After speaking with friends and family this weekend it became increasingly clear to me that even Obama supporters initially scratched their heads and wondered what prompted the Peace Prize Committee to give the award to President Barack Obama. However, they have concluded that the accomplishment of becoming the first Black American President is so transformative that hope has been restored to the hearts of black people here and abroad and that phenomenon in and of itself is the reason that President Obama is the deserving chosen recipient. How touching... No, I can't make this stuff up, these are the sentiments of my beloved familiars.
I feel compelled to set the record straight. The
REAL reason that the
Socialist Norwegian Parliament gave the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama was to make a political statement that they affirm his socialist agenda and his approach to foreign policy. This is a thinly veiled attempt to influence American foreign policy.
The fact that Obama
worshippers supporters are
dumb naive enough to think that these socialist Norwegian's give a tinker's damn about
"hope in the hearts of black folks" is just laughable.
109 comments:
Is there a such thing as a Black American??
Excellent assessment. I'm sure you're aware that he was in office a whole 12 days when the submissions for nominations had to be postmarked. It was so clearly not based on anything he'd done, your theory makes excellent sense.
And re: Attourneymom...why wouldn't there be such a thing as a "black american"? I'm an American...the pigment in my skin makes me look rather peach...
As a person of European decent, I hold ZERO allegiance to the place of my forefathers birth/descent, other than to learn about my history. My blood is European, but my heart if fully U.S. American
You know, you are right on the money. I work with a bunch of liberals who were baffled when they first heard the news. "Even I don't think he deserved it", said one, who is always singing his praises.
But this morning, it's a different tune. They are all acting like they supported him for winning it all along. It's like waking up in the Twilight Zone.
When you put it that way, it's really not surprising at ALL that he won. Sad, yes. Surprising, no.
If the president had any decency, he wouldn't accept that award. But since he's narcissistic and without a conscience of course he'll accept it.
His name had to be submitted for nomination while he was still candidate Obama. Unreal. But then again, the leftists on the NPP committee also awarded Yassir Arafat with the same award. Next year, Iran's mass-murderer-in-the-making, will probably get it.
Hey AttorneyMom~I think there is. I'm a black American.
I'm not an African American. I've never been to Africa, neither have my parents, grandparents or even great grandparents been to Africa.
While I'm sure it's a beautiful country rich with cultural, traditions. I'd love to visit one day but...it's not my home.
I really dislike the term African American and I've never referred to myself or any other black person born in America that way.
But on second thought--maybe President Obama is "African" American....lol.
Just kidding....
I think you're absolutely correct about them trying social engineering, and I wouldn't be overly surprised to see them succeed at least in part.
I wish I was there...
CBW, hope all is well with you and yours. I must say, this was not one of your "usual" posts IMO. Usually when I read your posts I can see some of the rationale behind the expressed sentiments. But this time, this one sounds borderline loony.
Do you REALLY believe that's what this is about? I would say my point of contention with him receiving this award is in fact his interest in troop escalation in Afghanistan. But hey that's just the anti-war activist in me.
But an attempt to endorse socialism?
C'mon my sister!
CBW,
You are right on the mark. Sweden has essentially usurped the presidency of the United States of America with respect to international affairs. Obama's narcissistic persona has been bought and paid for on the cheap and he will facilitate the fulfillment of the Norwegians' socialistic agenda.
What a sham. Look for Obama to win the Heisman if he watches the University of Texas-Oklahoma match up this weekend.... and the Nobel Prize in Medicine next year after he destroys free market medicine in America.
Rippa~I admit that when it comes to our POTUS I'm highly critical. And perhaps at times I've strrrrretch the limits of reason to support my low opinion of this administration. But this is no stretch at all. In fact, one has to make an effort not to see what's happening here.
BlackInk~You literally caused me to laugh out loud...."Look for Obama to win the Heisman if he watches the University of Texas-Oklahoma match up this weekend.... and the Nobel Prize in Medicine next year after he destroys free market medicine in America. Hilarious!!!
@CBW:
Your logic is that you have never been to Africa, therefor you're not an African American. As far as I can see you've never been black, either, yet you embrace that title.
*scratches head*
I would think someone like you would insist on being called American, [PERIOD].
Anonymous@11:36pm~
I'm uncomfortable with your comments because your tone is hateful.
Those women that you see on reality shows do not represent black womanhood. They represent themselves and might I remind you that there are several reality shows that have a large amount of slutty, whorish white women as well! Likewise, there are white women, children and teens whose language is foul by default.
To refer to childrens as "little bastards" is hateful, mean and unproductive.
Yes, we need to do better and we need to talk about the behaviors that hinder our progress economically and socially. But using derogatory language when speaking about children is utterly despicable.
I was thinking the same thing Conservative Minority that if you are an American and black, then you are black American.
Isn't it ironic that in a previous discussion about BW and the Black community an anonymous poster wanted to continuously talk about Obama; and now in a discussion about Obama another anonymous poster wants to discuss BW. Hmmm? Why would you come to a blog you know is run by a BW to purposely talk badly about other BW? Anonymous 11:36PM is obviously an internet troll that should be ignored. Their goal is to divert and thus hinder the actual discussion.
You're right CBW, The Nobel Peace Prize has become a political movement with-in itself. Look at the past five Laureates
# 2009 - Barack Obama
# 2008 - Martti Ahtisaari
# 2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore
# 2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
# 2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
All with a Liberal/Socialist Agenda. All promote propaganda of world human-made disasters. Their choice for Obama winning was not a MISTAKE, The prize is worth NOTHING, and for the past ten years has meant NOTHING. Who's better than OBAMA to win. It's an EMPTY award for an EMPTYSUIT.
I have noticed something. I go to "liberal" blogs and read about current pop culture, literature, movies, and thought inspiring satirical debate. All you "conservatives" do is B*tch about some "socialist" agenda, bash obama, and act self righteous..just saying...
Its people like this who should win the Nobel Peace Prize and when they don't I find myself drifting into madness over this useless and idiotic Appeasement winner.
Al Gore wins Nobel Prize over
woman who saved 2,500 lives
Warsaw, Poland - Irena Sendler - credited with saving some 2,500 Jewish children from the Nazi Holocaust by smuggling them out of the Warsaw Ghetto, some of them in baskets - died Monday, her family said. She was 98.
Sendler was a 29-year-old social worker with the city's welfare department when Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, launching World War II. Warsaw's Jews were forced into a walled-off ghetto.
Seeking to save the ghetto's children, Sendler masterminded risky rescue operations. Under the pretext of inspecting sanitary conditions during a typhoid outbreak, she and her assistants ventured inside the ghetto - and smuggled out babies and small children in ambulances and in trams, sometimes wrapped up as packages.
Teenagers escaped by joining teams of workers forced to labor outside the ghetto. They were placed in families, orphanages, hospitals or convents.
Records show that Sendler's team of about 20 people saved nearly 2,500 children from the Warsaw Ghetto between October 1940 and its final liquidation in April 1943, when the Nazis burned the ghetto, shooting the residents or sending them to death camps.
In hopes of one day uniting the children with their families - most of whom perished in the Nazis' death camps, Sendler wrote the children's real names on slips of paper that she kept at home.
When German police came to arrest her in 1943, an assistant managed to hide the slips, which Sendler later buried in a jar under an apple tree in an associate's yard. Some 2,500 names were recorded.
Anyone caught helping Jews in Nazi-occupied Poland risked being summarily shot, along with family members - a fate Sendler only barely escaped herself after the 1943 raid by the Gestapo. The Nazis took her to the notorious Pawiak prison, which few people left alive. Gestapo agents tortured her repeatedly, leaving Sendler with scars on her body - but she refused to betray her team. Zegota, an underground organization helping Jews, paid a bribe to German guards to free her from the prison. Under a different name, she continued her work.
After World War II, Sendler continued to assist some of the children she rescued.
Irena Sendler was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, but did not win. The winner was Al Gore who narrated a slide show.
Ever wondered by Mohandas Gandhi or as we know him Mahatma Gandhi has never won the Nobel Peace Prize. If anyone deserves that prize it was him. That shows you how the committee thinks of peace. Gandhi was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize from 1937 to 1948. He was assasinated when they finally decided to award him. It took them 11 years to consider Gandhi, 9 months for Obama, who has done nothing. The Prize is JUNK.
"I have noticed something. I go to "liberal" blogs and read about current pop culture, literature, movies, and thought inspiring satirical debate...."
Wow, maybe you're confusing liberal arts with political liberals. Could also be that liberals are pretty obviously not putting much THOUGHT into what they say they believe and are mindlessly voting for/supporting Obama for.
@ Conservative Minority
"Could also be that liberals are pretty obviously not putting much THOUGHT into what they say they believe and are mindlessly voting for/supporting Obama for." (CM)
pretty obviously not putting much thought into what they say...(isn't it ironic that's all I have to say) LOL!
Boy if I would have written that sentence, I could only imagine the Conservative backlash.
ROTFLMBO!
I've seen your blog . . . looks like you're free to write a lot of mindless material without "conservative backlash". I'll be the example of someone who "supports" Rush Limbaugh and strangely maintains a relationship with Christ. You can consider me an anomaly.
@ CM:
Don't worry I do consider you an anomaly. There is no argument there...
Liberals must be mindless to follow the lead of a liberal President. You're right, it doesn't make a lick of sense to share the liberal ideology of liberal leader, that is quite mindless.
It's a lot like Conservatives believing there was such a thing as an pre-emptive war against Iraq; or even better poor Conservatives believing in trickle down economics; or being anti-government but loving their food-stamps and medicaid; or the best one of all, Conservatives believing in lowering taxes is best for the economy, but forgets to cut spending...
I hope your stimulus check was worth it, or but wait you're not mindless so you probably sent it back to the government, right?
"Irena Sendler was nominated for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, but did not win. The winner was Al Gore who narrated a slide show."
The Al Gore 'global warming/climate change' being based on the study of twelve (yes, 12) trees. These twelve trees being known (yes, as in, I know 'but'...)as problematic for this type of reconstruction. With deep flaws, manipulations, ulterior motives, and outright lies, but Al Gore was awarded for his support. It's all about popularity/mob rule/democratizing an ideology. If something is true or an actual issue, it doesn't make sense that subterfuge is used to make points.
See more about the twelve trees:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/004052.html
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://cobb.typepad.com/cobb/2009/10/twelve-trees.html
http://texasscribbler.com/blog/2009/10/twelve_measly_trees.html
The chief greenhouse gas being water vapor, we'd need a record of concentrations everywhere. There is no such 'past' record. Therefore the next most important
greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide is used. It's sort of like the story about losing your wallet at night and looking for it under a street lamp because that's where the light is. We all have our opinions. This often has nothing to do with facts. The issues involved in the climate are multitudinous and extremely complicated.
http://www.heartland.org/suites/environment/index.html
The strange thing is, Al Gore was given an award while pretending to know things that are unknown but fitting a certain agenda.
Regardless of what it says about the recipient, the award itself has become meaningless in that it doesn't mean what it is promoted to mean, especially in context of peace.
Teenagers didn't get many stimulus checks...maybe mine wasn't mailed to the right place...
You're mixing your examples. Are you talking about Conservative leaders or "we the people"? Because a Conservative person can be anti-BIG (you forgot that part)- government and not be able to do a whole lot about our leaders spending all our money without permission.
And as far as Conservatives on welfare, using food stamps, etc. If those tools are used, I would argue they are actually used properly. For example, at different points when each of my parents were unemployed, they claimed unemployment benefits WHILE LOOKING ENDLESSLY FOR NEW JOBS. People who use welfare to get them through a rough patch is different than a lifestyle of government dependence. The liberal idea is that minorities don't deserve better than government dependence and that they know what is best. (They also worked hard to keep slavery legal) The GOP says that ANYONE can work for what they want. Teach a man to fish vs tossing him into a barrel of salmon.
@ CW:
1) Didn't realize your age, so now I understand the language. You haven't had time to develop your arguments, yet. Did your parents send the checks back or are they mindless liberals too?
2) "People who use welfare to get them through a rough patch is different than a lifestyle of government dependence. The liberal idea is that minorities don't deserve better than government dependence and that they know what is best."
I wasn't aware that my "idea was that minorities don't deserve better", considering my mother was a single mother who never took a lick of government money, and wait she was also a liberal. She didn't even take alimony or child support from her ex-husband, and if she had to, she worked two jobs.
3)Your argument is Conservatives take government money to get over rough patches, and liberals take government money for dependence. You are still in Conservatism 101, and you don't understand the heart of your ideology. This is not even talking points, this is just simplistic stereotyping.
4)Conservatives didn't try to do a whole lot about Bush over-spending, instead they let him get by with it because he was a Conservative. Perhaps if Conservatives were more outspoken they could have prevented this record deficit and stock market crashes. But "we the people" just followed mindlessly...thank you for proving my point.
