Which political party are you?

[Stumpalump]

Suporting Ron Paul is like suporting Ross Perot. Great ideas but not enough mainstream suport to get elected. You have to think electability in a presidential primary election because a candidate needs to pull votes from all sides. Too bad but thats how the game is played.
Did you hear the Hildabeast today claiming that "some suporter" said some things that were bad so he resigned. She acted like it was no big deal. The so called "suporter" was her freaking right hand man for her campane! What a douch! Evertime that women runs her mouth lies and deception pour out. I think she's done. Looks like the Turd looking dude is on top but Edwards gained some much needed ground during the last Dimocrap dog and pony show debate.

 

[Starscream]

Suporting Ron Paul is like suporting Ross Perot. Great ideas but not enough mainstream suport to get elected. You have to think electability

I like to vote for the person I'd like to see in charge, not the one who is kissing the most ass and saying whatever he/she needs to to get in office.

 

[Trail-Axe]

The murder and theft ones apply because 95%+ of the people have a conscience, That conscience is an internal warning that is supposed to let you know when something is unacceptable. It is possible to have laws without gods; it is also possible to know right from wrong without supernatural influence. If it weren't there would be a helluva lot more atheists in jail..

Interesting view point. Are you sure that your good conscience is not from an external supernatural influence? And if you are sure, how do you know this?

..Internal warning that is supposed to let you know when something is unacceptable…

Unacceptable to who? And what happens when we ignore this internal warning system? Should we be punished? And who should punish us? And whose standard do we judge by; your internal warning system, or mine? And what is to say your internal warning system should be a moral absolute for my internal warning system that differs from yours?

And if today 95% of the people do what they feel is right, what happens tomorrow when they no longer feel it is right?

My point is this: If we ignore an absolute authority for what is good, and what is bad, we then become that authority. We have seen what man is very capable of if left to his own internal warning system for what is good, and what is bad. He will justify murder when it suits him, and condemn it when it does not. He will steel to keep himself satisfied, and condemn the same when it is taken from himself. So maybe it is an external supernatural warning system that should receive the credit for what is good, and what is bad, and not an internal system.

The word of God does speak on the subject of conscience, and to whom the conscience comes from:
Rom 2:12-16:
For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. NKJV

 

[Starscream]

We have seen what man is very capable of if left to his own internal warning system for what is good, and what is bad. He will justify murder when it suits him, and condemn it when it does not. He will steel to keep himself satisfied, and condemn the same when it is taken from himself.

This is already happening all over. It's not like it's going to change anytime soon, whether it be someone telling you quit because a God said so ages ago, or whether someone forces you to stop because it's known that it is wrong regardless.

My point: Who knows. I'm just arguing for the sake of it. But, a single religion should not rule a people when many of them do not agree with it.

 

[Trail-Axe]

This is already happening all over. It's not like it's going to change anytime soon, whether it be someone telling you quit because a God said so ages ago, or whether someone forces you to stop because it's known that it is wrong regardless.

My point: Who knows? I'm just arguing for the sake of it. But, a single religion should not rule a people when many of them do not agree with it.

I agree, religion should not rule a people, but maybe people who are religious can. And there have been entire societies that did change their ways for good, when they came to know the one who truly is good, Jesus Christ. Watch this movie and see how: http://www.endofthespear.com/ I have met two key players in this movie. The boy whose father was speared, and the man who speared him. Both are changed as a result of an outside supernatural force speaking through man.

 

[Starscream]

I agree, religion should not rule a people, but maybe people who are religious can. And there have been entire societies that did change their ways for good, when they came to know the one who truly is good, Jesus Christ. Watch this movie and see how: http://www.endofthespear.com/ I have met two key players in this movie. The boy whose father was speared, and the man who speared him. Both are changed as a result of an outside supernatural force speaking through man.

I hope one day that someone religious can rule without pushing their beliefs on the people they govern. And on that note, I think it's time for some Call of Duty 4.

 

[goodburbon]

Interesting view point. Are you sure that your good conscience is not from an external supernatural influence? And if you are sure, how do you know this? I cannot disprove your theory. I also cannot disprove that invisible faries don't control the fate of the universe, does that make it true?


