripture that has been posted, but you know as well as I do that you should have done this confrontation and repremand with a fellow Christian OFF the PUBLIC board and in private one on one, if that did not work, then you go to the people in the Church to confront him....

but this "i gotcha" thing that is going on.... seems wrong to me Boogy.

jd

[truthmatters]

Im a non believer and I am not gettig any jollies from this fight I am feeling disapointed in what people claim their beliefs are.

I want you people to follow jesus's teachings because they are Good for mankind. I dont have any problems with your beliefs I just cant FORCE myself to believe in the 'God' aspect of it. I tried at one time and it is just not in me, I felt like a liar so I stopped. Follow the teachings PLEASE! They are good for mankind.

This is why I fear some christains. They talk the talk and it makes them think they are better than me but then they forget to walk the walk. I try to walk the walk. Niether of us are perfect but being a christain does not assure the person will actually walk the walk.

Some of the most moral people I know dont believe in a god or an after life.
It doesnt make then better than christains but it does make them good people who are truely trying to make this world a better place.

Please I beg of you who are not walking the walk (many christians do walk the walk) to just Walk the walk.

[retiredman]

I have never once questioned boogyman's faith in Christ. I have accused him of sanctimonious piety and that is fairly well self-evident.

[Dilloduck]

Im a non believer and I am not gettig any jollies from this fight I am feeling disapointed in what people claim their beliefs are.

I want you people to follow jesus's teachings because they are Good for mankind. I dont have any problems with your beliefs I just cant FORCE myself to believe in the 'God' aspect of it. I tried at one time and it is just not in me, I felt like a liar so I stopped. Follow the teachings PLEASE! They are good for mankind.

This is why I fear some christains. They talk the talk and it makes them think they are better than me but then they forget to walk the walk. I try to walk the walk. Niether of us are perfect but being a christain does not assure the person will actually walk the walk.

Some of the most moral people I know dont believe in a god or an after life.
It doesnt make then better than christains but it does make them good people who are truely trying to make this world a better place.

Please I beg of you who are not walking the walk (many christians do walk the walk) to just Walk the walk.

Do non-christians have some manner in which they "walk" ?

[truthmatters]

I have never once questioned boogyman's faith in Christ. I have accused him of sanctimonious piety and that is fairly well self-evident.


My comments were not really aimed at either one of you guys really.
I was just trying to reasure John that I and others dot really get jollies out of christians not walking the walk.

I think you do try to walk the walk.

[BoogyMan]

When it gets to the point of one implying one is less sinful than the other....

When it gets to the point of implying the other will be in hell.....

When it gets to the point of implying one's Christianity and belief in Christ is not good enough for you....

When it gets to the point where non-believers can sit back and get their jollies off because 2 Christians are fighting with eachother over mere words, and not Faith in our Lord.

Time to take it off the board....

I agree it has been informative and I have enjoyed reading the scripture that has been posted, but you know as well as I do that you should have done this confrontation and repremand with a fellow Christian OFF the PUBLIC board and in private one on one, if that did not work, then you go to the people in the Church to confront him....

but this "i gotcha" thing that is going on.... seems wrong to me Boogy.

jd

I have to disagree JohnDoe. A public discussion is apropos. If you consider the scripture you are discussing you will find that is in the case of the individual sinning against me personally. Mathew 18:15-17

I am not posting any kind of "I gotcha" commentary, I am posting truth. Anyone who hears will have been edified.

[JohnDoe]

I have never once questioned boogyman's faith in Christ. I have accused him of sanctimonious piety and that is fairly well self-evident.I never said you did MM. ;)

[retiredman]

I have to disagree JohnDoe. A public discussion is apropos. If you consider the scripture you are discussing you will find that is in the case of the individual sinning against me personally. Mathew 18:15-17

I am not posting any kind of "I gotcha" commentary, I am posting truth. Anyone who hears will have been edified.


and please explain how I have "sinned" against you, my brother? by suggesting that you were self righteous and sanctimonious? You may not enjoy such a frank and honest appraisal, but it is hardly a "sin"....

[BoogyMan]

and please explain how I have "sinned" against you, my brother? by suggesting that you were self righteous and sanctimonious? You may not enjoy such a frank and honest appraisal, but it is hardly a "sin"....