MGV~I'm not trying to gang up on you but I must co-sign CM.
Do you honestly questions one's devotion to Christ if they are regular listeners of Rush Limbaugh?
I began listening to Rush because I wanted to hear for myself how "racist" he is and I've yet to hear any vile, hateful, racist comments from the man. He is not only hilarious but insightful, well-informed and an incredibly clear thinker. If half the folks critizing him would do themselves a favor by listening to the man for a week or so.
As a Christian I question why so many are opposed to hearing the truth?
Grape,
Here's where your problem started, with a CM post:
["I have noticed something. I go to "liberal" blogs and read about current pop culture, literature, movies, and thought inspiring satirical debate...."
Wow, maybe you're confusing liberal arts with political liberals.]
I can understand but it (CM's post) was true.
Then you started the personal attacks along with the guilt trip of 'you would have been blasted for saying such' which is crap, as you are saying plenty and often.
This abusive behavior is common of Democrat meanies. I didn't think you wanted to come across like that.
CM,
I appreciate your time and sensible posting.
I hope to hear from you often.
IMO, personal attacks/guilt trips are the crudest form of manipulation. This distracting, strong arm method should be clearly denounced at every opportunity, whether appreciated or admitted by the perp.
And to further accusations...'cause that's what ya do...
Democrats are so fond of saying that Conservatives don't say anything when....bla, bla, bla, yawn. Talk about 101.
Most, I really don't care and I hope you find your accusations and guilt trips ignored. That's all they deserve. The truth is obvious and will be acknowledged by those who I count.
If you don't like conservative views, one could wonder what your mission here is.
@ Smile:
Please save it, you can go back and read old post where you called me names, strong armed me, and have done each one of those tactics to intimidate me, including questioning my grammar. If you memory is too short to remember, please let me know so I can refresh it for you...
Honestly, sit this one out, because you have a short memory.
@ CM:
If I offended you on a personal level, it was not my intention. I see that you are younger and developing your arguments, and therefore I will apologize if I got too personal.
Trust me I understand what it feels like to be attacked. I still don't agree with you, but not trying to make it a personal mean-spirited debate.
@ CBW:
"Do you honestly questions one's devotion to Christ if they are regular listeners of Rush Limbaugh?"
My point is not to question one's faith, but to question why one with faith would follow the lead of Rush Limbaugh. His personal life really speaks for itself as to what type of person he truly is. You can think he's the leader of a Christian movement if you want to, but I don't see Christ delivering his message through someone who sins are just so great.
Likewise I don't think Obama is here to deliver Christ message, either. I wish people would not associate God with either one of these men.
Rush Limbaugh lives a lifestyle that is very much in conflict with Christianity. It's like listening to a gay pastor when he says homosexuality is a sin.
It would be nice if he lived by the words that he preached or at least tried, and until he seems to be making a better effort, then I'm going to step out and say, he shouldn't be a representative of the Christian right.
In my opinion he's an opportunist just like Al Sharpton, and the only reason you don't agree is because you both share the same ideology. It's no different from liberals who do the same when they support Jesse Jackson or Van Jones.
There is nothing you can say that will convince me that Rush Limbaugh is a leader of a Christian movement.
@ Smile:
I don't think CBW created this blog because she wants a cheerleading squad, or I could be mistaken.
Obviously I love it here because there are "some" Conservative intellects who understand the foundation of their belief. I'm not one to feed my mind with only single party doctrine. I could patronize liberal blogs only, but honestly what more would I learn or gain that I don't already know.
I think debate is healthy, and I will challenge your beliefs, just as you would and have challenge mine. But, just because you say Conservative ideology is the truth doesn't make it the truth, and that certainly doesn't mean I'm going to agree.
The point is to make sure people aren't believing everything because it has a liberal or conservative stamp, but because they seek understanding and truth.
I have conceded to a few of your points, but I'm not interested in being slandered just because I am of opposing views. Sorry that simplistic attack is just not going to work on me, and you should know that by now.
I feel compelled to set the record straight. The REAL reason that the Socialist Norwegian Parliament gave the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama was to make a political statement that they affirm his socialist agenda and his approach to foreign policy. This is a thinly veiled attempt to influence American foreign policy.
The fact that Obama worshippers supporters are dumb naive enough to think that these socialist Norwegian's give a tinker's damn about "hope in the hearts of black folks" is just laughable
Yeah when I heard that I laughed and said, How long does certain blacks still want to be on the plantion, they fail to realize they have been SET FREE!!! Group think is no longer needed.
What would have happened it he refuse the prize?
"considering my mother was a single mother who never took a lick of government money, and wait she was also a liberal. She didn't even take alimony or child support from her ex-husband, and if she had to, she worked two jobs."
----
Well, we have that in common. I'm glad your mom resisted the liberal ideology that people NEED to depend on government to survive. Kudos to her.
Further, I never said that liberals are the only ones who waste and abuse government processes, but that the LIBERAL LEADERS and current government, desire that attitude from minorities.
And I totally agree that EVERYONE (every liberal and conservative in congress especially, as per usual) did nothing to stop Bush's spending. We all deserve crap for that one. So now, why are people getting harassed by the Left and the media for realizing THAT mistake and desiring to stop Obama and a very similar congress from continued waste?
And finally, I was a teenager when the stimulus checks rolled around (under Bush). I'm a young adult now. :) A young adult conservative from Seattle...hence a "minority" in my own right. :p
I haven't felt personally attacked by you beyond what I'd expect to experience on the internet. It's easy to forget that real people are on the other side of the computer screen, I'm guilty of that very often!
Finally, I know the Conservative foundation, hence the reason I do not support Obama, a government behemoth, or the culture of liberalism that is pervading my age group and half of the nation.
@ CM:
Now that's two things we have in common, I'm a liberal in the Conservative state of Texas. I feel like everyone is a Conservative because their pastor said so, and not because they actually thought about what it truly means.
"I see that you are younger and developing your arguments, and therefore I will apologize if I got too personal."
Thank you, that's all I was saying, Grape. Still, even that is a bit too catty in that CM, though young, hasn't said anything underdeveloped. In fact, she deserves kudos for critical thinking and she was spot on in her response that sent you off, imo.
You can get another "tear in your right eye" because I appreciate your stepping to the plate so quickly to apologize.
I read many blogs but no one show me the real reason of noble peace prize... but i thanks to you.
@ Grapevine:
You said, "You can think he's the leader of a Christian movement if you want to, but I don't see Christ delivering his message through someone who sins are just so great." and, "There is nothing you can say that will convince me that Rush Limbaugh is a leader of a Christian movement."
Did someone state that Rush is a christian or leader of a christian movement on this board? Rush Limbaugh has never stated or even implied that he is a christian. There is nothing about Rush Limbaugh that would lead me or any other discerning Christian to believe that he is. Rush is a Conservative. Every conservative is not a christian. By christian, I mean a born-again, redeemed, christian, not the cultural christian that goes to church or has some vague idea of God due to tradition. Give conservative christians credit for having some discernment(because christian discernment seems to be lacking these days) If a conservative christian listens and agrees with Limbaugh it is because he reflects their worldview and they share his conservative beliefs. I don't know any christian that believes Rush is a born-again christian, nor is he leading any christian movement. Your statement was really out there. And displays some twisted understanding of christians who are "politically" conservatives. I'm surprised no one has called you on that.
@ Ziggy:
1)Slow down, and put it in context before you go off on me...
Background info:
We are discussing an article I wrote on my political site that started from a post on my gossip site. People left comments on my post claiming Rush Limbaugh was a true Christian and that I should follow his Christian lead. The article I wrote was in response to specific comments from Limbaugh worshipers...not a response to any of you, or any Christian who listens to Rush.
Here is the quote that was left on my blog:
"Then you need to read the Bible and listen to good Christians like Rush and watch Fox news because they are Christians. All Republicans are Christians so when you except Jesus you need to become a Republican and stop being a Commy because Commys are godless heathens."
2) Thus, the article I wrote, "You're not a Christian if you listen to Limbaugh"...
3) I know that all Conservatives aren't Christians, @JMK and I had that conversation a few posts back.
4)So no, I don't have a twisted understanding of Christians who are "politically" conservative. The article is in response to people who are just twisted.
5) The reason it's on this site is because @ Conservative Minority and @ CBW read it, and questioned it.
@Ms Grapevine:
Good to know, cause truthfully that comment was frightening.
And the original comment,if it came from a "true" christian ain't no joke either. God help us all.
I am sadded that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize and he is screwing up this nation. What a shame.
-Meg
"My point is not to question one's faith, but to question why one with faith would follow the lead of Rush Limbaugh. His personal life really speaks for itself as to what type of person he truly is. You can think he's the leader of a Christian movement if you want to, but I don't see Christ delivering his message through someone who sins are just so great."
Really? David as the king, who was the man who sought after God's own heart, committed adultery and then murder to cover up that adultery. Solomon, the man of wisdom from God, fell into idolatry near end of his life, being led astrayed by many wives. Peter, one of the 12 apostles of Christ (and according to RCC, the first pope), rebuked Jesus for saying He would die for our sins, later on chopped off a servant's ear, and still later on denied Christ three times.
I can think of many folks in the Bible who did far worse than Limbaugh.
The very basis of Christianity is that our sins are great enough to condemn us for eternity, so that is why God provided an atonement for all our sins in the form of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, at the cross.
Limbaugh's sins looked great because he is a public figure and in public eye, so they get magnified.
The Bible says all of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
"As a Christian I question why so many are opposed to hearing the truth?"
Look at the disgusting smear they did on Sarah Palin, even going after her down's syndrome child. Look at what they did to Carrie Prejean. Look at what they are doing now to Limbaugh.
And earlier to Clarence Thomas.
There is a pattern of going after folks who hold conservative values in the most cruel manner possible.
"If the president had any decency, he wouldn't accept that award. But since he's narcissistic and without a conscience of course he'll accept it."
I am one conservative Asian who opposed most of Obama's views. But I cannot condemn him for that. He was put in a no-win situation. If he refused, many would accuse him of being too arrogant to accept the award. If he takes it, he is accused of being too arrogant in believing his own hype in regards to getting the award. No matter what choice he did, he was going to get attacked. Sort of like the answer where either way Prejean would have caused controversy in some way.
It was not his fault he was nominated, and it was not his fault he won unless he conspired with folks to lead to that, but I seriously doubt that.
"Well don't worry about it. Your crazy, racist, nasty right winged thugs can go kill yourselves."
Projecting are we not?
"Obama is our President. And I am damn proud of him. According to Gallup only 22% of Americans claim to be Republicans. You right winged psychos are losing your numbers."
Oh really? Whatever you say. It only makes Obama's approval ratings going downhill that much more glaring. It means a large number of people turning against Obama's policies are non-Republicans and non-right wingers. Is that what we are to believe?
And there is such thing as independent, non-Republican right-wingers.
"...According to Gallup only 22% of Americans claim to be Republicans. You right winged psychos are losing your numbers." (Deana)
<
<
Why do liberals consistently make such ridiculous statements?
FACT is the 2009 Gallup Polls show that Conservatives OUTNUMBER liberals in ALL 50 states and by about a 2 to 1 margin!
Here are the facts Deana...read’em and weep;
“Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.
“In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.
“Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
“Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.
“During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.
“Americans readily peg themselves, politically, into one of five categories along the conservative-to-liberal spectrum. At present, large minorities describe their views as either moderate or conservative - with conservatives the larger group - whereas only about one in five consider themselves liberal.
“The Gallup poll’s results were derived from interviewing 160,235 American adults between Jan. 2 of this year and June 30. They were asked whether their political views are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal or very liberal. In the survey, 40 percent of respondents said they are either “conservative” or “very conservative.” That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004, say the Gallup pollsters. Only 21 percent told Gallup they are “liberal” or “very liberal.” Moderates make up 35 percent of the rest of those polled.
“Even in the top three most liberal states – Vermont, Hawaii and Massachusetts – conservatives are statistically tied with liberals, Gallup reports.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/Conservatives-Single-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx?version=print
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52602
http://www.theitem.com/article/20090819/OPED02/708199935/-1/RSS09
@ Thuyen Tran:
1) When Solomon and David turned away from God's word they had to deal with great consequences, their sins didn't go unnoticed or unchecked. They lived by the Law, whereas we live by faith.
2) Part of being a Christian is perfecting yourself in Jesus. Jesus knew that Peter would fail him, but prayed that he would comeback to him, and guess what Peter did. You can see the progression of Peter after knowing Jesus, along with all the other followers of Jesus, including Mary Magdalene who was freed of her demons, as well as Paul.
Yes, people have committed greater sins, but they all have changed once they were in Christ presence. They didn't remain the same by any means.
The bible says "All Have Sinned and Fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:25) But, once you are in the Spirit of Christ, you should no longer be a prisoner of the flesh (Romans 8). So it's a process of staying in the Spirit.
