World Should Be Glad We Treat Him This Good

[Qun Mang]

If that is the case, how about telling us your past far right views and what changed them so drastically?

anti-gay marriage ..... still am

anti-abortion ...... still am

small government ..... still am

fiscal responsibility ..... still am

helping the poor ..... still am

support stem-cell research ..... still do

against sending American jobs overseas ..... still do

against giving big business tax breaks .... still do

against a federal income tax ..... still am

in favor of freedom of speech ..... still am

in favor or no separation of church and state ..... CHANGED MY MIND ON THIS ONE BIG TIME due to the attitudes of people at this forum and doing a review on my own of American history and church history. Salem witch trials, European inquisitions...I could easily see that happening again in this country if chuch is mixed too heavily with state.

another issue that's come up since the 2000 election:

The Patriot ACT ..... I'm totally against that

I could go on and on. I voted for GWB because of the Clinton administration; because I was a lifelong republican and I thought he was a Godly man at the time.

I wish I could undo that vote. I've changed my mind because I think he's a liar. I think the republicans have not done nor do they really represent the things they tell us they do. They've gotten a lot of young servicemen/women killed in Iraq based on a lie instead of going full force after those who attacked us on 9/11. And they've spend anywhere from 200m - 300m of our tax dollars thus far on this failed endeavor while creating more terrorism and making us more unsafe than we were before.

If I had known at the time what GWB had done to John McCain I wouldn't have voted for him then in spite of the Clintons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry to reply off topic, but Charlie, I just want to publically thank you for being very open about your posted beliefs. In a faceless forum this is very welcome as it helps us to know each other better. I am in tune with most of your beliefs, except the more "liberal" ones such as embryonic stem cell research. When you said you support stem cell research, I assume from your other posts that you mean ALL stem cell research. I support only adult stem cell research myself, as getting embryonic stem cells kills the embryo in the process. Yes, there are embryos being thrown out or aborted all the time, but the ends do not justify the means, so I believe that supporting embryonic stem cell research just because the embryos are available is just as wrong as killing embryos just for it.

Another thing we differ on is that of George Bush. His Cabinet aside, I have had testimony from my own pastor who met him, as well as testimony from other Christian leaders of his walk. I believe that if he were an intentional deceiver the Holy Spirit would have revealed something to them, to watch out for this guy. Therefore I believe him when he says he is a born again Christian. Can he still lie? As much as any saved person can, so if he is then he is hurting right now in his relationship with Jesus. As for his Patriot Act? I am undecided on this one. There are pros and cons to it that make it tough to decide.

I should add that I am not a die hard anything in politics. In fact, I despise politics as they are today. My choice for Bush was an easy one as he is a born again Christian. I have no idea right now who I will vote for in 2008, but if the Democratic candidate is anything like Gore or Kerry I will probably wind up voting for the "lesser of two evils" as has been coined by others in other threads.

One last thing, it sounds like we may be on the same side of the separation of Church and state topic by your description, but as there are different viewpoints on just what this means, I will stress that I don't believe the mainstream idea that it means there can be no Church in anything public at all. I am against it only in its true definition that the Church should focus on Jesus Christ, not politics, and it should never have power in the government as that corrupts its focus as has been proved from history. That said, I don't believe that candidates can't be endorsed by an individual Church or Church leader, or that issues can't be discussed in a church setting.

Of course we haven't seen eye to eye on other things like Terri Schiavo, but even Christians don't agree on everything, and I have and will leave my arguments on the appropriate threads. I hope I haven't left a bad taste in your mouth with what (little) I have said, and I hope you will try to refrain from this as well (I took the "get your head out of the sand" comment in another thread very personally, just so you know). Most importantly, we are on the same side trying to follow Christ as best as we humanly can.

[other one]

Media leftists are decrying pictures of Saddam in his BVD

[Guest charlie]

Thanks Qun Mang. I appreciate that post.

Gosh Butero are you trying to keep me here all day! Bottom line, is that even as a republican I did disagree with them on some issues. As for anti-abortion I think Roe vs Wade should be overturned. If people don't want babies they should abstain or use birth control or adoption (that would probably decrease in vitro fertilization right there).

I'm against taxes, big government, subsidies etc. but I have also had to accept that it's just not gonna happen; therefore, what's the next step in reality.

That boils down to what is the money gonna be spent on since both parties definitely intend to spend it. I'd much rather see it spent here at home, bigger ss checks for the elderly, stem-cell research (all kinds), NASA (yes NASA!) and pork barrell projects that at least give somebody a job. Maybe they could work on parks or roads or something that the entire popoulation could enjoy or benefit from. I think the republicans are REALLY into making big money for big corporations. Instead of giving them tax breaks I think they should penalize thru the tarriff system any company that relocates overseas (so they can pay slave wages and reap big profits) and tries to bring their goods back into this country to sell. Make those tarriffs so high that it's cheaper for them to stay here at home. I was totally against NAFTA and as I recall there were lots of democrats that were; this was one of those issues where a democratic President B Clinton agree with the republicans who wanted it.

