1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

You liberal! Quotes of the Day

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Gina B, Jan 7, 2006.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 3
  1. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Personally, I don't believe either of those parties is "God's Party". It makes me literally want to hurl my cookies every time I hear a preacher get up in front of his congregation and say something to the effect of "Vote for the "George Bush" (or some other GOP candidate) of your choice!" It truly makes me want to take that preacher and throw him to the lions!

    As far as the constitution party...they used to be the Taxpayers party, and the didn't believe in paying taxes which fit in really well with my father's beliefs...that was until they came and threatened to take everything he owned and he had to pay them for years on end until the day he died. Also, in today's political climate, it's a good way to be put on someone's list as a possible "terrorist" or threat to the government!
     
    #41 AVL1984, Jan 11, 2006
  2. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm still proudly voting mostly for democrats! I just hope I have the privilege of voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008.
     
    #42 Terry_Herrington, Jan 11, 2006
  3. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    How very...liberal of you. [​IMG]

    She is a pretty intelligent lady, but I wonder if her husband ruined her chances. How many people are going to vote for her and put HIM back in such a respected position? Then again, that may get her MORE votes, because some people really do want to see her triumph simply because of that. Hopefully they don't vote based on emotions, but that isn't gonna happen...
     
    #43 Gina B, Jan 11, 2006
  4. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,506
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh my....if she wins we'll have to take another accounting of the furniture, china, portraits, etc.....
     
    #44 AVL1984, Jan 11, 2006
  5. buckster75

    buckster75 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Should this not be in politics section?
     
    #45 buckster75, Jan 11, 2006
  6. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    The answer is the same as the last time asked.

    No.

    I put it here because I wanted it here. The reason is because the term is thrown out in politics, in bible versions, in theology, and everywhere else.

    In fact, go ahead and do a search for the term. The Fundamental section is overflowing with the term, even more so than the politics forum.

    The point is, people use the word liberally, with an ever-changing meaning behind it, as evidenced in what types of the conversations they were found it. Follow the links to see the variety. It's rather interesting. [​IMG]

    I've found that generally, it's used to describe someone who disagrees with someone else on something, most often in terms of disagreeing that something is a sin.
    For example, a person stating that the KJV is not the only translation we should use may be termed a liberal by a KJVO.
    A person who says that it is ok for women to wear slacks may be termed a liberal by one who believs women should only wear skirts or dresses.
    In politics, I've seen non-constitution party voters called liberal by republicans, while the republicans called the democrats liberals.
    Certainly, nobody can say that the word isn't used often enough in conversation. [​IMG]
     
    #46 Gina B, Jan 11, 2006
  7. buckster75

    buckster75 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gina. That's a very non-conservitive attitude.
     
    #47 buckster75, Jan 12, 2006
  8. Frogman

    Frogman <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    First of all there's not a sheckle's worth of difference in either party. (That's why I call all you folks who are out there waving one flag or the other "Republicrats"
    Secondly to address the quote above....I have not seen it in the scriptures where the Lord said to take someone else's money and support the weak,maimed,halt and poor. If He did we'd have to support the blind too and then the demoricans would never have to have another political fund raiser.
    Thanks ------Bart
    .....the dueling society was a polite society.     </font>[/QUOTE]My strong preference would be for the churches and individual christians to meet the needs of the poor, handicapped, and aged. But the church hasn't demonstrated close to the level of concern we should have to do this. So, pragmatically, we have to address these needs through the government.

    All I'm saying is that we as Christians have the Biblical responsibility as shown in the passage I quoted to meet their needs. The Republican party has always fought against doing this and the Democratic has supported it. I don't think anyone would dispute that claim. You can decide whether you want to be for or against this by your vote. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, Scripture teaches for the family to do this, that is the first line, then the church. the church, are all part of the church?

    Where the family neglects this, then they are in error, first.

    where the church neglects this is not necessarily that we are not supporting those numbers who have chosen to drop out of society and not live according to the norm; but in that we view ourselves as a social institution. We are not primarily a social instution.

    It is the duty of the family first; the church where there is no family.

    Did the church go about feeding the poor, the homeless, the disabled collectively?

    Or did the church support the preaching and teaching of the gospel while the apostles with signs following accomplished the work we have now interpreted into a social gospel?

    No, it is not our duty to maintain the masses socially; in truth that is not even the duty of the national government, nor the govt. on any level. Really the social state is a relatively new invention perpetuated not because of need, but because of greed and corruption on the political level.

    Oh, BTW, this has devolved into a political discussion, so I am moving it to the political arena.

    (You know, sep. of church and state, and all that...). :D

    May God Bless,
    Bro. Dallas [​IMG]
     
    #48 Frogman, Jan 12, 2006
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 3
Loading...