3) "The very basis of Christianity is that our sins are great enough to condemn us for eternity, so that is why God provided an atonement for all our sins in the form of God Incarnate, Jesus Christ, at the cross." (Tran)
If you believe the words you speak, then you would know that Obama could very well be a man of Christ just as you proclaim Rush Limbaugh to be. So be careful of the things you justify in Christ because you open the door to justify other things.
4)"There is a pattern of going after folks who hold conservative values in the most cruel manner possible."
I could have sworn people like Ensign had Clinton's head on a platter for adultery and lying, and now what is he being investigated for? When Clinton did it, it was damnation, but when Ensign does it, it's just a little sin...
Obama has been called anti-christ, nazi, coon, banana eating jungle monkey, his daughters have been called "hoes", and his wife has been called a decedent of apes. These aren't made-up misquotes, either.
Wait a minute, didn't the Conservatives attack McCain's adopted daughter, making salacious allegations that he fathered a "bastard negro child out of wedlock". That had nothing to do with liberals.
I don't know when you're going to to see it's not just the liberals, its' both parties; it's both liberals and conservatives, and it's called politics. There is no Christianity in politics. The whole premise of politics is designed on stretching truths, and building allusions, and twisting opponents words to your benefit.
If people are really searching for the truth, then they can't turn a blind eye to the negatives when it happens within their own party, or justify it, when it's clearly wrong.
So if Rush Limbaugh is the divine instrument of God's word, then it is very well likely that Obama could also be a divine ruler, or is Obama's sins different?
"Well don't worry about it. Your crazy, racist, nasty right winged thugs can go kill yourselves."(Deana)
Yes, you most certainly are projecting. By the way, conservatives don't need to kill ourselves, the crazy, racist, nasty left-winged thugs will be the ones to do all the killing. Mass extermination is practically textbook behavior for you intolerant, leftist, totalitarian-state-loving types.
Ms. Grapevine,
The objection to Obama is about his actions and the ideology behind his actions. That is what conservatives are concerned about.
P.S. I don't believe Rush Limbaugh is a religious leader.
"1) When Solomon and David turned away from God's word they had to deal with great consequences, their sins didn't go unnoticed or unchecked."
That still does not change the fact that they were still believers.
"They lived by the Law, whereas we live by faith."
Not totally accurate. Even in the OT, one was justified by faith, not the law. The law served as means to lead people to need for the atonement that Christ now provided. Back then Christ had not come yet. But the faith that looked forward to Him was there. That is why Paul said we are justified with the same faith that Abraham had. Genesis 15:6 said Abraham believed and it was imputed to him as righteousness. Habukkak 2:4, cited by Paul in Romans 1:17, said the just shall live by faith. Psalm 32, which Paul cited in regards to our justification in Christ, said blessed is the man whose sins God does not count against.
Yes, the old covenant was in force. The OT law in its entirety was in force.
There is part of the law that remains. We are not under it for justification. Neither were the OT saints justified by any part of the law either. It was there for sanctification, just the moral part of the law is there to show us what God desires in our sanctification.
The law was there to lead us to Christ. Its use is still there for today in its moral aspect to show our sins in order for us to see that need for the gospel in the first place, as Paul stated in Galatians 3. And it is there to convict and restrain the world of sin, as well.
And the moral aspect of the law is repeated for the Christian in the New Testament.
That is what theologians, especially of Lutheran and Calvinist types, call three usages of the law (which we also state have three aspects: ceremonial, political, and moral, with the only the moral being binding on the Christian constance and is the same as natural law Paul spoke of in Romans 2:14-15).
@ JMK:
31% of blacks say they are conservative, yet 90% vote Democrat. There is a "conservative party", and their is a "conservative lifestyle". Many Americans are "conservative in lifestyle", but often vote with Democrats and liberals, because they feel people have a choice in how they live their life. They really believe church and state are separate.
Libertarians were also apart of that survey, and although they vote with the Conservatives (party), they hold socially liberal views when it comes to abortion and gay rights because they believe in individual freedom.
I think the point being made was about party affiliation, and 22% of people polled classified themselves as Republican vs 39% percent who classified themselves as Democrats.
The problem with the study is that it did not include "leaners" and it wasn't based on all registered voters. The answer is more split with 33% Republicans vs 39% Democrats, and many independents who may lean Republican. But if you ask people if they considered themselves "liberals" or "conservatives", you will see a majority of people will say "conservative", including myself.
I am Christian, I'm married, we own two businesses, I teach Sunday school, I stay at home and raise the children while my husband does the labor, we have a traditional nuclear family where the man is the head of the household, we share all accounts, we own a home, and we raise our children in the church, we have never been divorced, and we don't have any children out of wedlock, we tithe, and we don't take government aid.
However, that's the life we chose to live as Christians, but as far as politics we are more liberal leaning, and we believe welfare can be good when used properly, we believe all citizens should have equal rights even if they're gay, we believe a woman has the right to choose, has free will to choose and will have to face her consequences when she meets her maker, we believe too many people have access to guns that should not have any, we believe in helping the least amongst us...
Often we interchange "Conservatives" with "Christian Right" and "Republicans", but there is definitely a line between these labels that often get blurred.
"2) Part of being a Christian is perfecting yourself in Jesus. Jesus knew that Peter would fail him, but prayed that he would comeback to him, and guess what Peter did."
And guess what? Peter failed again.
It is not we who perfected ourselves. We cannot do so. We are striving, yes. But yes, we are being sanctified by God. But made perfect? No. Not until the day we die and are resurrected to see Christ's glory. We are being made holy in the sense of sanctified, but we in of ourselves are not holy. In of ourselves, we are not righteous, but God declared us righteous for Christ's sake.
"You can see the progression of Peter after knowing Jesus, along with all the other followers of Jesus, including Mary Magdalene who was freed of her demons, as well as Paul."
Paul himself stated as a believer, he struggled with sin. See Romans chapter 7.
"Yes, people have committed greater sins, but they all have changed once they were in Christ presence. They didn't remain the same by any means."
Believers can fall away. See Hebrews 6:4-6, 2 Peter 2:20-22, John 15:1-7, etc.
"The bible says "All Have Sinned and Fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:25) But, once you are in the Spirit of Christ, you should no longer be a prisoner of the flesh (Romans 8). So it's a process of staying in the Spirit."
A process, yes. Perfect? No.
"If you believe the words you speak, then you would know that Obama could very well be a man of Christ just as you proclaim Rush Limbaugh to be."
I didn't proclaim Limbaugh to be a preacher of the word. I am simply stating you committed fallacies and errors in your claims Limbaugh could not possibly be a believer.
I don't judge a person by his sins if he is struggling and realizing those are things he need to grow on. I do judge by confessions of faith. If a person denies Christ is the way to salvation, then that's where the line needs to be made.
"So be careful of the things you justify in Christ because you open the door to justify other things."
I didn't justify anything. In actuality, the point of my post is actually that to you. Be careful how you assume a person is an unbeliever because he is not perfect enough for you. You are trying to justify that argument.
We are not justified by law, like you said, but by faith. But your argument in claiming Rush could not be a believer borders on almost saying it is by law.
"I could have sworn people like Ensign had Clinton's head on a platter for adultery and lying, and now what is he being investigated for? When Clinton did it, it was damnation, but when Ensign does it, it's just a little sin..."
Strawman argument.
Forgiveness in regards to our relations to God and each other is different than the issue of civics and justice. Clinton violated another person's right to a fair trial by perjury. It was never about the adultery to the conservatives in this case that got him impeached. Liberals simply lied and lied and lied that conservatives were obsessed with the sex part.
The Bible does speak of following the laws of the land where those laws are just.
We don't in general claim there is never any hope of Clinton being saved.
Ralph Reed back before he had a fall from grace himself did in fact stated that if Clinton was a sinner, "he was not worse than you or I." He was doing it to state that while we can disagree with him, we as Christians cannot hate him but to love him, even if we see him at odds with us, and pray for him like any other leader. He also said we cannot ever politicize our gopsel that we deny God's grace extends to Clinton.
There are plenty of conservatives that thought then like Reed on Clinton. Bill Bennett as well as Reed were disdainful at the character assassinations thrown at the Clintons, via such things as The Clinton Chronicles and repeatedly said on air to the media and in writing that there is no place for this. Yes, Reed stated Clinton had ethical problems that made many liberals blush, too, but that only reflects what the Bible says about the whole humanity, including conservatives, not just liberals.
"Obama has been called anti-christ, nazi, coon, banana eating jungle monkey, his daughters have been called "hoes", and his wife has been called a decedent of apes. These aren't made-up misquotes, either."
They are not. Most conservatives disdain those types of comments as message board type attacks. It is almost as bad as anti-Duke fans saying they want to dispoil former Duke basketball player JJ Riddick's sister (I am not a Duke fan, and often root against them, and I find that disgusting).
But let's get real here. It is not even close to the same extent that similar names were called Bush, such as Nazi, fascist, antichrist, murderer, racial names, etc. Those who attack Obama and his family that way hardly represent the mainstream of the conservative media. See those types of namecallings on Fox?
On the other hand, it is open season for those types of attacks to go against conservatives for years on MSNBC and to a lesser extent on CNN.
It is wrong no matter who does it. I am of the view a politician's family, especially the spouse and kids are off-limits to partisan attacks, especially that degrade their looks and all that.
"Wait a minute, didn't the Conservatives attack McCain's adopted daughter, making salacious allegations that he fathered a "bastard negro child out of wedlock". That had nothing to do with liberals."
Never heard that one. Which conservative mainstream folks did that? Do tell.
"I don't know when you're going to to see it's not just the liberals, its' both parties; it's both liberals and conservatives, and it's called politics."
I didn't claim it is just liberals. I said that liberals do much more of it than conservatives and for a far longer time.
You mention how conservatives dealt with Clinton in regards to his scandal and perjury, but forgot to mention liberals created that kind of environment with their demagogue attacks on Clarence Thomas.
"There is no Christianity in politics. The whole premise of politics is designed on stretching truths, and building allusions, and twisting opponents words to your benefit."
God's word do tell us what being just rulers mean. He does condemn whole nations for lack of social concern for others.
"If people are really searching for the truth, then they can't turn a blind eye to the negatives when it happens within their own party, or justify it, when it's clearly wrong."
You are wrong there. I don't turn a blind eye to the things wrong in my party.
I am simply pointing out that the liberal level of viciousness against folks even that are not running for office nor even related to anyone running for office nor know anyone running for office are far worse.
Know anyone that the right did to of the equivalent of what the left did to Carrie Prejean, Joe the Plumber, etc., etc.?
"So if Rush Limbaugh is the divine instrument of God's word, then it is very well likely that Obama could also be a divine ruler, or is Obama's sins different?"
And where did you get the assumption conservative Christians in general see Rush as preacher of the word? Some don't know if he is a believer or not. I was simply addressing why your points failed.
Technically all who ruled, even the worst ones, are put there by God, per Romans 13. That does not make them just rulers. God had people rebelled against unjust rulers, even Israelite ones plenty of times in the Old Testament.
"However, that's the life we chose to live as Christians, but as far as politics we are more liberal leaning, and we believe welfare can be good when used properly, we believe all citizens should have equal rights even if they're gay, we believe a woman has the right to choose, has free will to choose and will have to face her consequences when she meets her maker, we believe too many people have access to guns that should not have any, we believe in helping the least amongst us..."
Precisely why it is not a good idea to claim based on Rush's lifestyle, he could not possibly be a Christian. Your statements to many of us run counter to what the Bible states as biblical truth as well as morality of what God has for us as well as how God views nations that promote them. By your logic, that we should judge Rush as not fitting for the kingdom of God, it should also be applied to you using your own argument except our own view of what biblical lifestyles are.
But I don't do that. Why?
You state yourself as a believer. I cannot look at your heart. You do claim you are justified by faith in Christ. I cannot deny your claim to be in Christ on grounds your views are wrong on different things. I will show concern that it is acceptable for our laws to allow people to kill the unborn, given what Christ said about those who go against God's law and encourage others to do the same. But concern is the extent of it.
@ Thuyen Tran:
1) "I didn't proclaim Limbaugh to be a preacher of the word. I am simply stating you committed fallacies and errors in your claims Limbaugh could not possibly be a believer." (Tran)
I never said Limbaugh couldn't possibly be a believer. I said With sins so great, I don't think he's the leader of the Christian right.
2)What do you think perfecting means. It doesn't mean you're perfect, it means you're making steps to be better (i.e. a process). There is a misconception among Christians that you can just keep doing whatever sins you want, and it's okay. Once you come into the knowledge of Christ, then you are responsible and you're held at a higher accountability than those ignorant of God's word. Yes, you may backslide, but you should not become the same person you were before you came into Christ. That's my point!!!