I think you misunderstand my commentary manfrommaine. I was speaking with JohnDoe about his concern that I was taking the wrong action discussing this with you publicly and I pointed out to him that his concern would be valid had you done so, you haven't.

[retiredman]

I understand. I still believe that we are far from having a "discussion", but rather a situation where one of us is berating the other from a very sanctimonius and pious position.

[BoogyMan]

I understand. I still believe that we are far from having a "discussion", but rather a situation where one of us is berating the other from a very sanctimonius and pious position.

I am having a discussion manfrommaine, you seem to be in angry response mode and have been from the first response.

If quoting and acting on scripture is seen as sanctimonious, may I be so through and through. You will notice that every assertion I have made is backed up with scripture.

[-Cp]

I have tried Christianity.

I grew up Catholic and went to church until my late 20s. I've also tried Presbyterianism and Methodism.

My impression of all those church services.....terribly boring and terribly irrelevant.

But if it works for you, that's great. While you're in church on Sunday morning, I'll be doing other stuff. (Some denominations attend church for most of the day, Sunday, don't they? They have services in the morning, then social stuff, then Bible instruction, etc.)

And I mostly agree with you.. .In fact, I think the entire concept of "going to church" for a beliver is very old testament. You cannot "go to a church" as Christ's church is an organic one made up of "living stones" which are his believers. He says "Where 2 or more are gathered, I'm there in the midst of them"...

But that's for a diff topic.. :)

[BoogyMan]

And I mostly agree with you.. .In fact, I think the entire concept of "going to church" for a beliver is very old testament. You cannot "go to a church" as Christ's church is an organic one made up of "living stones" which are his believers. He says "Where 2 or more are gathered, I'm there in the midst of them"...

But that's for a diff topic.. :)

Read Hebrews 10:25. :)

[typomaniac]

You want to play the little "The conservatives of the day were the pharasees" game, don't you?

Wow.
Actually, no. The pharisee philosophies were quite liberal, too. (Only by the first century, those who claimed to adhere to them had pretty much lost their sense of liberalism).

And I still say that, by just about any standard, Jesus was a liberal.

[Immanuel]

Okay being the newcomer here, being interested in this discussion, being Christian myself and having known manfrommaine and enjoying many conversations with him from other sites, I have got to say that dmp and Boogeyman seem to have blown it in this case. Where is the Gospel? Where is Christ's love here? Did I miss it?

Whether you intended to or not, you came off sounding like some of those TV evangelists that preach "tithe to MY church", (and I do mean MY), "or burn in Hell." Dmp asked early in the thread if someone was going to use the "conservatives of today are the Pharisees of yesterday" argument. Well, I am a conservative but not a Pharisee and the arguments here sounded like the "thou shalt not heal on the Sabbath" arguments of the Bible. I don't believe that today's conservatives are yesterday's Pharisees, but yesterday's Pharisees do in fact exist today. Some are conservative, some are liberal and some are in between.

I understand your points of view and do not disagree with them although, I will admit to slipping in my language especially when I am cut off in traffic or stuck behind a CSX train whose conductor thinks it is funny to travel back and forth for 30 minutes blocking the highway, but I find it hard to believe that Christ would have taken the approach that was taken in this thread.

Boogeyman used the Word well and pointed out some things that "convicted" me. I know when I sin, trust me. But, I must say, I didn't see much Gospel in this entire discussion. Wait, I didn't see any Gospel in this discussion. A heck of a lot of Law, but not an ounce of Gospel.

It was all, manfrommaine is not a Christian because he uses foul language. I seem to recall a certain passage where an adulteress was brought before Jesus with people asking him if they could stone her. He replied, as he began to write in the dust, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." I also seem to recall that not one stone was cast.

Yes, we as Christians should strive to live Christ filled lives. Our language should be guarded in order not to trip up our neighbors, but we are yet sinners striving to defeat sin and the devil.

I don't know boogeyman or dmp yet. I am already looking forward to some discussion with them. I don't doubt their faith.

I know manfrommaine and despite the error of his ways, neither do I doubt his faith.

God Bless,

Immie

[April15]

Immanuel,
You will find hypocrisy rampant when talking religion. That is why I choose to be atheist on the boards.

