Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
I neither read nor respond to Pizza's posts. In the past it has only led to personal attacks, and in addition to being unChristlike on either person's part, it gets rather boring.
-
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!
BUSH Wins - Christians everywhere rejoice
- Thread starter Gup20
- Start date
tragic_pizza
New Member
I neither read nor respond to Pizza's posts. In the past it has only led to personal attacks, and in addition to being unChristlike on either person's part, it gets rather boring. </font>[/QUOTE]How superior of you. On the plus side, I suppose, you don't actually have your thought process challenged by your lessers...
RockRambler
New Member
How nice of the Pharisees to show up and tell us what we should be rejoicing about if we are TRUE Christians.
It is my belief that true christians should neither gloat or whine about an election, but pray that God watches over our elected leaders as they face difficult decisions. Silly me.
Carolyn Dee
New Member
Today is November 9, Tuesday. I have been away for a few days and in spite of so many posts, I'm going to add my thoughts at the risk of repeating anybody. Yes, I am glad and rejoicing that Bush won. Whatever he may mean to you, it should be a safe bet to say that he's "better" to have in the White House than John Kerry!!
Does anyone have any further info on Americans leaving the U.S. for Canada??? According to the Boston Herald, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan will "welcome them with open arms." According to the article ("For Dem whiners, an alternative to moving to Canada"). Supposedly "tens of thousands of Americans...are willing to renounce their U.S. citizenship." Good riddance!!!!!!! I suppose I didn't sound very Christian just right then but I am amazed at the depths of pro-Kerry supporters are reducing themselves to! Even therapy!!!!
I think it's great that the "conservatives" (Christian Right, etc) will have a round of cleaning up after the Clinton administration.
Does anyone have any further info on Americans leaving the U.S. for Canada??? According to the Boston Herald, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan will "welcome them with open arms." According to the article ("For Dem whiners, an alternative to moving to Canada"). Supposedly "tens of thousands of Americans...are willing to renounce their U.S. citizenship." Good riddance!!!!!!! I suppose I didn't sound very Christian just right then but I am amazed at the depths of pro-Kerry supporters are reducing themselves to! Even therapy!!!!
I think it's great that the "conservatives" (Christian Right, etc) will have a round of cleaning up after the Clinton administration.
here now,
I didn't deliberately sabatoge your quote. Sorry if you took it that way. It is customary to cut all but the point being addressed, although I normally indicate that I have done that with "...". I neglected to do so in this case, I'm sorry.
"Nobody's perfect" is what I left out, because it was not relevant to the point of my reply, which was that you seemed to be indicating that enthusiasm over the candidacy of GW Bush was an indication of a person's salvation. I hope you can see how far off base, not to mention highly judgemental, that is. [/b]</font>[/QUOTE]***** THE FOLLOWING COMMENT IS MADE AS A FOLLOW-UP TO PA JIM'S COMMENT ABOUT PRESIDENT BUSH AS AN IDOL ***** **** NOT ABOUT ANYONE'S SALVATION!*****
Well it is relevant because I said: So it is my beleif......without the reason for that beleif, my intent could be misinterpretted. So I think that since in your post you accused some (possibly even me), of making President Bush their idol. That makes what I said very important.
So let me say again that: I think that most Christians understand that N
NE is PERFECT. AND: that even includes President Bush!
I have a neighbour who has a daughter from a first partner and who is now married. Her daughter calls both her biological father and her step-father : "daddy".
Children nowadays often live in reconstructed families and they are getting used to having two daddies or two mummies. Nothing to do with homosexuality. Children raised by homosexual couples remain very marginal. Lots of these children are adopted, and it is better for a child to have two loving parents than none, even if they turn out to be gays.
Corinne
How nice of the Pharisees to show up and tell us what we should be rejoicing about if we are TRUE Christians.
It is my belief that true christians should neither gloat or whine about an election, but pray that God watches over our elected leaders as they face difficult decisions. Silly me. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not going to go over with you what I just went over with PA Jim. So just please go to my November, @ 5:03 post and that should clear things up for you.
A Pharisee would certainly NEVER think himself NOT PERFECT. So see your post was really out of line.
Very well, as
1) I do not condone homosexuality but I do not condemn it either. Neither would Jesus.
2) I was talking about the children's viewpoint. A lot of them have two heterosexual daddies and some of them have two homosexual daddies (rarely happens though). There are even some who have a biological gay dad and a heterosexual step dad. Many combinations are possible. I do not judge any of these people for the life they choose to live. I leave that up to God.
Corinne
1) I do not condone homosexuality but I do not condemn it either. Neither would Jesus.
2) I was talking about the children's viewpoint. A lot of them have two heterosexual daddies and some of them have two homosexual daddies (rarely happens though). There are even some who have a biological gay dad and a heterosexual step dad. Many combinations are possible. I do not judge any of these people for the life they choose to live. I leave that up to God.
Corinne
How nice of the Pharisees to show up and tell us what we should be rejoicing about if we are TRUE Christians.
It is my belief that true christians should neither gloat or whine about an election, but pray that God watches over our elected leaders as they face difficult decisions. Silly me. </font>[/QUOTE]You had to leave out part of my post OR you could NOT reffer to me as a Pharisee. So I will accuse you of sabatogging my post!!!
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
Even President Bush? Wow.Originally posted by here now:
So let me say again that: I think that most Christians understand that N
AND: that even includes President Bush! [/b]
Come to think of it, it also includes Bill Clinton, who wasn't a very good president, either, and John Kerry, who probably would not have been any better.
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
How about buffoon?
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
Please allow me to demonstrate:
"Is homosexuality worse than any other sin?"
Yes, it's worse than double parking
"Is homosexuality worse than mass genocide?"
I'd think not.