Not sure why you're arguing with me because most of the time you're just saying the same thing I'm saying, and underlining my point. Never said you should be perfect, God knows that we can't. I said there should be a change both inward and outward.
3)Paul said he struggled with sin, as do all Christians, but that is not an excuse to yield to the flesh over and over again. Struggling with sin means you're in the Spirit, and not simply yielding to sin. Again, not sure why you're arguing.
4)"I didn't justify anything. In actuality, the point of my post is actually that to you. Be careful how you assume a person is an unbeliever because he is not perfect enough for you. You are trying to justify that argument."
Are you reading what I wrote or just going off on a tangent. Where did I say Rush Limbaugh is not a Christian? Have you read the whole thread, or did you just jump in. The argument was in response to this comment left by a conservative:
"Then you need to read the Bible and listen to good Christians like Rush and watch Fox news because they are Christians. All Republicans are Christians so when you except Jesus you need to become a Republican and stop being a Commy because Commys are godless heathens. Sinners and muslims and atheists and faggits and demoncRats will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven."
I never questioned if Rush Limbaugh was a Christian, I questioned if he was the truth or a savior. I questioned if he was the light of the Christian Right, and the vessel in which God delivers his word. I questioned the person who left the above comment.
@ Tran:
1) "Forgiveness in regards to our relations to God and each other is different than the issue of civics and justice. Clinton violated another person's right to a fair trial by perjury. It was never about the adultery to the conservatives in this case that got him impeached. Liberals simply lied and lied and lied that conservatives were obsessed with the sex part."
Here we go with the political tap dance, Ensign is under investigation for not just having an affair, but for using his office to hide the affair by paying people off to remain silent.
That doesn't sound like a simple affair to me. Once again you have proven my point. Turn a blind cheek to your own party just to attack another. If it's wrong, it's wrong, right? But no, we are going to justify it somehow because it's someone we share political ideology with.
If it wasn't about the adultery why was Clinton questioned under oath in the first place? Why was there an investigation in the first place?
2)"We don't in general claim there is never any hope of Clinton being saved."
What, who claimed there was no hope of anyone being saved. Again, are you reading what I wrote or just arguing for arguments sake.
3) "But let's get real here. It is not even close to the same extent that similar names were called Bush, such as Nazi, fascist, antichrist, murderer, racial names, etc. Those who attack Obama and his family that way hardly represent the mainstream of the conservative media. See those types of namecallings on Fox?"
Who says it's not even close. It must be close if he's been called the same things as Bush, including "racist" and "murderer".
Your point was that the liberals attack those with conservative values, and my point as you have well proven, so do Conservatives. You argument is that it's not as bad as what Bush received, according to whom? Your argument is that it's only a small portion of the Conservative party, according to whom?
Isn't Glenn Beck on Fox News, and didn't he call Obama racist, and his rating shot through the roof after that. Didn't Joe Wilson call Obama a lie, and wasn't he praised by many.
Yes they were both condemned by some Conservatives, but they were also supported by a lot more.
I'm not interested in the tap dance, if it's wrong then it's wrong. Both liberals and conservatives are very guilty of doing it, especially when their party is out of power.
3) "I am simply pointing out that the liberal level of viciousness against folks even that are not running for office nor even related to anyone running for office nor know anyone running for office are far worse" (Tran)
Once again according to whom, according to you. Because the Conservatives can and have been very vicious against liberals, and continue to do so. But I guess you wouldn't know that if you only watched Fox News. MSNBC and Fox News are equal. They are both ran on a slant, and are not fair or balanced in any way.
That's why I read both conservative and liberal blogs, so that I can at least get a since of what's factual versus what's pure slant.
4) "Your statements to many of us run counter to what the Bible states as biblical truth as well as morality of what God has for us as well as how God views nations that promote them." (Tran)
Show me where it runs counter to God's words. I can show where it is very much in God's word.
"That doesn't sound like a simple affair to me. Once again you have proven my point. Turn a blind cheek to your own party just to attack another. If it's wrong, it's wrong, right? But no, we are going to justify it somehow because it's someone we share political ideology with."
And you are not being honest here with what I said. In fact, I posted my disgust when the right did resort to attacks in ways I deemed wrong against the Clintons and the Obamas. I even stated attacking Obama's wife with juvenile attacks on her looks were out of bounds.
I even voluntarily stated an example of where right-wingers did wrong against the Clintons, such as The Clinton Chronicles that Reverend Falwell passed around. I used that to make a point when these things happen, conservatives like Ralph Reed, William Bennett, and those like me as well are on the side of the Clintons.
So to claim I turn a blind eye to the wrongdoing of those on my side is a blatant lie.
"I questioned if he was the light of the Christian Right, and the vessel in which God delivers his word. I questioned the person who left the above comment."
If one is a believer, one is a vessel by which God delivers His word, be it via telling the gospel or be it letting one's light shines when that light does shine. Yes, the role of the visible organzied church is there to preach the word as well. But all believers have that role, too. I believe in the priesthood of all believers.
But since you want to go there and say based on Limbaugh's lifestyle which you deem unacceptable according to your POV disqualified Limbaugh from being able to speak for the Christian right, just remember one thing: the lifestyles you state should be allowed in this country, even when it is seen as murder by many Christians, such as abortion, is reason one can use to say you are disqualified from being able to speak as a believer for what you believe is the truth.
Want to go there?
I agree with you that not all Republicans are Christians, and not all conservatives are Christians. I agree with you that not all Christians are Republicans and that not all Christians are conservatives. The problem is your post is an overreaction to an extreme. You posted an extreme of your own in response to an extreme.
Your own arguments saying one's lifestyle disqualified one from being able to bear the message can also be applied to you and those on your side who are preachers for the Christian left, too, given their tolerance for abortion, gay marriage, and other things we conservative Christians believe are anti-Christian, anti-God, and anti-biblical.
Who gets to decide this, may I ask?
"Once again according to whom, according to you. Because the Conservatives can and have been very vicious against liberals, and continue to do so. But I guess you wouldn't know that if you only watched Fox News. MSNBC and Fox News are equal. They are both ran on a slant, and are not fair or balanced in any way. "
So presumptous of you about what I watch and don't watch. Give me one example where Fox news used vulgarity to insult and attack people. I can point out examples of such from MSNBC, last one I know of being from Olbermann against Carrie Prejean.
Fox do state its disagreements with liberals at times strongly, yes. But where are the attacks from Fox that approach the level that MSNBC took it to of vulgarity, insults, sexism, etc.
"Isn't Glenn Beck on Fox News, and didn't he call Obama racist, and his rating shot through the roof after that. Didn't Joe Wilson call Obama a lie, and wasn't he praised by many."
I don't think Beck should have called Obama a racist. But I understand why. Obama sat in a church that promoted antisemitism among other things for 20 years. Beck's comments were in reaction to how Obama acted over the Gates police scandal, which in many folks like mine made Obama looked bad.
And Joe Wilson thought Obama lied. Should he have said it if that is the case? Yes. Was it the right time and forum to do so? No.
Wilson should not have been praised for it since he disrespected the President once it was his time to give his take. But he should have said it was a lie if he felt that was the case later on when he had his own time, like in interviews to do so or when the issue is up for debate in the Senate.
"Who says it's not even close. It must be close if he's been called the same things as Bush, including "racist" and "murderer"."
One year's worth of it is nowhere close to eight years' worth of it. Don't be dense.
Have conservatives resorted to violating privacies of folks the way liberals have done to those private citizens like Joe the Plumber, Carrie Prejean, etc., etc.?
"Show me where it runs counter to God's words. I can show where it is very much in God's word."
I already did. Go back and read what I wrote on law and gospel. Your assertions that folks were not under faith in the Old Testament is very unbiblical.
And by the way, I do hold to one can walk away and be lost in the end. So yes, I do believe folks need to strive in sanctification. But striving, good works, loving God's law, etc., do not make one's right with God. And lack of them do not cut one off from Christ- it is lack of faith and repentance that does that.
Your views of promoting abortion, gay marriage, etc., as should be allowed also to me borders on antimonianism.
@ Thuyen Tran:
1) "I agree with you that not all Republicans are Christians, and not all conservatives are Christians. I agree with you that not all Christians are Republicans and that not all Christians are conservatives. The problem is your post is an overreaction to an extreme. You posted an extreme of your own in response to an extreme."
Exactly, and now you're arguing against a counter-extreme. The whole point was to show how ridiculous it is by their measure, and yet, you're justifying an extreme, and still arguing against it. The point is not a referendum on Rush Limbaugh's lifestyle, the point is do not hold one person on pedestal with many faults, and call another anti-Christ. So we will keep going in circles because you are arguing with me, and not against me.
It was meant to be facetious...
2) One year's worth of it is nowhere close to eight years' worth of it. Don't be dense.
I didn't know the length of time determine if it was right or wrong, or if the intensity was greater or worse. Your point is that it's worse because the length of time was greater, but not because the numbers were greater or the degree it took place was greater, or that some was just simply based on race, like “banana eating jungle monkey.” At this point in Bush's presidency, he wasn’t facing this type of vitriol although he was spending our children’s future, it came later, after the "mission accomplished" and no WMD's, and grew worst after Hurricane Katrina.
My point is that both Conservatives and Liberals do it, and it tends to be worse when the other party is out of favor. The Conservatives are just getting started, wait until the 2010 elections, it's about to get ugly. However, your point is that liberals are worst. Liberals are only worst if you are a conservative.
3) What names did the right call Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks after she used her freedom of speech against Bush. I'll let you look it up...perhaps it escaped your memory. Back then it was unpatriotic to refer to the President in such terms, now it’s acceptable.
What happened to Whoopi Goldberg after she called Bush a "Bush"...I'll let you look that one up, too...
Remember, Cindy Sheehan. She's doing the same thing to Obama, and now Fox News doesn't care.
You still glossed over John McCain, as “illegitimate black daughter” orchestrated by Karl Rove.
4) "Have conservatives resorted to violating privacy of folks the way liberals have done to those private citizens like Joe the Plumber, Carrie Prejean, etc., etc.?"
You mean other than the people names above. No they just called people un-patriotic, crushed their CD's, sent them death threats, spread vicious lies, and wrote letters to have their sponsors dropped.
5) "Your views of promoting abortion, gay marriage, etc., as should be allowed also to me borders on antimonianism." (Tran)
Once again, where did I say I support gay marriage? Are you reading what I'm writing, or just arguing for arguments sake?
I am against gay marriage. I don't even think there can be such a thing in the church. I am for equal rights to all citizens of the United States simply because "all men are created equal" and have certain "inalienable rights". So if a gay person wants to visit their lover in the hospital and make decisions about their care, so be it, because fornicators are allowed to do so, and I don’t see the Christian right forcing laws to abolish shacking. You can single out one sin over another, or take away civil rights because of sexual immorality.
Where did I say I support abortion? Pro-choice doesn't mean you think abortion is right or that you are not pro-life. Drugs are illegal; yet it's not a deterrent. Driving while intoxicated is illegal, yet it's not a deterrent. Making abortions illegal doesn't take the choice away; if a woman wants to do it she will do it. I don't care about the legality of abortion; I care about reducing or eliminating abortions by getting God's message in the hearts of women. I think more women will turn away from abortion when they understand the value of life, and not because the law or the government says so. So while the Christian right fights for the law of the land, I will fight for support through churches and other non-profit programs so that women can choose life.
Never said I support abortion, I support a person’s free will to choose, a will that God gave each and everyone of us. I believe judgment will be delivered by the ultimate Judge. My duty is to go out into the world and preach the good news. Not to make laws that won’t even have an effect on what we’re trying to target. I leave that to you.
6)"Antimonianism":
Anti”moni”anism or did you mean Antinomianism.
I believe there is only one God, so you must mean the ladder. I believe that God's law comes before man's law, so it doesn't matter what the law of the land is because Christians have an obligation to follow God's. Even if abortion is legal by man, doesn’t make it legal by God. I believe Christian will do better bringing people to Christ for a change of heart, instead of forcing people to do right by empty laws. Just because you make abortion illegal doesn't change the heart of the person that was seeking the abortion. The law doesn't give people faith, but knowing Christ can. Once you reach out and bring people into Christ, then the laws will change as more and more hearts change. So I’m not against making laws against abortion, I’m against creating laws that won’t have an effect on the choices people make. This is where I separate from my liberals friends; I don’t think the government should sponsor abortion.
Lastly, I wasn't implying that Solomon or Davis lacked faith. My point is that when they turned from God's words, they were punished directly by God. They were not under grace of Jesus, as you or I.
You really keep putting words in my mouth, and making assumptions, they I have never asserted.
You have not proven that my premise is unbiblical, not in the least. All you have done is supported what you believe to be true.
That is my last word on the matter. I'm trying to comment less, and not more...
"Where did I say I support abortion? Pro-choice doesn't mean you think abortion is right or that you are not pro-life."