[Dilloduck]

Immanuel,
You will find hypocrisy rampant when talking religion. That is why I choose to be atheist on the boards.

How convenient ! :laugh2:

[Said1]

Immanuel,
You will find hypocrisy rampant when talking religion. That is why I choose to be atheist on the boards.

You are a practicing Christian in your real life, though?

[April15]

You are a practicing Christian in your real life, though?I am an atheist.

[Immanuel]

Immanuel,
You will find hypocrisy rampant when talking religion. That is why I choose to be atheist on the boards.

Greetings April,

I'm as guilty as the rest in being hypocritical except I admit it.

Okay, I have a question for you. You said, you choose to be an atheist on the boards. Should I assume that you are thus hiding the real you in your online persona? Nevermind, after typing this and posting it, I saw the other questions and your answer.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

Okay being the newcomer here, being interested in this discussion, being Christian myself and having known manfrommaine and enjoying many conversations with him from other sites, I have got to say that dmp and Boogeyman seem to have blown it in this case. Where is the Gospel? Where is Christ's love here? Did I miss it?

Whether you intended to or not, you came off sounding like some of those TV evangelists that preach "tithe to MY church", (and I do mean MY), "or burn in Hell." Dmp asked early in the thread if someone was going to use the "conservatives of today are the Pharisees of yesterday" argument. Well, I am a conservative but not a Pharisee and the arguments here sounded like the "thou shalt not heal on the Sabbath" arguments of the Bible. I don't believe that today's conservatives are yesterday's Pharisees, but yesterday's Pharisees do in fact exist today. Some are conservative, some are liberal and some are in between.

I understand your points of view and do not disagree with them although, I will admit to slipping in my language especially when I am cut off in traffic or stuck behind a CSX train whose conductor thinks it is funny to travel back and forth for 30 minutes blocking the highway, but I find it hard to believe that Christ would have taken the approach that was taken in this thread.

Boogeyman used the Word well and pointed out some things that "convicted" me. I know when I sin, trust me. But, I must say, I didn't see much Gospel in this entire discussion. Wait, I didn't see any Gospel in this discussion. A heck of a lot of Law, but not an ounce of Gospel.

It was all, manfrommaine is not a Christian because he uses foul language. I seem to recall a certain passage where an adulteress was brought before Jesus with people asking him if they could stone her. He replied, as he began to write in the dust, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." I also seem to recall that not one stone was cast.

Yes, we as Christians should strive to live Christ filled lives. Our language should be guarded in order not to trip up our neighbors, but we are yet sinners striving to defeat sin and the devil.

I don't know boogeyman or dmp yet. I am already looking forward to some discussion with them. I don't doubt their faith.

I know manfrommaine and despite the error of his ways, neither do I doubt his faith.

God Bless,

Immie

:clap:

Wow! Well said Immie! But watch out, they have a "rep" system here, up in the right hand corner, and those negative red reps may be shot at ya to the hilt for your honesty and for preaching Gospel, instead of the Law!

Care/jd

[Immanuel]

:clap:

Wow! Well said Immie! But watch out, they have a "rep" system here, up in the right hand corner, and those negative red reps may be shot at ya to the hilt for your honesty and for preaching Gospel, instead of the Law!

Care/jd

Probably well deserved though. How do you convict someone for preaching law over Gospel without using Law to do so? I think I failed in that respect.

Immie

[JohnDoe]

Probably well deserved though. How do you convict someone for preaching law over Gospel without using Law to do so? I think I failed in that respect.

Immie yes, but you can always explain it in another post, nothing is stopping you! ;)


jd

[Said1]

I am an atheist.

From what you wrote, it appeared a little different.

I on the other hand don't like to align myself with groups. I work alone. :laugh2:

[April15]

Greetings April,

I'm as guilty as the rest in being hypocritical except I admit it.

Okay, I have a question for you. You said, you choose to be an atheist on the boards. Should I assume that you are thus hiding the real you in your online persona? Nevermind, after typing this and posting it, I saw the other questions and your answer.

ImmieI can neither confirm nor deny the question.

[April15]

From what you wrote, it appeared a little different.

I on the other hand don't like to align myself with groups. I work alone. :laugh2:I can neither confirm nor deny the allegation.

[Said1]

I can neither confirm nor deny the allegation.