I think private charity is the way it should be; but that's not the way it really is. Look at all the tax free money these churches and televangelists rake in. Doesn't look to me that they're spending it on charity...maybe a dab here and there so they can say "hey, we did this and that". Sorry but since taxes aren't going away they should have to pay like everyone else.

I am against gay-marriage but the reality is that they're not going back in the closet and despite the rhetoric there are probably just as many gays in the republican party as the democratic party; they just hide. I sincerely believe this issue is a "tool". Bush appointed the first gay ambassador and there is that Jeff Gannon thing even if you downplay it. So I've reached this point... even though I personally find that lifestyle "weird" if the people are over 18, pay taxes and have chosen that.... I can't stop em, and I'm not gonna ignore other issues on account of this one. - I think this issue is the main issue keeping a lot of people out of the democratic party more than abortion because Christians get their unwed daughter's pregnancies aborted everyday.

I support separation of church and state now because I can see how vile and angry supposed Christians at this forum can get when someone expresses a dislike for GWB; is he their God now? It's a reminder of the inquisitions of Europe (where church ruled the state) and the Salem witch trials. This country's founders wanted separation of church and state for that reason I believe; not because they were against God; they weren't at all.

I think people filing lawsuits against public nativity scenes are just silly and extreme but the militancy of inserting church into state which has taken place in the evangelical community in the past 15-20 years goes further, it's dangerous imo. It favors one denomination's Biblical belief system (especially in regards to phrophecy) over other Christians biblical belief system. This can affect our foreign policy and if this "element" should gain too much political power it could lead to a new kind of inquisition where not only are non-believers either descriminated against or put in real physical danger but other Christians who are viewed by the extreme right as not being the "right kind of Christian". If Christians really followed Christ; and modeled their behavior after Jesus Christ they wouldn't need to take over the government. Practice what you preach; that's the best way to be an ambassador for Christ.

You know Butero, you say you're a Christian, and I believe I saw on one thread where you are a preacher (is that correct) yet you said you thought the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay should be blindfolded and shot. I think you have some serious Christian issues to deal with. That's just as wrong as beheading someone innocent. Different means of execution but still death; still sin; still murder.

Overall politically speaking; I'm not going to fall into lock-step with any party. I just don't want to see one run roughshod over everyone else. I think the biggest disappointment I've had is finding out that the republican party is just as (if not moreso) crooked and dishonest as I'd always thought the democrats were. I think they're worse because they put themselves out there as having more moral superiority; as "God's party". That part really ticks me off.

Why do people presume to think God supports either party?

I hope that addresses what you covered. I'm getting tired of typing; I'm getting tired of being glued to this computer.

Edited June 26, 2005 by charlie

[apothanein kerdos]

I support separation of church and state now because I can see how vile and angry supposed Christians at this forum can get when someone expresses a dislike for GWB; is he their God now? It's a reminder of the inquisitions of Europe (where church ruled the state) and the Salem witch trials. This country's founders wanted separation of church and state for that reason I believe; not because they were against God; they weren't at all.

We dont' get upset when someone challenges his policies. I have no problem with that, saying, "I believe Bush is wrong for..."

What gets us upset is when people go, "Bush is evil becase" or "I doubt his Chistianity because". Some take it so far as to say, "His policy is this, thus he must not be a Christian". There is a difference ebtween questioning someoen's policies and judging them.

Bush is not in any authority position over the church thus we hve no right to question if he is a Christian or not. That is not for us to determine but instead between him and God. Are some of his policies unbecomming a Christian? I would have to say yes, some of what he says and does are things that Christians shouldn't say or do. Yet, how is that any dfferent from our everyday lives? Do you wish to say you are perfect? Do you wish to say that you are able to live an entire day without grieving teh Holy Spirit in some way, shape, or form?

This will fall on deaf ears because you hate Bush so much, but know this, Jesus says that a man who hates another brother (or anyone), has put himself in danger of the fires of hell.

[Guest charlie]

What gets us upset is when people go, "Bush is evil becase" or "I doubt his Chistianity because". Some take it so far as to say, "His policy is this, thus he must not be a Christian". There is a difference ebtween questioning someoen's policies and judging them.

Because is the key word there; it's an important word because it preceeds an explanation as to "why?".

I think we have a right to question and observe the President's sincerity as a Christian; both as Christians and as Americans. As far as I know none of our Presidents have been atheists, yet it was this President's Christian beliefs that were politicized for political gain. It is this President and the evanglical community that got him elected who made his Christianity an issue; therefore, they've opened it up to scrutiny. It's a little late to cry foul now.