Pro-choice means one can still be pro-life?
What happen if one is pro-choice to kill one on account of either race, old age, sex,, etc.? Would you call such folks pro-life?
You advocate right to murder one's own child, if you advocate pro-choice.
The distinction you give for pro-choicers and pro-abortions is a distinction without a difference. Pro-abortionists argue the same thing you do.
"Drugs are illegal; yet it's not a deterrent."
Drugs are not acts of murders in of themselves. And I am not even the war on drugs by the way.
"Driving while intoxicated is illegal, yet it's not a deterrent."
So legalize it? Say folks should have right to drive when drunk and kill someone?
"Making abortions illegal doesn't take the choice away; if a woman wants to do it she will do it."
So in other words, since laws against murder of any form, not just abortions, do not take away those choices, because people who want to do them, will do them anyway, we should legalize that, too?
I know you would say no so I will save us some time, and just say precisely you want to use that argument when it comes to abortion but when it comes to many other situations, you would be appalled people would use such an argument.
"I don't care about the legality of abortion; I care about reducing or eliminating abortions by getting God's message in the hearts of women. I think more women will turn away from abortion when they understand the value of life, and not because the law or the government says so."
Having laws when done right also show us the difference between right and wrong.
You are sending mixes messages when advocate women should have a right to kill their own unborn children yet you state that what they are doing is morally wrong and against human life. If you state they should have right to get rid of human life, then why should we take you seriously if some Nazi argue for right to take life of another on basis of race? Or if some women-hater say he should have right to be a serial killer?
"So while the Christian right fights for the law of the land, I will fight for support through churches and other non-profit programs so that women can choose life."
You don't know much about the Christian right, do you? Christian right folks are all for having churches and other non-profit programs help women. Many Christian relief groups are pro-lifers by the way. Liberals got nothing on conservatives when it comes to helping people or donating money to causes and relief efforts to help people.
"I am against gay marriage. I don't even think there can be such a thing in the church. I am for equal rights to all citizens of the United States simply because "all men are created equal" and have certain "inalienable rights". So if a gay person wants to visit their lover in the hospital and make decisions about their care, so be it, because fornicators are allowed to do so, and I don’t see the Christian right forcing laws to abolish shacking. You can single out one sin over another, or take away civil rights because of sexual immorality."
Guess what? Inalienable rights and people created equal are terms that came from biblical concepts, via Locke who defined natural rights by what Paul wrote in Romans 2:14-15. Likewise, William Blackstone. And God does not create people gay. We are born sinners, with different folks inclined to different sins from each other.
"Lastly, I wasn't implying that Solomon or Davis lacked faith. My point is that when they turned from God's words, they were punished directly by God. They were not under grace of Jesus, as you or I. You really keep putting words in my mouth, and making assumptions, they I have never asserted."
Well, you do the same with some of my posts or you make claims I never complain about the right-wingers doing things wrong to the other side, when I have done so repeatedly. So you do alot of it yourself.
But in this case, I did not put words in your mouth. Your claim of distinction is indeed without a difference.
You deny saying faith exists for salvation in the OT, but you deny they are under grace. Guess what? Faith does not exist apart from grace. It is by grace through faith that we are saved.
David and Solomon were indeed under grace. That is how they were saved through faith and justified. That grace just was not under the new covenant, but the old covenant.
They were indeed under the grace of Jesus, in terms of looking forward to the cross. It was David who prophecied of Christ, particularly in psalm 2, 22, 45, 110, etc.
You might not have said folks do not have faith to be saved, but you DID say in the OT they were not under faith, but under law.
Maybe you should have reworded what you said. I did put words in your mouth. Your own words were "They lived by the Law, whereas we live by faith."
By admitting folks lived by faith in the OT as you now just did, you basically admit without knowing that the previous statement you were made was biblically inaccurate.
Deana, do you know what a full moon means?
@ Tran: (Sorry everybody else)
1) "You advocate right to murder one's own child, if you advocate pro-choice." (Tran)
In my response I said people please murder your children? Once again I don't remember writing that in the least bit, yet another example of you arguing against a point I didn't say or make. Pro-choice doesn’t mean advocating abortion, pro-abortion means advocating abortion.
2) The distinction you give for pro-choicers and pro-abortions is a distinction without a difference. Pro-abortionists argue the same thing you do.
I didn't realize pro-abortionist argued to reduce abortion by bringing people to Christ, or by supporting the church, or pro-life services. Jesus set an example of how we are to change hearts. He did not do it through laws, but through personal relationships and encounters. But I guess we will ignore those parts of the bible, right?
3) “Drugs are not acts of murders in of themselves. And I am not even the war on drugs by the way.” (Tran)
Abuse of drugs is a sin. Drugs lead to the destruction on families, lead to death and crime, and are immoral. The point is that we have laws that set a moral standard that we don't enforce or can't enforce. If we say abortion is illegal, and tell people it's wrong, how are you going to enforce it? How is simply saying it's illegal or wrong, going to end the practice? How is it going to save the potential lives of the fetus? The law on drugs is so ineffective that people are now advocating legalizing drugs? What measures are taken to make sure that doesn’t happen if there is anti-abortion law? How are you going to regulate a “miscarriage” from an “abortion”, and how are you going to enter private homes to see if “abortion” practices are taking place? A woman will have to literally be caught in the act to enforce it? I’m not against making abortion illegal; I just don’t understand how it will change the status quo. I think a better fight would be ending government money toward organizations that support abortion.
The point of making abortion illegal is not just to make a moral stand, because the large majority of people who receive abortions already feel it's immoral, the point of making abortion illegal is to prevent them in the first place. My example of drugs was not to compare abortion to drug use, it was to compare laws that are ineffective and don't deter the actual crime. But something tells me you already knew that…
3) Having laws when done right also show us the difference between right and wrong.
Knowing God and loving God shows us the difference between right and wrong; especially if the laws aren't enforced. “Laws for the sake of laws” is the same thing as lawlessness; if there isn’t any enforcement. You have to possess a higher standard of morality. For example, alcohol is legal, but that doesn't mean as Christian you should get drunk, you are still bound by God's words. Cohabitation is legal, but as a Christian that doesn't mean you should fornicate or shack with your lover. Having children out of wedlock is also legal, but is that the Christian standard?
Are you advocating we create laws to end these practices, as well? A sin is a sin, right? If I'm not misunderstanding you, all laws should reflect God's will, right? Or just laws against abortion and homosexuals? Not sure how you pick and choose which sin to battle legally. No matter the law, you are still bound by God’s authority, and when a law is contrary to God’s authority, you have a Christian duty to abstain.
4) "So in other words, since laws against murder of any form, not just abortions, do not take away those choices, because people who want to do them, will do them anyway, we should legalize that, too?" (Tran)
If that was my point then I would say, yes, but you know very well that wasn't my point at all. Likewise should all laws match those of God's authority? If so why aren't people advocating more against other sins that have been made legal? Your logic goes both ways. So according to you, we should forbid every sin or legalize every sin, and there is no in between or credence given to the Constitution of the United States, that reflects individual freedom.
5) "You are sending mixes messages when advocate women should have a right to kill their own unborn children yet you state that what they are doing is morally wrong and against human life." (Tran)
I never said abortion was murder or killing, and I certainly didn't advocate murdering of killing one's child. In fact I said let's change their hearts so the option won't exist. But I guess we're ignoring the parts that don't fit into your argument. Saying a person has the freedom to choose, doesn't mean you're condoning the sin, because we all have the freedom to choose what sins we battle and bear. Outlawing abortion doesn't change a person's ability to choose either, so I guess that would mean you're advocating abortion, too, right? Of course not, that would be absurd.
6) "If you state they should have right to get rid of human life, then why should we take you seriously if some Nazi argue for right to take life of another on basis of race? Or if some women-hater say he should have right to be a serial killer?" (Tran)
Is this a legitimate question? Is this really your argument? You really don't see the difference?
7) “You don't know much about the Christian right, do you? Christian right folks are all for having churches and other non-profit programs help women. Many Christian relief groups are pro-lifers by the way.” (Tran)
Once again you’re arguing against something I never stated. I never stated the Christian right didn’t support pro-life groups; I admire that about the Christian Right, because it’s the Christian thing to do. I would rather use my resources supporting these groups, instead of fighting for a law; that is what I said. I never argued that most Christian relief groups were not pro-lifers. But, there are plenty of churches that are liberal or left leaning who do the same work, especially when it comes to other inflictions such as drug abuse and homelessness. I admire all Christians, and I don’t think the Christian left is any better than the Christian right. I just don’t agree with all of the stances especially when it comes to war, gun rights, and private corporate greed. Something I agree, and something I simply don’t. Not by matter of opinion, but by matter of the bible.
8). “Liberals got nothing on conservatives when it comes to helping people or donating money to causes and relief efforts to help people.” (Tran)
There is a 6% discrepancy between liberals and conservatives on giving to charities and the large percentage of Conservatives give to the church in tithes, while non-Christian liberals chose other organizations. That doesn’t even account for time spent volunteering, or creating non-profit organization. So why it’s true Conservatives do give more money than liberals, it’s not a considerate amount more as you have overstated. Liberals also advocate giving through government funded programs that rely on tax money, and not just donations. Considering liberals states are the highest in income, they do tend to give more in taxes toward social programs than conservative states. Giving comes from both sides, and its part of being an American. Amen!
9) “Guess what? Inalienable rights and people created equal are terms that came from biblical concepts, via Locke who defined natural rights by what Paul wrote in Romans 2:14-15. Likewise, William Blackstone. And God does not create people gay. We are born sinners, with different folks inclined to different sins from each other.”
Once again, when did I say it didn’t come from biblical principles? I really don’t know why you’re arguing with me on this one. You are just enforcing my point. When did I say God created gay people? This is really overboard, me having to respond to claims I haven’t stated or implied. So how does this refute that gays have the same civil rights, as non gays? Are you saying that if they “choose” to be gay, they forfeit their rights as human being; wouldn’t that be the same for all sinners? If not then you’re really not making an argument here that counters anything I’ve said.
10) Maybe you should have reworded what you said. I did put words in your mouth. Your own words were "They lived by the Law, whereas we live by faith." (Tran)
Yeah, I agree with you! I meant to type “grace” instead of “faith”. I know there was faith because I know Abraham. So that should definitely put an end to this long string, considering we are saying the same thing. I believed I clarified it and you admitted that I did. I believe you noted that, so hopefully this argument is squashed because I’m not disagreeing with you.
In the above quote I know you meant “did not” but I’m not going to exploit it and say, “You admitted to actually putting words in my mouth.” I can see it was a typo.
"Libertarians were also apart of that survey, and although they vote with the Conservatives (party), they hold socially liberal views when it comes to abortion and gay rights because they believe in individual freedom.
"I think the point being made was about party affiliation, and 22% of people polled classified themselves as Republican vs 39% percent who classified themselves as Democrats...
"The problem with the study is that it did not include "leaners" and it wasn't based on all registered voters. The answer is more split with 33% Republicans vs 39% Democrats, and many independents who may lean Republican." (MGV)
<
<
First, the Rasmussen poll DID poll only registered voters BUT did NOT ask about Party affiliation (Democrat vs Republican), only ideological affiliation (Conservative vs Liberal).
IF indeed Libertarians (I am largely socially and economically Libertarian) are counted among the "Liberal camp"...then the number of true Liberals is probably even smaller than 21% and the number of Conservatives is even larger than 40%.
I am a life-long registered Democrat....unfortunately (for me) I haven't been able to vote for a Democrat for national office since I began voting over three decades ago.
Today I call myself a "Zell Miller Democrat." I am more economically Libertarian (pro-market) and socially Conservative (would like to see the death penalty expanded, as well as the manner delivered varied....ideally a rape/murder would result...you probably guessed it...in the perpetrator being raped and murdered himself) than many Republicans.
Right now, Democrats hold 49 seats in districts won by McCain in 2008 that are up for re-election in 2010....they hold 78 seats won by G W Bush in 2004 &/or McCain in 2008.
With the economy worsening since 2009 and looking to only get worse (the National Debt has risen from 56% of GDP at the end of 2008 to over 70% and rising of GDP today....that's putting a downward pressure on the dollar's value and an upward pressure on both interest rates and inflation.
That has Conservatives and republicans salivating over 2010....my fear is that the GOP will screw that up by NOT moving forward with another Gingrich-styled agenda, and instead take a more "middle of the road" and LOSING position.
BUT....hope springs eternal.
@ JMK:
"Today I call myself a "Zell Miller Democrat." I am more economically Libertarian (pro-market) and socially Conservative (would like to see the death penalty expanded, as well as the manner delivered varied....ideally a rape/murder would result...you probably guessed it...in the perpetrator being raped and murdered himself) than many Republicans."
LMBO! That is too funny. If it's pedophiles, then I may be right there with you.