Two different questions, two different answers.
tragic_pizza
New Member
Please allow me to demonstrate:
"Is homosexuality worse than any other sin?"
Yes, it's worse than double parking
"Is homosexuality worse than mass genocide?"
I'd think not.
Two different questions, two different answers. </font>[/QUOTE]No, you're purposely rephrasing the question. The way it was asked was: "Is there any other sin worse than homosexuality?" You, in effect, responded that no other sin is worse than homosexuality. C4K agreed, insisting that " it is worse because its affect on society is worse. It destroys the very concept of the God ordained family."
My response was ignored, ignored, ignored. You'll probably ignore this post as well, because your neck is too stiff to read down very far.
Gup20
Active Member
You have demonstrated my point gentlemen. In "society" homosexuality is worse than lying, but to God, homosexuality is on the same level as lying - it is sin. Therefore, as we are embassadors for Christ - his stewards in the earth - we should treat a homosexual and a liar no different. We can indeed abhore the sin, but our treatment of that person should be no different than someone known for telling 'little white lies'.
To the point - Bush appointed a homosexual ambassador. As a president, he is not required to make sure that the people he appoints or hires are good christians who share his faith or values. He is required to choose the person most qualified for the position. As a man of faith, he can let his values influence his decision, but the interests of the nation are not always going to be the interests of christians. Bush has, in my opinion, the greatest balance in this area I have ever seen in a president. He lets his faith guide him... all of his decisions are based upon it... but he doesn't try to 'make a point' with it or abuse his position by asserting his faith or ideology over others. He is, I suspect, performing exactly the way the founding fathers would have. He freely expresses and practices his own faith, but he does not impeed on anyone else's faith. I think Bush takes his office (really the most powerful office in the World) very seriously and I think he is extremely good at it and balances personal freedom and civic responsibility very well.
Previous administrations have been too willing to use their position as a pulpit to advance their ideology. Bush simply expresses his own religion freely as our founding fathers intended, while at the same time preserving the religous liberties of those who do not share his faith. He has a moral obligation (and I think mandate by the founding fathers) to promote personal freedom and liberty in faith and religion. It's not separation of church and state - it's freely expressing his own religion and having enough honor and respect for his fellow men not to encroach on their religous liberty.
[edited in:] It occured to me that our Pastors tend to do just what Bush is avoiding. Our pastors often "make laws regarding the establishment of religion" in the form of church by-laws or church doctrine (denominational doctrine, for example). They do indeed set up mini theocracies, do they not? If a pastor makes it clear that his church is to believe a specific doctrine, aren't naysayers often ostracized? Why is this? Because our Pastors are our spiritual leaders - it is their responsibility and job description. Bush is not our pastor. He is not required to spiritually lead the country... and the founding fathers who wrote our constitution understood this. They intened the office of president to be a secular leader, not a spiritual leader.
[ November 10, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Gup20 ]
To the point - Bush appointed a homosexual ambassador. As a president, he is not required to make sure that the people he appoints or hires are good christians who share his faith or values. He is required to choose the person most qualified for the position. As a man of faith, he can let his values influence his decision, but the interests of the nation are not always going to be the interests of christians. Bush has, in my opinion, the greatest balance in this area I have ever seen in a president. He lets his faith guide him... all of his decisions are based upon it... but he doesn't try to 'make a point' with it or abuse his position by asserting his faith or ideology over others. He is, I suspect, performing exactly the way the founding fathers would have. He freely expresses and practices his own faith, but he does not impeed on anyone else's faith. I think Bush takes his office (really the most powerful office in the World) very seriously and I think he is extremely good at it and balances personal freedom and civic responsibility very well.
Previous administrations have been too willing to use their position as a pulpit to advance their ideology. Bush simply expresses his own religion freely as our founding fathers intended, while at the same time preserving the religous liberties of those who do not share his faith. He has a moral obligation (and I think mandate by the founding fathers) to promote personal freedom and liberty in faith and religion. It's not separation of church and state - it's freely expressing his own religion and having enough honor and respect for his fellow men not to encroach on their religous liberty.
[edited in:] It occured to me that our Pastors tend to do just what Bush is avoiding. Our pastors often "make laws regarding the establishment of religion" in the form of church by-laws or church doctrine (denominational doctrine, for example). They do indeed set up mini theocracies, do they not? If a pastor makes it clear that his church is to believe a specific doctrine, aren't naysayers often ostracized? Why is this? Because our Pastors are our spiritual leaders - it is their responsibility and job description. Bush is not our pastor. He is not required to spiritually lead the country... and the founding fathers who wrote our constitution understood this. They intened the office of president to be a secular leader, not a spiritual leader.
[ November 10, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Gup20 ]
Gup20
Active Member
To my last post I would add that I personally think that "separation of church and state" is a myth. I think it's only been upheld for so long because of liberal activist judges who are trying to impose their theocracy on the people (whether that be humanism or atheism or whatever). I think that Bush is a secular leader, but I think that he should be ENTIRELY free to express and practice his religion at any time. For example, if bush were to open a meeting with a prayer... no problem with me - he is FREE to do so. The president has an obligation to BOTH practice his religon freely AND do all he can to keep from imposing that religon on others. That is a delicate balance if you have faith. If you do not have faith... it's no problem... just eschew all religion. That is the path many presidents have chosen to take. But Bush is a Christian... and a devout man of faith. So he must balance his civic and religious obligations.
tragic_pizza
New Member
Gup, that is a very well-reasoned and articulated post.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I am not re-entering this debate, but have been asked by adminstration to request that all posters return this thread to the topic in the OP.
This is not a debate on homosexuality.
Roger
C4K
Moderator
This is not a debate on homosexuality.
Roger
C4K
Moderator