Confirm or deny what? :

[April15]

Confirm or deny what? :That I may or may not be a christian in real life.

[Said1]

That I may or may not be a christian in real life.

You: I'm an atheist on-line.

You: I'm an atheist.

You: I'm not answering one way or another.

Me: Umm. Yeah. Ok. Whatever.

I'm paraphrasing of course.

[Dilloduck]

Conviction at its finest

[April15]

You: I'm an atheist on-line.

You: I'm an atheist.

You: I'm not answering one way or another.

Me: Umm. Yeah. Ok. Whatever.

I'm paraphrasing of course.Exactly!

[April15]

Conviction at its finestDon't you wish George had some?

[Immanuel]

Don't you wish George had some?

One would do. 20 years to life. ;)

Immie

[Dilloduck]

Don't you wish George had some?

When he does he is called stupid. Doesn't matter.

[eighballsidepocket]

Actually atheists are rarer than the long departed Dodo bird or Passenger Pigeon.

Most folks that claim to be atheists don't realize that they are philosophically agnostics, but don't know the difference.

[retiredman]

I agree. Actually I've never heard anyone say "I hate Christians".
I have heard some so called 'Christians" say they HATE liberals though.

Go figure.

bingo.

I am fairly liberal - as far as this board is concerned - and I am a Christian. I don't hate anyone.

[mrg666]

Oh come on! You don't think anyone will believe you? Just tell them what they think already! You won't change their minds even if you wined up in heaven and they don't.

was that a alcoholic
referance or mis type :laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

was that a alcoholic
referance or mis type :laugh2:

Why are ya thirsty? :cheers2:

[TheyLive]

I know a few bible Christians that are Democrats, but are not what I'd term liberal in many ways.

Maybe call them conservative Democrats, where they are anti-abortion, but still have strong positions for welfare entitlement, and don't see heavier taxation for social reforms as immoral or unbiblical, but have a passon for the less fortunate of life that are our fellow Americans.

I'm not talking about "dead beat" folks that don't want to work or earn an honest dollar, but I think my party, the Republicans, could stand to have a little more empathy towards those that are having a harder time making it economically, and it isn't because they are stupid white trash, or lazy folks of any ethnicity, but just down on luck, and maybe not as well "egu-ma-cated" as those of us with the Bimmers and Audiis of life.

Jesus, said the poor will always be with us. He wasn't being calloused, but was being confronted with social, or humanitarian issues that were important, but were not exactly the aim of His ministry. He grieved for the poor, and if you recall, He never did any miracles in the area of filling folk's bank accounts with lots of silver, but came to minister, and direct folk's hopes towards God, via renewed or new trust and faith. These riches of human life that He spoke of, were not tangible like two cars in every garage, a chicken in every pot, but was inner peace, security in the storms of life, a desire to not envy or covet other's material possessions or greater material blessings, but to look to God for the ultimate in sustenance. This was radical then and it's radical now, especially in this materialistic craving Western culture of ours.

I know that my party the Repubs. are usually branded the bible party, and that's not a bad moniker, but with that moniker comes a responsibility for that party to have some empathy in a fashion that reflects Christ's life. We conservatives can be awfully caloused, when we are confronted with the "down and out" of life. We often look at those less fortunate and think that they just need to clean up their act, and they will be on the right track.

Sadly, it is often the case that we, have big old pine logs in our eyes, at the same time we see or point out minute wood splinters in the eyes of those we see as deficient by their own doing, or making. Oh, how we all need to walk in a less fortunate brother or sister's shoes for a day or week, or until we finally develope some true divine empathy for our fellow man!

I can't find anywhere in the bible where Jesus exhibited a lofty attitude around those who errored or sinned in big or small ways. In fact, He seemed to be more comfortable around those that were more transparent in their lives and were willing to admit their faults and sins, with contrite, repentant attitudes. Maybe that's why He said that He came for the sick, not the well. This "play" on words, probably meant that the "well" were as sick as the "sick" were, but just didn''t want to admit it. For the bible explicity says that all of mankind has fallen short of the glory of God. That includes Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents. They sit on lofty perches or high-ground and judge others who stumble through life at every step and corner.