"In my response I said people please murder your children? Once again I don't remember writing that in the least bit, yet another example of you arguing against a point I didn't say or make. Pro-choice doesn’t mean advocating abortion, pro-abortion means advocating abortion."
It's a distinction without a difference. What pro-abortionist actually advocate abortion for each and every instance and not leave it to the choice of the woman?
I didn't claim you wrote people murder for their own children. I stated you advocate for the right of people to murder their own children.
I made a logical implications from what you said.
In actuality, it is you in this case arguing against a point I did NOT make.
My point was not that you advocate abortion. My point is that you advocate for RIGHT to abortion, which to many of us folks IS murder.
I stated, "So in other words, since laws against murder of any form, not just abortions, do not take away those choices, because people who want to do them, will do them anyway, we should legalize that, too?"
You responded by saying, "If that was my point then I would say, yes, but you know very well that wasn't my point at all."
In actuality, it is indeed your point. Your own words state: "Pro-choice doesn't mean you think abortion is right or that you are not pro-life. Drugs are illegal; yet it's not a deterrent. Driving while intoxicated is illegal, yet it's not a deterrent. Making abortions illegal doesn't take the choice away; if a woman wants to do it she will do it."
Your point indeed is that if we take the choice away on something, that will not stop the person from doing it, so you are for the right to that choice.
I simply apply that logic you have to any other choices that involve murder.
It is indeed your point. You just don't like the logical implications of your own arguments you made when it is applied across the board, not what you pick and choose.
"Likewise should all laws match those of God's authority? If so why aren't people advocating more against other sins that have been made legal? Your logic goes both ways. So according to you, we should forbid every sin or legalize every sin, and there is no in between or credence given to the Constitution of the United States, that reflects individual freedom. "
For one who incesstantly complain about me arguing about points you did not make, you do a lot of it yourself against me. I did not claim all our laws should reflect God's laws. I am actually libertarian. So I am against the war on drugs, though I see abusing drugs as a sin.
The reason why I oppose abortion is because it is murder. It is murder of the unborn children. It involves gruesome destruction of life. It is child abuse to the maximum. It involves the worst violations of human rights of the most helpless.
I don't oppose abortion because it is sin against God, which it is. I oppose it is because it violates the right to life, which by the way is the very first right listed as our natural rights by the founders and very much part of our Bill of Rights. Even if it is not part of our constitution, I stand for the right to life regardless.
"Once again, when did I say it didn’t come from biblical principles? I really don’t know why you’re arguing with me on this one."
Because you are completely missing my point.
"You are just enforcing my point."
Hard for you to claim that when you obviously did not get my point.
"When did I say God created gay people?"
Didn't say you did. You did appeal to the argument of all men are equal to argue for gay rights from the Declaration. I simply pointed out logical implications of your own statements that you refuse to see that is transparent.
My point was that you appeal to the statements from the founders on rights and all, and I simply pointed out what they meant in regards to inalienable rights and all men are created equal have nothing to do with your claims that gay people should have rights, and they would be appalled by that. Even the most secular of them, Jefferson, was for the draconian laws against gay acts. They were for rights in regards to liberty, but not licenstiousness. Their view of liberty is that consistent with biblical morality.
I am not even for return of that mindset. I was simply pointing out to statements from the Declaration, written by those that don't even agree with you on this issue.
Like I said, you missed my point completely.
"This is really overboard, me having to respond to claims I haven’t stated or implied. So how does this refute that gays have the same civil rights, as non gays? Are you saying that if they “choose” to be gay, they forfeit their rights as human being; wouldn’t that be the same for all sinners? If not then you’re really not making an argument here that counters anything I’ve said."
See what I said above. It is you who missed my points completely. You did claim the Declaration and Constitution supported your liberal claims on rights should be allowed for folks who declare themselves gay. You appeal to terms like inalienable rights and all men are created equal.
I simply pointed out what those terms meant. They came from those who believe pursuit of happiness is defined by following God's moral law as revealed in Scriptures. That hardly supports your case for gay rights, especially when draconian punishments existed from them back then for those things.
"I never said abortion was murder or killing, and I certainly didn't advocate murdering of killing one's child."
If abortion is not murder to you, then why do you feel the need to reduce abortion? If abortion is not murder, the ones being aborted then are not humans, going by implication of your statement. If no one is getting killed by abortions, then why do you see it as sin?
"In fact I said let's change their hearts so the option won't exist. But I guess we're ignoring the parts that don't fit into your argument."
No, the person doing the ignoring is you in this case. You rely on the argument that since the law won't stop folks from doing something if they are going to do it anyway, then why have such law? I simply pointed out the absurdity of your argument by saying that you would not use that argument when it comes to things you see as heinous crimes against others.
"Saying a person has the freedom to choose, doesn't mean you're condoning the sin, because we all have the freedom to choose what sins we battle and bear. Outlawing abortion doesn't change a person's ability to choose either, so I guess that would mean you're advocating abortion, too, right? Of course not, that would be absurd."
I never said you advocated abortion. I said you advocated for the right to abortion. I don't know of any pro-abortionist that argues that they are for abortion no matter what, and not for choice for or against abortion on part of the woman. So if anything, you are arguing against things I did not say, and you are throwing straws out at those I disagree with as well.
Let's replace the word abortion with things that are heinous like murder or assault. Your words would read:
"Saying a person has the freedom to choose to murder or assault someone, doesn't mean you're condoning the sin of murdering or assaulting someone, because we all have the freedom to choose what sins we battle and bear. Outlawing murder and assault doesn't change a person's ability to choose either, so I guess that would mean you're advocating murder and assault, too, right? Of course not, that would be absurd."
"There is a 6% discrepancy between liberals and conservatives on giving to charities and the large percentage of Conservatives give to the church in tithes, while non-Christian liberals chose other organizations."
I didn't claim Cbristian liberals don't give alot of their time and money.
Reread what I wrote. I was saying folks cannot accuse Christian conservatives of not caring and do so honestly.
Many pro-choicers have made those accusations. Their usual claims is pro-lifers don't care about women, but only to enslave them by forcing them to give birth, and once folks are born into this world, Christian conservatives don't care about thos born and those already born. I heard that often and often in these debates.
Your quote seems close to saying that here to me when I first read it, "So while the Christian right fights for the law of the land, I will fight for support through churches and other non-profit programs so that women can choose life."
Do you realize how you sounded there? It looked alot like you are contrasting yourself with Christian right by saying you are focus on helping folks through programs and Christian right is focused on the law.
You claim you never claimed that the Christian right don't help folks. If that's the case, don't make statements like that.
I apologized to you if I misunderstood it, but it did not come off as wrong.
Tran:
1) "I didn't claim you wrote people murder their own children." (Tran)
Hmmmm....
You said, "You advocate right to murder one's own child, if you advocate pro-choice."
You also said, "when you advocate women should have a right to kill their own unborn children"
I don't know how I can advocate it, if I didn't state it. Never in my argument have I advocated killing your own child. I don't know how reducing abortions and eliminating abortions, equals promoting abortion. You can't just shift out the parts you don't like. Saying women have the choice to decide doesn't condone, either. There is always choice, no matter what.
"It is indeed your point. You just don't like the logical implications of your own arguments you made when it is applied across the board, not what you pick and choose." (Tran)
LMBO. I just don't like the logical implications of a point I didn't make. LMBO!
Those tricks don't work on me, if you can't argue the points then let it go, but putting words in my mouth and calling it my logic when I haven't stated any of the above, isn't following a logical conclusions, it's called grasping for straws.
If you follow your argument to it's logical conclusion across the board, that means people shouldn't have any choice pertaining to sin, and everything should be mandated through law. If you followed your logic against abortion across the board, then you wouldn't support war, guns, death penalty, or anything that can lead to loss of one innocent life. If you followed you logic across the board then anyone who commits a sin should be denied their inalienable rights.
Now, see how absurd that is, and see how many words I put in your mouth that you didn't say or that you don't agree with...
I will leave it at that...
"Abuse of drugs is a sin. Drugs lead to the destruction on families, lead to death and crime, and are immoral. The point is that we have laws that set a moral standard that we don't enforce or can't enforce. If we say abortion is illegal, and tell people it's wrong, how are you going to enforce it? How is simply saying it's illegal or wrong, going to end the practice? How is it going to save the potential lives of the fetus?"
Not allowing doctors to practice abortion will save millions of lives of fetuses. I don't call fetuses potential lives, but real lives by the way.
But like I said, deal with my point that you have not dealt with while simply going on the same argument you made while ignoring my rebuttal to that.
The rebuttal you ignore, to repeat yourself is this: we have laws against murder, but having those laws do not stop people from killing each other. So using your own logic, does that mean we should not have those laws? That is where your point falls apart, and you completely danced around that point I made, either because you can't or probably more likely you completely missed my point made in the post you responded to.
I am not for laws that have a biblical mandated society where violations of any moral law of God gets one punished with jail or whatever. I am still for freedom of religion. I think the founders took it way too far with trying to set up a Christian moral based society.
"The law on drugs is so ineffective that people are now advocating legalizing drugs? What measures are taken to make sure that doesn’t happen if there is anti-abortion law? How are you going to regulate a “miscarriage” from an “abortion”, and how are you going to enter private homes to see if “abortion” practices are taking place?"
How are we going to enter homes to prevent spousal abuse? Or prevent child abuse? Or prevent murder done privately in the home? Or see if a child has been kidnapped and held for decades in that home?
Remember your point is if we cannot enforce laws then what's the point of having them.
I simply applied your point to the other issues. Deal with that.
"A woman will have to literally be caught in the act to enforce it? I’m not against making abortion illegal; I just don’t understand how it will change the status quo. I think a better fight would be ending government money toward organizations that support abortion."
And what pro-lifer disagree with you on ending government money towards organizations that support abortion? And before you get so defensive again, no, I did NOT say you claim they disagree with you there.
"The point of making abortion illegal is not just to make a moral stand, because the large majority of people who receive abortions already feel it's immoral, the point of making abortion illegal is to prevent them in the first place."
Then, you are wrong there. No laws can prevent crimes from ever being committed. They serve to set a standard in society what we can and cannot do without suffering consequences for our actions, in paying out debt to society and those who committed our crimes against. It puts a stigma to those who commit these things so others will not want to do them. But there will always be folks who break laws. Man's nature will never be changed by ANY law.
That does not mean there should be no laws.
Who was it that wrote through the law we become aware of sin?
Yes, man's law is not necessarily God's law. But it can still be used as a good teacher very much like God's law to show us the limitations of what is accepted as norm in society's view of right and wrong.
"My example of drugs was not to compare abortion to drug use, it was to compare laws that are ineffective and don't deter the actual crime. But something tells me you already knew that…"
"Hmmmm....You said, "You advocate right to murder one's own child, if you advocate pro-choice." You also said, "when you advocate women should have a right to kill their own unborn children" I don't know how I can advocate it, if I didn't state it. Never in my argument have I advocated killing your own child."
You advocate for right to abortion, which many of us do feel IS MURDER. It makes no sense for you to say is morally wrong, when you do not even see it is murder. If is not murder, then no person is killed, and the aborted is just a blob of tissue, not a human being. Then abortion becomes just like any other surgery. Your point makes no sense at all.
And again, even in the words you quoted me, I said you advocate for "right to" do something I oppose, not said you advocate doing that very thing.
So again, you are the one who misrepresented me.
"I don't know how reducing abortions and eliminating abortions, equals promoting abortion."
Again, I did not say you promoted abortion. I said you promoted RIGHT to that very thing.
"You can't just shift out the parts you don't like. Saying women have the choice to decide doesn't condone, either. There is always choice, no matter what."
In actuality, you are not dealing with what I actualiy said. You are blatantly guilty of engaging in the very thing you accused me of there.
And if I say men have a choice to decide to kill their spouse and children without being punished by law, then that means I am not condoning it?
I know you personally don't condone abortion, but your pro-choice arguments fall apart when we use that line of arguments on other issues where we both agree involve murder.
"LMBO. I just don't like the logical implications of a point I didn't make. LMBO!"
Of course, you focus on your claims that I am stating you advocate abortion, when I did not say that, not even from the quotes you got from my posts. I claimed you advocated RIGHT (to choose) to have abortion.
But you completely avoided the fact I was making logical implications to your statements that making something illegal does not prevent that very thing from occurring as to stating why you are for right to choose that very thing.
You have not deal with my points. Not one time.
"Those tricks don't work on me, if you can't argue the points then let it go, but putting words in my mouth and calling it my logic when I haven't stated any of the above, isn't following a logical conclusions, it's called grasping for straws."
No tricks at all.
You avoided my points. My point again dealt your statements that having laws are not going to stop those things criminalize so why have them. I pointed out that having laws against murder and assault did not stop either one, but we still should have them. You don't even touch that point at all, then claim I grasp at straws and claim I put words in your mouth.
