You liberal! Quotes of the Day

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!

 

I'm still proudly voting mostly for democrats! I just hope I have the privilege of voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008.

 

Oh my....if she wins we'll have to take another accounting of the furniture, china, portraits, etc.....

 

Should this not be in politics section?

 

Gina. That's a very non-conservitive attitude.

 

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...).

May God Bless,
Bro. Dallas

 

As if He is no longer the only mediator between God and man. I don't think Jesus is waiting for us to reach anyone for Him that He has not already stretched out His arms and Received. Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Green, Orange, Blue, Red, or what not.

BTW, Scripture says to leave the corners of your fields that the poor may glean...it says nothing of distributing to those who will not glean those corners. It says nothing of providing means for their perpetual need. It says nothing of either trickle down, nor hand up; but simply to remember the poor in your harvests to leave the corners for those who glean.

An example of the success of this is found in the book of Ruth.

Bro. Dallas

 

Well, Sister,
If I speak toward the Biblical understanding, then the conservative view of separation of church and state is going to move the topic right back to the gen. baptist discussions

But here goes, maybe I can incorporate both, reckon?

A liberal from a Biblical perspective is that which, (note I am speaking of an ideal and not persons) which alters (not altars) the Biblical standard of worshipping. This includes the faith once delivered, the practice and order of the church.

This means liberality is the invention of man made instrumentations (not doctrines of men) but instrumentations to woo the world to gain favor. It is a mirror effect where the church in many places reflects the world rather than using that mirror to reflect the light of the world.

This is seen in such innovations as mission societies, Sunday schools, and many other things that are extra-Biblical (not extra-terrestrial).

These things are all marks of liberalism in relation to the proper Biblical order of our faith and practice in the church. They quickly become entrenched into society as that which is the norm although they in reality are moving farther and farther from the norm of Scripture.

God has set all things that are needful in the church; man's liberality has systematically removed those things that have been providentially set there and has gone about to create an institutionalized social club whose only purpose is to perpetuate itself and not that of the glory of Her true Head.

Now, speaking of the political side, one of the greatest efforts to circumvent that which God has set in the church and bring about such liberality is to view the church as a religious form of a national govt., any national govt. whose own purposes have been circumvented by the few who have no desire to maintain the truth but only to perpetuate social suffering and caste systems in order to maintain and perpetuate their political careers. Which party does this? Both. Is any other political party different? Not, not in our day.

The days of politicians being true public servants are ended. Now they all feign service in order to benefit themselves.

BTW, do we imagine that the liberal and conservative views are the only views present in this nation? No, we don't, but I thought I would ask that question anyway.

I am conservative. I am thankful for that.

I dislike and disagree with violence, that will be proven out in the end of all things, however, I dislike even less the idea of our govt. forsaking its original and primary intent and purpose which is to protect first and then provide the general welfare of the public.

AS far as provisions being made for those who will not glean; first we must return to leaving the corners of our fields at harvest, leaving them for any of the poor who will by their efforts glean those corners; oh, wait, in order to do that we would be returning to the structure of Israel's national govt. That being a Theocracy, further requiring the removal of the throne requested for David and returning it to the only True King.

We can't do that now can we. No, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will vote for that proposition.

Bro. Dallas

 

Do you think it odd that most athiests are liberals?

 

Does it necessarily say more than the fact that most KKK members are Republicans?

 

Does it necessarily say more than the fact that most KKK members are Republicans? </font>[/QUOTE]Well, it might. What do you think?

 

I think atheists and KKK members have insecurities that they need to address, regardless of their political affiliation. I'm not going to think less of a Christian (or more of an atheist or KKK member) just because of party affiliation. If anyone is doing this, I submit that they are placing too much importance of the issue of political affiliation.

 

I agree with all of that, but you really didn't attempt to address the question.

Why do you think most athiests are liberals, regardless of party affiliation? It's puzzling, but nevertheless seems to be true.

 

INMHO, liberalism in its extreme is humanism glorified.

The KKK member is likewise humanism that focuses upon the legalism of scripture;

The first teaches any means, the other teaches the law; a chosen race;

Neither know nor teach the way and the truth in order that the sheep may come in and find pasture.

Instead they, like the lesser extremes of these two, seek only to promote their own agendas.

Bro. Dallas

 

Probably because they equate the Republican Party with the "religious right", likely due to the unfortunate fact that hyperconservative religious extremists have the biggest mouths.

 

A lot of the athier people I've met have been libertarian and Republicans, not liberal at all.

 

I know a lot of Christians who are not Republicans, because they associate the Republican Party with corporate greed, corruption and a general lack of compassion for the needy.