I think one party who claims the ownership of compassion, has carried compassion out too far to the place of being "enablers" not unlike what is learned in AA meeting with recovering alcoholics or other drug addicted folks. Enabling holds a thin, tenuous line between true help and damaging help. Too much help for a human being can create an crippled-for-life adult or a child in an adult body.

There has to be a balance here, folks. In both parties. One party has an over-abundance of hard, cold, black and white judgementalists, while the other is dominated by over-the-top compassion to the point of ruining individuals human lives, in respect to development in to energized, goal oriented, people, with pride in their own achievements.

I think that there have been politicians in both parties that have claimed or pronounced their Christian faith to garner votes, but have lacked what I would call, the actual, "good fruit" in their lives that is indicative of owning the moniker of "Christian". Those "good fruits" are the out-pouring or resultant behaviour and actions of life that exhibit true charity/love, mercy, compassion, empathy, and so many other positive encouraging traits.

I'd much rather that a person who is a Christian, let the life of Christ be seen and not advertised in their lives. Being a Christian is not a privilege like a driver's license or the right to vote. It is a "life", an "abandonment" of the old ways of life, that centered around "me, myself, and I" as the little man-made god of one's life. It is the acknowledgement that one is not trully lord and commander of one's life, but is a vessel that was designed to bring glory to its Maker and Designer. That's a hard "sell" in this materialistic, self-identity craving world.

Anyway, I think you'll find fine Christians in both major American political partys. I just question some of those in each party that "brandy about" their Christianity in ways and actions that don't really reflect what the bible revealed of the nature of Christ, in whom these Christians claim to belong.

I thought this was a very persuasive statement -- thoughtful with many insights. That you, sir, for the richness of what you have shared; I feel I have gained much from it.

[mrg666]

Why are ya thirsty? :cheers2:

yes as a recovering alcoholic / drug addict i see refferances to the shit every where sometimes i think im going insane then sometimes it's a type error
:laugh2:

[Sir Evil]

yes as a recovering alcoholic / drug addict i see refferances to the shit every where sometimes i think im going insane then sometimes it's a type error
:laugh2:

:coffee:

Switch to coffee.....:slap:

:laugh2:

[mrg666]

:coffee:

Switch to coffee.....:slap:

:laugh2:

its very diffcult after years of abuse im allready a caffine addict
to prevent any further attacks (from myself)
ive got established addictions to alcohol. drugs. caffine , sex , strangulation and wearing female underware

i tried de caf makes me wanna strangle

[Sir Evil]

its very diffcult after years of abuse im allready a caffine addict
to prevent any further attacks (from myself)
ive got established addictions to alcohol. drugs. caffine , sex , strangulation and wearing female underware

i tried de caf makes me wanna strangle

:eek::eek:

Oh man, I knew there was something strange about you wankers. :D

[mrg666]

:lame2: i know but we strugle on

[Sir Evil]

:lame2: i know but we strugle on

:laugh2::laugh2:

Struggle on!

[BoogyMan]

Okay being the newcomer here, being interested in this discussion, being Christian myself and having known manfrommaine and enjoying many conversations with him from other sites, I have got to say that dmp and Boogeyman seem to have blown it in this case. Where is the Gospel? Where is Christ's love here? Did I miss it?

Could you not find the scripture posted throughout the discussion?



Whether you intended to or not, you came off sounding like some of those TV evangelists that preach "tithe to MY church", (and I do mean MY), "or burn in Hell." Dmp asked early in the thread if someone was going to use the "conservatives of today are the Pharisees of yesterday" argument. Well, I am a conservative but not a Pharisee and the arguments here sounded like the "thou shalt not heal on the Sabbath" arguments of the Bible. I don't believe that today's conservatives are yesterday's Pharisees, but yesterday's Pharisees do in fact exist today. Some are conservative, some are liberal and some are in between.

Show my arguments to be in error with scripture Immanuel.



I understand your points of view and do not disagree with them although, I will admit to slipping in my language especially when I am cut off in traffic or stuck behind a CSX train whose conductor thinks it is funny to travel back and forth for 30 minutes blocking the highway, but I find it hard to believe that Christ would have taken the approach that was taken in this thread.

Christ made no provision for sin Immanuel, he went where sin was, condemned it, and taught how to be right. He NEVER accepted sin in any form, he ALWAYS corrected it.