I did not. You keep claiming I said you advocate abortion, when I did NOT do so. I even clarified that.
If that is all you got to accuse me of tricks, I suggest you are the one with tricks. And those tricks don't work on me.
And it is very HYPOCRITICAL OF YOU to keep playing the card of putting words in your mouth when 1) you do the same thing to me over and over and 2) worse you do those very things you accused me of as basis to claim I put words in your mouth.
"Now, see how absurd that is, and see how many words I put in your mouth that you didn't say or that you don't agree with...
I will leave it at that..."
Except, I didn't claim you ADVOCATE abortion, which seems to be your card to attack me. I said you are for RIGHT to abortion (meaning a person can choose for or against abortion, by law). I didn't claim you advocate child murder or what I see as such. I said you are for right to do that, even if you do not see it as child murder.
Even when you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you do ALOT of it yourself in doing so.
And you claim I made logical implications based on that WHICH IS FALSE.
My logical implications have nothing to do with whether or not you advocate abortion or you just for the right to choose abortion (which is your view like you said, not advocating abortion).
The logical implications are from your statements that if laws cannot stop abortions, then that means we should be for rights to choose abortions, even though we do not approve of them, but work to make them less.
I simply pointed out you don't argue that when it comes to things both of us agree are murder. Would you find it acceptable if I state that since murder laws do not stop our high murder rates in our country, those laws are ineffective and thus we have no need for them but we must work to make murders less desirable through other means?
You completely distorted what I said, then dance around MY REAL POINT.
So who is playing tricks since you want to appeal to that unwarranted card? Not going to say you play tricks.
But you accused me falsely of that.
You completely missed my point altogether or avoided them completely. I will give the benefit of the doubt and think it is the first rather than the second case.
I thought about, and I do realize we are talking past each other. There are some things you put words in my mouth, and some things I did as well. I apologized for that. I don't either one of us are looking good complaining about the other. And less accusing each of tricks and avoiding points made. I apologized for my end as well to you.
If we cannot agree in agreeable manner, we could at least honor each other as fellow Christians and honor the very Christ and God we serve.
I apologize to the owner of this board for embroiling myself in a hot-headed, which regardless of who is right or wrong, is not edifying and not pleasing to God.
God bless you all.
@ Tran:
"Except, I didn't claim you ADVOCATE abortion, which seems to be your card to attack me. I said you are for RIGHT to abortion (meaning a person can choose for or against abortion, by law)." (Tran)
No you said I advocate and promote the right to kill...As if I'm marching around the country saying I support everyone who has an abortion, please keep having them because it's your right. I did not say that, have not said that, and will not say it. [THE END]
Quotes From Tran:
"You advocate right to murder one's own child, if you advocate pro-choice." (Not true)
"If you state they should have right to get rid of human life," (did not state right to get rid of life)
"The distinction you give for pro-choicers and pro-abortions is a distinction without a difference." (which means I would be pro-abortion in your argument)
"You are sending mixes messages when advocate women should have a 'right to kill their own unborn children' yet you state that what they are doing is morally wrong and against human life. (everyone has a right to make choice, doesn't mean you think they should make the wrong choices, or advocating they make the wrong choice)
"If you state they should have right to get rid of human life," (once again never stated that)
You made the claim several times, not just once but at least three or four. So I'm not putting words into your mouth. That's not what you said, may have been what you meant to say, but definitely not what you said or what you were implying.
2) The logical implications are from your statements that if laws cannot stop abortions, then that means we should be for rights to choose abortions, even though we do not approve of them, but work to make them less.
Once again not what I said, didn't say we "should be" for the right to choose. I said we "should be" for eliminating abortions. I said over and over again that we should not be for "empty laws" but laws with a targeted "solution". I also said I don't care if it's illegal, as long as it prevents abortions. I also said, pro-choice doesn't mean you condone abortion. I also said laws doesn't take away the choice, outlawing doesn't change pro-abortion views, only Christ can.
I have a laundry list of times you tried to twist or stuff words in my mouth for the benefit of your argument, based on things not stated at all. You have literally told me what I believed, advocated, promoted, and supported. Not once or twice, but almost every point.
You have explained what you meant by those statements, and I will leave it alone, now.
I will agree to disagree, and apologize as well to @ CBW, but there is definitely a communication issue here.
I respect you for arguing your points, and we do have common ground and a foundation as Christians, our mode of operation may differ, but our goal is the same.
Disclaimer: I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone or group, but for myself.
"I have a laundry list of times you tried to twist or stuff words in my mouth for the benefit of your argument, based on things not stated at all. You have literally told me what I believed, advocated, promoted, and supported. Not once or twice, but almost every point."
That's ironic given that in this very same post of yours you claim to know what I meant by what I said on you advocating right to abortion or advocating right to child murder. I already clarified plenty of time that I meant you advocate right to choose something many of us see as murder, even if you do not see it as murder. I worded myself poorly the first time that's why I clarify and pointed out to you I was not suggesting you advocate abortion. But you continue to do the very thing you accused me of doing- that is assuming what I meant and insisting that is what I meant when that's not the case.
If you don't grant benefit of the doubt when I try to clarify my poorly worded statements, guess what? You should not get to clarify your statements that are poorly worded either such as when you said those in the OT are under law, and we now are under faith. I took your statements at face value and misunderstood them on that basis.
You didn't wait til now to complain incessantly that I put words into your mouth. You took that low blow over and over again from the very first post of yours to me it seems.
I feel the same way about what you do with my posts as you state about me here. Much of your accusations that I put words in your mouth is pure bogus based on you misconstruing what I said. Not all of it, since there are times I misread what you said (such as on faith and grace and try to dialogue onwards to meeting of the minds). And I did not intend to twist you for the benefit of the audience. I misunderstood what you said, as as you did my words many times, too. The difference is I don't fly off the handle each and every time and whine and complain each time that you twist my words, you put words in my mouth, you literally told me what I believe, etc. You are guilty plenty of those times. But I don't feel the need to resort to such low blows you throw at me each and every time you do it, the way you do it to me each and every time you think I did it to you, even when you misread me many of those times.
But since you want to make be all high and mighty and talk about how I twist what you say on each and every point, then let's look at you on how you could be accused of doing the same to me, including the times you accused me:
You read your assumptions into them many times and assume I claim you say things you did not. You claim I accuse you of saying people are born gays. I did not say you claim people are born gays. You assume that (falsely). I made the remark gays are not born that way to deal with you raising the point that all men are created equal. Unless one views gays are born that way, one cannot use all men are created equal to support the contention gays should have equal rights based on them being gays or based on sexuality. I simply pointed out the founders did not intend their words to mean one has liberty to engage in gay acts or other acts of sexual immorality, since they prescribed harsh punishments for them in ways I disagree with. I didn't say or even think you thought folks are born gays. Nor hinted you believe that. I stated folks are not born gays to make a point. You read into what I said beyond what I said.
Likewise, when I said that those terms in the Declaration came from Christian principles you jump the gun and put words in my mouth claiming that I said you deny that's the case. No, I did not. I simply pointed that out to show that when it came to sins, like homosexuality, adultery, etc., the founders did not believe those are inalienable rights, given they saw those rights as coming from God and must be consistent with God's moral truth. I don't necessarily agree with them that we should have a system where we have these laws that punish sins. I was simply pointing these facts out to challenge your assertions about gays should have rights being based on the Declaration. I did not claim you deny those things are based on Christian thoughts.
Likewise, you claim I try to make logical implications into things you did not say like issue of whether or not you advocate abortion or you just for the right to choose it without approving of it. Except, I was not making logical implications on those things but based on your statements about even if the law is passed against abortion, folks will do still do it. My logical implications dealt with if one argues that, one can argue about any law, not just ones against abortion, but also against all forms of murder, assault, robbery, etc., etc. Laws do not ever stop everyone from committing crimes. We both agree to that. So even on the issue of logical implications, you did distort me there too. And on that one, you did so repeatedly.
So many of your assertions that I put words in your mouth, twist what you say, etc., is PURE GARBAGE.
Unlike you, I won't claim you try to twist my words for the benefit of the audience. You just misunderstood me, just like I misunderstood what you said several times.
But spare me your self-righteous, hypocritical indignation, when you are so guilty of that many times of my words of putting words in my mouth, even if unintentional (I know I did not do so intentionally, and give you the benefit of the doubt there).
I am simply saying even after my attempts at reconciliation, you practically spit back in my faith then offer a token apology after all the backhand slaps you threw at me in that same post. I find that condescending, insulting, and very hypocritical of you.
Like I said look at the times you made remarks that are open to me or anyone else thinking you distort our views, like you say while we right-wingers go for the law, you go for helping people through programs. Yes, you clarified what you meant. But like I said, if you don't allow me to clarify what I meant repeatedly like you do, in order to accuse me, then you should not get off so easily.
Nor get off easily on claiming (falsely) that I deny conservatives ever do things wrong involving ungodly attacks on those they disagree with.
I would not have brought all these issues back and point them out as if each and every time I feel you put words in my mouth or claim I mean something I did not, but simply pointing out that I can use your own tactics against you that you used on me easily, based on many things you said to me that are not true of what I meant.
Do you really believe you are that above reproach to complain about this? Many of the times you did throw stones and accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you either did not get my point right or you falsely assumely I claim you say things like people are born gays or the Declaration is not based on Christian principles. I never claim you said those things. I raised those issues up to back up points I made. Period.
The fact is you play the "woe is me" card so many times in our interactions and did so unbecomingly.
The fact is we talk past each other several times. No need to play the victim card over and over and over again and point fingers over and over and over again, if we are talking past each. Try harder next time (I mean both of us).
But the way you treated me is totally unbecoming of what a Christian is supposed to act. If you don't make others bear burdens you throw around, you better damn be sure to be able to bear them yourselves.
And you should not be living in glasshouses when you throw stones.
Bye.
"You made the claim several times, not just once but at least three or four. So I'm not putting words into your mouth. That's not what you said, may have been what you meant to say, but definitely not what you said or what you were implying. "
Well you said those in the OT are under law and we are under faith. You did not mean that those in the OT did not have faith to be saved, but that's how it looked. You also spoke of those in the OT not having grace, which is not what you really meant. But that's how it looked.
So want that turn around and thrown back at you?
I try to clarify what I meant by those terms. You try to milk that one thing for all it is worth. And quite frankly, it is self-serving and hypocritical.
And that's not even the point of what I stated by logical implications. You made that claim falsely three or four times that I based my logical implications off of the claim that you advocate abortion (a claim I never made).
Even with the quote you give, I didn't say you are for killing unborn children, but for the RIGHT TO (choose) to kill unborn children. So even when you claim I put words in your mouth, you put words in mind.
I did clarify my statement that you advocate for RIGHT to something others, but not you, see as killing unborn children.
You simply try to use this one point and then claim I am guilty of twisting your words on each and every point.
Guess what? I feel the same way about how you treat my words.
I am sick of you playing that card over and over and over and over and over again in every single one of your posts. If you misunderstand my words, I don't go around each and every time and play this lame card you are playing to character assassinate.
@ Tran:
I still don't think you're reading my quotes because I said:
"You have explained what you meant by those statements, and I will leave it alone, now.
I will agree to disagree, and apologize as well to @ CBW, but there is definitely a communication issue here."
How much benefit of the doubt do you need. I said I didn't put words in your mouth, I showed you what you said, and I said now I understand what you meant, and would left it alone, and yet we continue...The same thing you did when I said "faith" instead of "grace". Remember, if not you can go back and re-read, it's still there.
"There is definitely a communication issue" is not a dig at you sweetheart, it's at us. We have a problem communicating with each other. We have problem understanding how our words are translated into thoughts by the other person.
"But the way you treated me is totally unbecoming of what a Christian is supposed to act. If you don't make others bear burdens you throw around, you better damn be sure to be able to bear them yourselves."
What? Please stop it, you're going way too far, again. I have not done such a thing. Showing you where you made assumptions based on things I did not say, is not treating you unbecoming of a Christian. I have not called you any names, and I have been most civil, and stuck to the words written. Misinterpreting something you wrote over and over is not unbecoming of a Christian either. This conversation has never been personal and has only been based on what was written.
"I am sick of you playing that card over and over and over and over and over again in every single one of your posts. If you misunderstand my words, I don't go around each and every time and play this lame card you are playing to character assassinate."
What? I don't have to play the card, if you stop giving me examples of it. Every time I said it, I posted the quote to back it up. Everything is in writing, you can go back and read, tit for tat the statements that were made
"I didn't say you are for killing unborn children, but for the RIGHT TO (choose) to kill unborn children..." (Tran)
Yes, just keep proving my point, and keep stuffing the words. Your words are "kill" or "killing children". That's how you view my point, that's not the point I made, or the words I said or used. This statement is loaded with how you view abortion, and not with how I view abortion. Until you get that, we will keep going and going.