Maybe he's really saved; maybe he's not; only the Lord knows for sure. Either way, I think he's proven himself to be a lousy President who has made some awful decisions.

Edited June 26, 2005 by charlie

[Guest charlie]

This will fall on deaf ears because you hate Bush so much, but know this, Jesus says that a man who hates another brother (or anyone), has put himself in danger of the fires of hell.

You need to cut that out SJ. I don't like him or trust him anymore but I don't hate him.

[Guest charlie]

I have a different view of how we deal with people in a time of war. In case you forgot, God instituted the death penalty for murderers. These people are murderers and terrorists, so I have no problem with them being executed.

Butero you don't know if everyone being held at Guantanamo is a terrorist or a murderer. Nor are all Muslims murderers.

I am a follower of Christ and although I've read the OT I tend to focus on the NT. We are in the new covenant now; I think Jesus Christ showed us the way we are to behave.

Instead of looking for excuses to justify bad behavior in the OT we should be looking to Jesus Christ; He is the way, the truth and the light. When I compare some of the atrocities God *supposedly* commanded in the OT and compare that to God the Father that Jesus describes I simply don't believe the OT is accurate in some places. If those orders to kill thousands of women and children is true then God would indeed be violating his own commandment.

[Guest charlie]

I think He is the same yesterday, and today and forever. BUT, I do not believe God ordered genocide in the OT. I think either the Hebrews decided to kill everyone down to the animals and said "God instructed us to" in order to justify what they did OR some writer took it upon himself to "blame it on God". That's just my personal opinion because it doesn't mesh with the Father Jesus decribes.

When God killed someone and took back the life He gave them He did it Himself as in the example of Ananias and Sapphira; He did the same with the flood. God didn't order someone else to do it in those instances. Several women have killed their children in recent years and said it was "God's will". Do you believe that? I certainly don't so why should I believe it just because someone said it happened 3 or 4 thousand years ago.

In one instance, God told Moses to have a man stoned to death for picking up sticks on the sabbath day.

Jesus Christ healed people on the Sabbath Day and was scolded for it. Being God Jesus evidently ignored the "commandment" about the Sabbath. Does that mean that the order to stone those who did work on the Sabbath really didn't come from Him? The same with Jesus not stoning the woman caught in adultery. Did that commandment not come from Him? It appears that way to me; even if it doesn't appear that way to you. Perhaps you should follow Jesus' example and ignore those OT passages that give you a free reign to commit murder and mayhem in the name of "war".

Thou shalt not kill to me means thou shalt not murder so on that we agree; however, blindfolding people and shooting them when you don't even know if they're guilty or innocent is murder and just as barbaric as beheading an innocent person. We're SUPPOSED to be the civilized ones here aren't we?

I've heard many people refer to parts of the Koran where murder is acceptable; if Christians are going to go past the NT into the Old looking for permission to commit crimes against humanity then how can we criticize Muslim extremists/terrorists for picking thru their Koran to justify the same. We've basically lowered ourselves to their level imo.

If you're going to appove of murder and these kinds of atrocities the least you can do is leave God out of it.

Has it occurred to you that perhaps you are not "rightly dividing the word"?

Edited June 27, 2005 by charlie

[nebula]

I am a follower of Christ and although I've read the OT I tend to focus on the NT.    We are in the new covenant now;  I think Jesus Christ  showed us the way we are to behave.   

Trying to understand the New Testament without knowing the Old Testament?

Bad! Bad! Very bad!!

I think either the Hebrews decided to kill everyone down to the animals and said "God instructed us to" in order to justify what they did OR some writer took it upon himself to "blame it on God".

So are you saying the Old Testament can't be trusted to contain the truth?

Are you saying that in I Samuel 15 <<--LINK where the Lord takes the kingdom from Saul, it was not because Saul kept the best of the animals (rather than destroy them as commanded) and kept the king of the Amalekites alive?

[Guest charlie]

Trying to understand the New Testament without knowing the Old Testament? blink.gif

Bad! Bad! Very bad!!

Why do you think that? I don't need the OT in order to understand what I need to do to be saved. The New Testament is more than sufficient. In fact, if you really want to narrow it down the gospels alone are sufficient imo.

So are you saying the Old Testament can't be trusted to contain the truth?

I said what I think about the OT in my last post.

Do you think we're in the new covenant or not? Do you think we should give more weight to the remarks of Jesus Christ or to the many, many commandments of the OT; most of which you guys wouldn't dream of obeying today.?

As Christians why focus on the OT? Shouldn't we be paying more attention to say.....the sermon on the mount?..... Or the golden rule?

Edited June 27, 2005 by charlie