Boogeyman used the Word well and pointed out some things that "convicted" me. I know when I sin, trust me. But, I must say, I didn't see much Gospel in this entire discussion. Wait, I didn't see any Gospel in this discussion. A heck of a lot of Law, but not an ounce of Gospel.

Immanuel, you flatter me, I am of no consequence in the discussion other than to present the scripture itself. I posted scripture throughout the discussion, show me the difference between the scripture posted, law, and gospel.



It was all, manfrommaine is not a Christian because he uses foul language. I seem to recall a certain passage where an adulteress was brought before Jesus with people asking him if they could stone her. He replied, as he began to write in the dust, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." I also seem to recall that not one stone was cast.

Never said that Immanuel, it was that making excuses for it instead of working to remove it from ones character is wrong. Show me where we are never to point out error and try to do better and you will be showing me text from a book other than the bible.



Yes, we as Christians should strive to live Christ filled lives. Our language should be guarded in order not to trip up our neighbors, but we are yet sinners striving to defeat sin and the devil.

I think if you will read the commentary I posted without the preconceived notions you will find that this is what I am trying to get MFM to consider. His commentary though, directly refuses such teaching.



I don't know boogeyman or dmp yet. I am already looking forward to some discussion with them. I don't doubt their faith.

I know manfrommaine and despite the error of his ways, neither do I doubt his faith.

God Bless,

Immie

I certainly look forward to much more from you as well Immanuel! :D

[April15]

Actually atheists are rarer than the long departed Dodo bird or Passenger Pigeon.

Most folks that claim to be atheists don't realize that they are philosophically agnostics, but don't know the difference.Very true!

[Missileman]

Actually atheists are rarer than the long departed Dodo bird or Passenger Pigeon.

Most folks that claim to be atheists don't realize that they are philosophically agnostics, but don't know the difference.

I'm as certain that there are no gods as you appear to be that there are. Maybe it's you who doesn't know the difference.

[Immanuel]

Could you not find the scripture posted throughout the discussion?

Oh, scripture was there. I saw it and as I said it convicted me of my sins. However, it was the application that, for lack of time and words I will just say it was the application that needed some work.



Show my arguments to be in error with scripture Immanuel.

I'm due for a shower in 2 minutes and then on my way to church. Please forgive me for not getting into this now as it is a long discussion. I'm sure we'll have fun with this one in the future.




Christ made no provision for sin Immanuel, he went where sin was, condemned it, and taught how to be right. He NEVER accepted sin in any form, he ALWAYS corrected it.

On this I must whole-heartedly disagree. The provision was made on the cross. Made for me, you, MFM and everyone of God's chosen.




Immanuel, you flatter me, I am of no consequence in the discussion other than to present the scripture itself. I posted scripture throughout the discussion, show me the difference between the scripture posted, law, and gospel.

Again, this will come in time.



Never said that Immanuel, it was that making excuses for it instead of working to remove it from ones character is wrong. Show me where we are never to point out error and try to do better and you will be showing me text from a book other than the bible.

Well, as I said, as a newcomer the way it came accross was MFM was not a Christian because... Think of me as the potentially unsaved person in the corner who overheard that conversation in the halls of the church. What might I have come away with? I would have said, "This church is to 'Holier than thou' for me. I better go find another church or just go home. I can't live like this."



I certainly look forward to much more from you as well Immanuel! :D

I too look forward to our discussions and pray that we can learn from each other.

God Bless,

Immie

[gabosaurus]

What about us liberals that ARE Christians? I mean real Christians, not the pseudo kind that many ConReps purport to be.
Quoting the Bible while pontificating all sorts of heinous BS does not make you a Christian. You have to act like a Christian. Many ConReps are way too hateful to be real Christians.

[Immanuel]

What about us liberals that ARE Christians? I mean real Christians, not the pseudo kind that many ConReps purport to be.
Quoting the Bible while pontificating all sorts of heinous BS does not make you a Christian. You have to act like a Christian. Many ConReps are way too hateful to be real Christians.

Huh? Did I say you were not Christian?

Hehe, just kidding, you could not have been talking to me. At least I don't think so.

Immie

[SpidermanTUba]

Here's an article that NAILS it right on the head...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2007/01/28/why_liberals_hate_christians?page=1


Most liberals are Christians.

You're a fucking idiot.