Mrs Grapevine,
Please be done with the incessant arguing. Be done with statements that give an impression that you speak for Christians. Be done with telling those who say say on this site that they're not Christian, that they should be, according to your idea of what that means.
Please and thank you. Regardless of your personal choices and ideology, you hardly represent the Christian stance on the issues. Whether one is a Christian or not is not the thrust of the political topics. If there happens to be some commonality in that area, fine.
It is hardly appropriate for you to insert a 'you should be Christian' when others are discussing their common political views. You are the only one doing that, yet most of your political ideology is opposite of this web sites author, who happens to be Christian. It makes you look like you're intentionally trying to give a bad impression of being a Christian.
I assume that's not your intent, so I wanted to bring awareness of how it can be perceived. Perhaps we can agree or disagree in simple fashion and state our preference without all the lengthy and personal arguments between individuals, that you seem to constantly gravitate towards.
I trust there will be reasonable understanding with what I'm trying to say.
@JMK "....my fear is that the GOP will screw that up by NOT moving forward with another Gingrich-styled agenda, and instead take a more "middle of the road" and LOSING position."
It's interesting that Newt Gingrich promotes a middle of the road agenda and it's interesting that in spite of his rhetoric, that has always been his trend. When someone says fiscally responsible, that's what they should actually be when performing. Here's one of his performances:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXOPPJ_FE_U&feature=player_embedded
Smile,
Check out Newt's fictional Civil War books which presentg an alternative history, with idea of what would have happened likely if the South had won the battle of Gettsyburg. From what I heard (since I just started) gave a good likely scenerio, where if general Lee had won that battle, Lincoln would have immediately turned to Grant to lead the Northern army, and given Grant's style of not giving an inch either offensively and defensively, Lee would have lost the war given he would have lost men in battles that are harder to replace when he is fighting in enemy territory than he would when in the South. No matter which you look at it, the battle probably would not have decided the outcome of the war, according to that thesis, other than how soon Grant would have had to face Lee and where.
@ Smile:
I do speak for Christians, and I do speak for myself. I also stated that these were my opinions, and not representative of anyone else.
It's a huge fallacy to think that only Conservatives are true Christians, and that only the Conservative Christian view is the right one.
I haven't told anyone on this site that they were not Christians. Nor have I questioned anyone's Christianity on this site, except for Rush Limbaugh, and only in response to psycho comment I received; which has been explained. Nor did I bring this issues to this site, that was something I posted on my site and @CM and @CBW asked for clarifications, and @Tran jumped in not knowing what was going on.
Generally I respect your opinion, but not on this one. I'm not going to be told I'm not a Christian because my view point is counter to someone's else. That is where I draw the line.
I would love to stop with incessant arguing, but I can't let anyone tell me how I think because it doesn't fit in line with their thinking.
Even you can truly understand that. If I told you, you weren't a Christian because you support the killing of Children in Iraq, you would think I was psycho. Surely being pro-war doesn't mean you're pro-slaughtering of innocent kids, or that you advocate killing Iraqi children.I know it's not the same thing, but it's still outrageous. If I make an outrageous claim, I know you will be there to put me in my place.
So sorry, I do respect you, and your opinion, even when we disagree, but on this one I'm standing up for myself. I let it go on the other posts (regarding soldiers and T.O. and Rush), but not this one.
I agreed with you on @CM because I was out of line.
@ Smile:
How do you feel about Ron Paul? I always wonder why more people don't rally to support him. Libertarians can be a prefect blend of Liberals and Conservatives.
"I would love to stop with incessant arguing, but I can't let anyone tell me how I think because it doesn't fit in line with their thinking."
Except most of the time in your hypocritical rantings about me telling you what you think, you were the one putting words in my mouth, then based on that bogus "evidence claim I put words in my mouth. I already pointed out more than a few examples of those. You simply ignore them then continue the pattern of putting all this on me while giving yourself a complete a free pass. I already admitted I misunderstood you on a few points and made the effort to correct them each time. I also even apologized without strings attached.
Your response was to spit in my face and write a self-righteous diatribe while giving yourself a complete free pass.
I will not be your punching bag.
"I said I didn't put words in your mouth, I showed you what you said, and I said now I understand what you meant, and would left it alone, and yet we continue."
No, you are not being honest. I did indeed pointed out where you put words in my mouth. You claim I said you deny the principles of the Declaration like inalienable rights came from Christianity. I did no such thing. I simply stated that those came from Christianity to make a point. I indeed pointed out you claim I said you see as gay folks as born gay. I said no such thing. I stated folks are not born gays to make a point.
You claim falsely I comletely ignore things conservatives did.
You claim I said you advocate abortion, when I did not do so. I said you advocate right to have an abortion or right to what I deem murder of one's children, even though you deny that is murder. I even clarified for you what I meant.
Yet you continue to claim over and over you know what I meant more then me.
Then turn around and claim I am the only one telling you what you think?
How very hypocritical.
You were the one that incessantly played that card to ridiculous extremes and to the level of extreme hypocrisy, while engaging in the same tactics, at times even to "prove" you got misrepresented.
"Yes, just keep proving my point, and keep stuffing the words. Your words are "kill" or "killing children". That's how you view my point, that's not the point I made, or the words I said or used. This statement is loaded with how you view abortion, and not with how I view abortion. Until you get that, we will keep going and going."
And while you were doing all that, you were ENGAGING IN THE SAME BEHAVIOUR YOU ACCUSED ME OF.
I didn't claim you advocate abortion in of itself and you keep repeating I did so. You STUFF WORDS IN MY MOUTH THERE.
I even clarify that I mean you advocate for right (to choose) something which many of us deem as murder, even you though don't see it as murder and you don't necessarily advocate abortion.
You don't let me clarify what I meant and you don't let me restate what I meant, and there you say you understand what I really meant more than I do.
You deny me the same right that you claim for yourself when you incessantly whine when you stated things on faith, grace, etc., that is open to misunderstanding, just how I state things to you are open to misunderstanding.
Fine, complain I stuff words in your mouth. I admitted I misread you several times. But you won't admit to doing alot of that yourself and in many cases doing it in order to further justify your claims I put words in your mouth (when it is the other way around).
I am sick of you treating me like a punching bag.
The gloves are off.
@ Tran:
If you want you can continue the argument, at my blog. @ Smile is right in that this is not my blog, and I'm not going to overtake it arguing with you.
Once again I have not called you any names, and I won't. I will stick to the words spoken and the arguments being made. This is not personal because I don't know you from Adam. It's only based on what is written.
I have said I believe you, and I believe that's what you meant. All I said is that I didn't put words in your mouth about the right to "choose"...
Let me make this simple: I understand what you meant, I get it now, but only after you explained, so I will leave it alone. It doesn't matter what you said before, because you have explained what you meant. I treated you no different that you have treated me, with the exception of name calling.
I don't know how much clearer I can be. I get it now, but I did not make it up, thanks for explaining what you meant.
"No, you are not being honest. I did indeed pointed out where you put words in my mouth. You claim I said you deny the principles of the Declaration like inalienable rights came from Christianity. I did no such thing. I simply stated that those came from Christianity to make a point. I indeed pointed out you claim I said you see as gay folks as born gay. I said no such thing. I stated folks are not born gays to make a point."
I get it now, I understand what you meant, I didn't before, but now I see. You just add things to help your argument, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're disagreeing with me, or making those assertions as my words. I'm not rehashing the argument, it's written.
It took you a few times to understand what I meant, as well. No high horse, self-righteousness here, or diatribes. I'm simply responding to your comments.
"Your response was to spit in my face and write a self-righteous diatribe while giving yourself a complete free pass." (Tran)
If I wanted to spit in your face trust me you would know. My response was not to give myself a free pass. The only accusation I made against you is that you put words in my mouth. I haven't called you self-righteous, dense, un-Christian, mean, whiner, or hypocritical.
Lastly when I said you turn a blind eye to your party, it was not a general statement but specific one to your response below, and nothing else:
"Clinton violated another person's right to a fair trial by perjury. It was never about the adultery to the conservatives in this case that got him impeached. Liberals simply lied and lied and lied that conservatives were obsessed with the sex part."
Normally I would let it go, but I have told you over and over, that I now get what you said. I've also said I don't understand how to translate your words to what you're intending to say. I actually said we both have that problem.
""There is definitely a communication issue" is not a dig at you sweetheart, it's at us. We have a problem communicating with each other. We have problem understanding how our words are translated into thoughts by the other person." (MGV)
If you want to battle it out, we can, but let's not do it here. If you want you can e-mail me at info@mrsgrapevine.com either way I am open to discussion or debating...
"If you want you can continue the argument, at my blog. @ Smile is right in that this is not my blog, and I'm not going to overtake it arguing with you."
Let's get one thing straight here. I was the one who tried to walk away by admitting both of us were guilty of talking past each other. And I did try to walk away and take the high road, and apologize both to you and the owner of this blog for what went on here. You chose to respond by throwing all the guilty on me and then give a token apology on top of the insults.
Rememeber? You instigated this fight in the first place, you won't end it when I offer to walk away.
And then after your response to my response, I chose to bit my lip. But you continue to take lowroad and throw all the guilty on me when I tried to be long gone from this.
"Once again I have not called you any names, and I won't. I will stick to the words spoken and the arguments being made. This is not personal because I don't know you from Adam. It's only based on what is written."
I didn't call you names. I said you were being hypocritical. You were. You play the blame game as poor substitute for real arguments. You attack me for putting words in your mouth on issues like inalienable rights being from the Christian God and so on when I did even not claim you deny any of those things, nor hint at it.
"I have said I believe you, and I believe that's what you meant. All I said is that I didn't put words in your mouth about the right to "choose"..."
No, you were hellbent on putting all efforts over that to malign me as if you bear no guilty in how you did not get my words exactly right either. You were incessant about making it personal, contrary to what your claims.
So this talk about you not making it personal, not going to argue, etc., after all the instigations you did and your refusal to end it when I try to walka way (twice), etc., is all bs. And it's bush league.
"If you want to battle it out, we can, but let's not do it here. If you want you can e-mail me at info@mrsgrapevine.com either way I am open to discussion or debating..."
Sorry, not interested.
@ Tran:
Again, I write and maybe this time you will read:
1) "I have said I believe you, and I believe that's what you meant. All I said is that I didn't put words in your mouth about the right to "choose"...
2) "Let me make this simple: I understand what you meant, I get it now, but only after you explained, so I will leave it alone. It doesn't matter what you said before, because you have explained what you meant. I treated you no different than you have treated me."
You didn't put the faith words in my mouth, and I didn't put the right to kill in yours. We know what each other meant and I still don't know what the problem is, or why you're near tears...
Like I said before:
3) "You have explained what you meant by those statements, and I will leave it alone, now.
I will agree to disagree, and apologize as well to @ CBW, but there is definitely a communication issue here."
4) "I respect you for arguing your points, and we do have common ground and a foundation as Christians, our mode of operation may differ, but our goal is the same."
5) "There is definitely a communication issue" is not a dig at you sweetheart, it's at us. We have a problem communicating with each other. We have problem understanding how our words are translated into thoughts by the other person."
6) "I get it now, I understand what you meant, I didn't before, but now I see. You just add things to help your argument, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're disagreeing with me, or making those assertions as my words. I'm not rehashing the argument, it's written."
If you wanted to end this argument it would have ended by now. You have not walked away, your post outnumber mine almost 3 to 1...
For goodness sake, you were even arguing with the crazy anonymous person.
You made "34" comment-posts directed at me; to my 12 posts directed at you. I will give you the one made to @ Smile because your name was in it. Three other comments you just jumped into.
Please stop acting like the victim, and like I'm just beating up on poor little you. Please stop acting like you tried to take the high road. No one has. I didn't even initiate this conversation with you, in the first place, but I am much to blame for it's length.
I agree with @ Smile I do gravitate to arguments because I am a minority here, but I didn't start this one. It's hard for me to ignore digs at liberals, but what should I expect it's a conservative blog. I get that.
I am trying to be more of an observer, but sometimes I just can't help myself...I have extended the olive branch...if you don't take it, that's on you, but stop accusing me of these conspiracy theories...I don't think you can write one post without telling me how I operate...
"No, you were hellbent on putting all efforts over that to malign me as if you bear no guilty in how you did not get my words exactly right either. You were incessant about making it personal, contrary to what your claims." (Tran)
I said I am guilty on not interpreting your words the way you meant. I said it twice. I really don't know what you want from me. If you want me to say you're right, that's just not going to happen...
This is exactly why people shouldn't argue about religion, and now I know what Thomas Jefferson meant:
"I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to Him, and not to the priests. I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another. 1 never attempted to make a convert nor wished to change another’s creed. I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives for it is in our lives,and not from our words, that our religion must be read."
I don't know enough about you to make this personal. So it's not...at least not for me...
I'm done with this.
Post a Comment