Unacceptable to who? Majority rules in society, you know this. And what happens when we ignore this internal warning system? It's called guilt. Should we be punished? it depends on the offense. And who should punish us? It depends on the offense And whose standard do we judge by; your internal warning system, or mine? Majority rules, as stated before And what is to say your internal warning system should be a moral absolute for my internal warning system that differs from yours? My internal warning system is not yours, everyones system is programmed by their parents/surroundings except in cases of sociopaths. Parents teach what they know. Society guides the knowledge of the parents.

And if today 95% of the people do what they feel is right, what happens tomorrow when they no longer feel it is right? You feel "guilt" You cannot change the past, what are you asking?

My point is this: If we ignore an absolute authority for what is good, and what is bad, we then become that authority. We have seen what man is very capable of if left to his own internal warning system for what is good, and what is bad. He will justify murder when it suits him, and condemn it when it does not. He will steel to keep himself satisfied, and condemn the same when it is taken from himself. So maybe it is an external supernatural warning system that should receive the credit for what is good, and what is bad, and not an internal system. If that is truly what you beleive, you're also saying that protestant religions are bad because they changed the way things were originally intended to be? The simple fact is that people changed god to suit themselves better.

The word of God does speak on the subject of conscience, and to whom the conscience comes from:
Rom 2:12-16:
For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. NKJV

The "word of God" is quite simply, not. I will not tell you that you are wrong. Everyone believes differently and that gives us a good moral mix to define what simple laws are "universal"

Thou shall not kill
Thou shall not bear false witness etc.

Anything superficial about a diety is unacceptable as universal law

 

[Trail-Axe]

And if today 95% of the people do what they feel is right, what happens tomorrow when they no longer feel it is right?


goodburbon: You feel "guilt" You cannot change the past, what are you asking?

Mr. Goodburbon,

I respect what you have said, and you have asked some real good questions that I will try to answer. What I am asking is this: There comes a day when one no longer feels guilty about doing something bad that he has done over and over. I'm sure you can remember a time when your "internal warning system" told you something was wrong. But you did it anyways. And you kept on doing it until you no longer felt guilty about doing it. Then you may have even taken it to the next step and told others it was cool. We have all done this at one time or another. And as a society, the change from what was once good, and what was once bad, happens the same way. I'm sure I do not need to give any examples of this, as I feel you are a very thoughtful person, with enough time under your belt to have seen this for yourself.

So my point is; if there is no moral absolute, as in God and His laws, then we are left to our own "majority rules" concept of living. It may work today, but after a period of time, it will fail. One need only study history to see this. Some people believe that man is basically good. If that is true, then why are some men bad? And why would any good man ever do anything bad? But we all know that truly bad men can do something good, and still be looked at as bad men. For example, someone who is always truthful can not lie and after be known as a truthful person; but a liar can say something that is true and still be known as a liar. And if man were basically good, then why do we need to teach our children not to lie, steal, or be selfish?

So I submit that since we can see that man does not start out as basically good, but bad, and absent any moral upbringing will do as he sees fit; then we had better be very sure that our system of what is right and what is wrong is not based on how we feel today, or the majority rules factor, but on something much more solid and absolute then that. And I suggest that something be the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Goodburbon wrote: If that is truly what you believe, you're also saying that protestant religions are bad because they changed the way things were originally intended to be?

Not sure I understand where you are coming from here my friend. Before I attempt to answer this question, please elaborate on what you mean by “things were originally intended to be.” Specifically; what things, and who?

Goodburbon wrote:The simple fact is that people changed god to suit themselves better.

I agree, but could this be a result of relying on the internal warning system as apposed to the external warning system? When man decides what is right and wrong, he places himself in God’s place.


I am pleased that we are able to have a discussion about politics and religion, and remain gentlemen. But it seems we may have hijacked this thread and made it into a discussion on morals and religion. I am open for anyone’s suggestion on how this topic might continue, or even not continue if that be the wish.
:cheers:

 

[Russ Pottenger]

I hope one day that someone religious can rule without pushing their beliefs on the people they govern. And on that note, I think it's time for some Call of Duty 4.

Those of us that are Conservative and hold Judeo Christian values, have been asking the same of the Secular Progressives.

 

[97CountryXJ]

Republimocratipendantonservatistiberalocialistiree
naborertatrianioneformatriotgressivist. (all smashed together)
American......:yap:

 

[sjd78]

I know right!? F*** acceptance and embracing change!

What exactly is this supposed to mean anyways?

 

[goodburbon]

What exactly is this supposed to mean anyways?

That was sarcasm.


as for this.
Quote:
Goodburbon wrote: If that is truly what you believe, you're also saying that protestant religions are bad because they changed the way things were originally intended to be?
Not sure I understand where you are coming from here my friend. Before I attempt to answer this question, please elaborate on what you mean by “things were originally intended to be.” Specifically; what things, and who?

1. You believe that Christ was the messiah and is the figurehead of your religion. From the manner in which you type I have done something dumb, I have made an assumption. That assumption is that you are protestant. Protestant religion itself is an example of what you warn against: suddenly "God's Absolute laws" were not being adhered to correctly according to Martin Luthers internal voice, so he started a religious revolution. Somehow the "word of God" lost a book or 2 when it made the jump from the Catholic church to the Protestant faiths.



Quote:
Goodburbon wrote:The simple fact is that people changed god to suit themselves better.
I agree, but could this be a result of relying on the internal warning system as apposed to the external warning system? When man decides what is right and wrong, he places himself in God’s place.

 

[goodburbon]

We can continue at a later date, I'm being forced out of the door now. hence the incomplete arguements.

 

[8Mud]

That was sarcasm.


as for this.
Quote:
Goodburbon wrote: If that is truly what you believe, you're also saying that protestant religions are bad because they changed the way things were originally intended to be?
Not sure I understand where you are coming from here my friend. Before I attempt to answer this question, please elaborate on what you mean by “things were originally intended to be.” Specifically; what things, and who?

1. You believe that Christ was the messiah and is the figurehead of your religion. From the manner in which you type I have done something dumb, I have made an assumption. That assumption is that you are protestant. Protestant religion itself is an example of what you warn against: suddenly "God's Absolute laws" were not being adhered to correctly according to Martin Luthers internal voice, so he started a religious revolution. Somehow the "word of God" lost a book or 2 when it made the jump from the Catholic church to the Protestant faiths.



Quote:
Goodburbon wrote:The simple fact is that people changed god to suit themselves better.
I agree, but could this be a result of relying on the internal warning system as apposed to the external warning system? When man decides what is right and wrong, he places himself in God’s place.

There was a conference right around 380 BC, which decided how much of the Christian religion was to be *organized*.

Gods absolute laws, paraphrasing, God trying to explain the process to man is like trying to teach a Dog calculus. There have been a series of intermediaries often called *Profits* or those few that just seem to *get it* some better than the average Joe.

Whether Jesus was the Messiah, is irrelevant IMO and personally I feel totally*****
under qualified too make a judgment one way or the other. At the very least there was/is something profound going on, that is/has been hard to ignore for a couple of thousand years. Even far longer than that, when you figure the old testament in also.

The split from traditional Catholicism and the reform church was more a question of authority. Protestants believed the answer is in the Bible more so than the leadership of the established Church. Two parallel paths towards the same goal.

IMO the main flaw in many religions, is the "my way is the only true way" philosophy. It is doubtful *man* has ever managed to get it exactly right, again doubtful the Profits were fully understood and baring a return of the/a Messiah unlikely we will ever get it just right.

My biggest questions lately are what happened to the missing books of the Bible, what do they have to say? And the translations in the Old Testament that seem to be flawed. And how other great books/works of theology (the Koran among others) figure into the whole picture.

The investigation continues and will likely be a lifetime project. Sometimes the answers are in the process and not in absolute solutions or profound revelations. Wouldn't it be a hoot if they were all right and the problem was in our ability to comprehend.

 

[jeeperjohn]

I agree with a streamlined law system, but not based on the 10 commandments. Based on The Constitution, yes. Separation of Church and State still doesn't seem to have happened in a lot of places and, IMO, freedom of religion means that the government of an entire country shouldn't be based on any single religion.

I see what you mean, I was just using the ten commandments as an example of something to base things on.

 

[jeeperjohn]

There are a few people I can not and will not vote for.

Obama
Edwards
Clinton
Guilliani

I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat if he made the ballot, if not I just have to vote against those other humps.

So far I think Thompson has the most attractive campaigning points.

 

[Trail-Axe]

1. You believe that Christ was the messiah and is the figurehead of your religion. From the manner in which you type I have done something dumb, I have made an assumption. That assumption is that you are protestant. Protestant religion itself is an example of what you warn against: suddenly "God's Absolute laws" were not being adhered to correctly according to Martin Luther’s internal voice, so he started a religious revolution. Somehow the "word of God" lost a book or 2 when it made the jump from the Catholic church to the Protestant faiths.

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ sent from God. I was raised Roman Catholic. In 1999 I came to know Jesus personally. After, I started to read the Bible. I found many things written in the Bible that directly conflicted with Roman Catholic traditions. I made a choice to believe what was written in the Bible.

Martin Luther was not just following some inner voice, and he did not desire to start a revolution. He was a sixteenth century Roman Catholic German monk, and scholar. During his own personal Bible study, Luther came across the passage that says, "the just shall live by faith." (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11) From his study of this verse, he came to the realization that the teachings of the Roman Catholic church went against this teaching. Luther did not wish to leave the Roman Catholic church, but rather reform it. Luther apposed all teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that contradicted Scriptural teachings. However, he readily embraced teachings and traditions that were not against the Scripture's teachings. At the time, the Roman Catholic Church was rife with corruption and the sale of indulgences. Indulgences, was the payment of money to the Roman Catholic Church for forgiveness of sin. In 1515 Martin Luther began teaching at Wittenburg. He continuously pondered the teachings of the Apostle Paul. He spoke out against corruption and the selling of indulgences. He nailed his 95-point thesis to the door of the church in Wittenburg. In 1520, he was condemned by the Pope, excommunicated from the Church and his writings banned.


I do not claim any one Bible believing church as "my church." But I do attend a place of worship, and I still read the Bible. Before I knew Christ personally, my life had no real meaning, and I had no real hope. Now my life has meaning, and I have hope. I have faith that Christ is the one sent from God to deliver His people from a life of sin and death. It is my desire that all men could know Christ personally, but that will be a choice they will have to make after they have heard the truth about Him. The truth is this; Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John 14:6)

I know that not everyone believes this, and I am ok with that. Those who chose not to believe will have to give an account to God personally for rejecting His only way to salvation. Since it is Jesus the Christ who made this statement, He is the one you must recon with about it. Remember the old saying, don't shoot the messenger? This also rules out the argument that all religions of the world are right. Jesus makes it very clear that there is only one name by which men can be saved. And Peter, one who was with Jesus, an eye witness of His resurrection said this:

Acts 4:8-12:
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved ." NKJV

 

[jeeperjohn]

Interesting view point. Are you sure that your good conscience is not from an external supernatural influence? And if you are sure, how do you know this?


Unacceptable to who? And what happens when we ignore this internal warning system? Should we be punished? And who should punish us? And whose standard do we judge by; your internal warning system, or mine? And what is to say your internal warning system should be a moral absolute for my internal warning system that differs from yours?

And if today 95% of the people do what they feel is right, what happens tomorrow when they no longer feel it is right?

My point is this: If we ignore an absolute authority for what is good, and what is bad, we then become that authority. We have seen what man is very capable of if left to his own internal warning system for what is good, and what is bad. He will justify murder when it suits him, and condemn it when it does not. He will steel to keep himself satisfied, and condemn the same when it is taken from himself. So maybe it is an external supernatural warning system that should receive the credit for what is good, and what is bad, and not an internal system.

The word of God does speak on the subject of conscience, and to whom the conscience comes from:
Rom 2:12-16:
For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. NKJV

The fact that our system is designed to give everyone their input is what makes it so workable. Majority rule generally has the best outcome in the long run. In theory our system is not necessarily based on christianity because anyone from any or even no religion could, in theory, get elected. It's when the elected leaders start to decide that they are smarter than the will of the people, that things start to go wrong.

 

[Trail-Axe]

The fact that our system is designed to give everyone their input is what makes it so workable. Majority rule generally has the best outcome in the long run. In theory our system is not necessarily based on christianity because anyone from any or even no religion could, in theory, get elected. It's when the elected leaders start to decide that they are smarter than the will of the people, that things start to go wrong.

True, it is a good system that allows everyone a chance to vote for the leader that best represents them. I'm not against that at all. But we as the people should not think that we are smarter then the will of God, that is when things will go wrong.

 

[sjd78]

That was sarcasm.

Sarcasm??? It didnt even make any sense?