Is The Conservative Movment Flirting with FAscism?

They just might. I think the best way to determine it is to visit their library and do a book by book search. I'm sure one of their librarians would be happy to assist you. But...be forewarned: Bring a flashlight. The library room at Treasures is one of the most dimly lit libraries I've ever been to. It makes reading quite difficult....especially credit card receipts!

 

I don't understand how anything I've said that would be considered bizarr or paranoid. I am simply saying that liberalism and secular humanism share the same beliefs. I believe most liberals are secular humanist. IMHO, Christ wouldn't share these beliefs. I know, it's crazy!!!

 

I haven't done anything of the sort. I disagree. That has nothing to do with intolerance or paranoia. For some reason, you guys seem to believe your inherent human right to have your beliefs supercedes mine. Otherwise, you wouldn't be putting words in my mouth.

 

You earlier agreed that Christ would be Pro-Life. He would definitely oppose gay marriage. I do believe he would have a problem with his expulsion from the public square. These positions alone would disqualify him from the modern liberal movement.

I never said that all liberal politicians are automatically aligned with secular humanists. Their positions certainly are though. I know it seems like a small distinction, but there is a difference.

By now, you surely know that we simply disagree on the best way combat poverty. But if it makes it you feel better to believe that I hate the poor, go right ahead.

Funny how a higher percentage of repuplican congressmen voted for the Civil Rights Act than the dixiecrats.

You know your right about the hatred, but the vitriole goes both ways. Try listening to Air America.

I could go for your version of doing away with SS, but my way works immediately because as people opt out, the accounts payable immediately drops to zero. There will be short torm debt, but since it would result in less drag on the system, it would be a long term solution.

 

I can't believe y'all are actually arguing over the political affiliation of Jesus. I swear, they buried him with a GOP tie tack.

But, I'll join in the fun and give my slant: Jesus was apolitical.

 

I would say that is accurate...

 

I don't think we know what Jesus position on Gay marriage would be. He was against marriage in general and but said that if people felt like they couldn't be married to serving the lord then marriage was what they should do.

We do know that he was against divorce.

 

I do not necessarily believe that Jesus would be "pro-life" as that is a political movement. I do believe that Jesus would have frowned on abortion, but further believe that he would show infinite understanding and forgive anyone who made that choice.

I am not so sure about gay marriage. Perhaps you could point me to any statement he made that indicates that he believed that one segment of the population should have less rights than another segment.

I believe that Jesus would have insisted on being removed from government. He was not a political person, he was a spiritual one, and there is no indication that he insisted on his views being made public policy.

Jesus was a flaming liberal during his time. I believe that in our times, he would be at least a moderate liberal based on my reading of his statements.

You said...

So, you did not say "all," you said "most."

To which several people responded by telling you about the strong Christian views of the VAST majority of liberal members of Congress. Instead of responding to those statements with something substantive, you just throw out your accusation that liberalism and your definition of humanism (which is substantially different from the definition also posted) are "virtually the same" again.

How do you respond to the FACT that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress are devout Christians?

I never claimed that you "hate the poor," but the GOP has certainly fought tooth and nail against legislation designed to help them.

Even funnier that the "dixiecrats" are now Republicans.

One voice (AA) amongst the sea of hyperbolic adders that make up the right wing noise machine does not show that the "vitriole [sic] goes both ways."

I agree that we need more civility on both sides, but if you cannot see how much further the right has taken the venomous discourse, then you have blinded yourself to reality.

The "short term debt" would be in the TRILLIONS of dollars. We already pay over $200 billion per year in interest payments, that kind of debt increase would add at least $50 billion per year to that.

We should shore up our fiscal house before committing ourselves to a path that will lead to more debt and more payments on interest that do nothing to accomplish any of the goals of government.

 

This is seriously amusing. You put words in my mouth, and then play the martyr for the same reason.

I'm not quite sure how, "I could care less what you or anyone else believes in" can be construed as "supersceding" anything - but if it makes you feel more righteous in picking on those you disagree with, go ahead. Similarly, I would be curious to understand why you ignored everything od substance that I posted...

I don't like arguing "what would jesus think about..." - it's wasteful.

But to say that secularism is anti-christ is a wee bit misleading and a rather grandiose interpretation of the new testament on your part.

My humble opinion of course.

 

Back on task

Is The Conservative Movment Flirting with FAscism?

This just in : Sky? BLUE!

 

Hilarious that this is an actual thread with many responses. Shows where the D&D has gone. how about- Is tHe LEfT FlRtinG wiTh COMmUnisM??!1

 

This entire debate is dependent on who you think Christ is. If you think He is just a man, then you are correct in saying that we don't know. If you believe He is God incarnate ( I Am, Alpha/Omega, etc.), then His positions would have to be traced back to the Old Testament if New Testament quotes are unavailable. That being said, I believe my arguement speaks for itself on gay marriage.

 

/sigh

yeah conservatives are Nazis... blah..blah..blah

As a conservative, I sometimes enjoy going to this board to debate/discuss with intelligent liberals. Sure I mostly disagree with them but the discussions are sometimes very informative and enlightening. 2 equally intelligent people can view the world differently.

I'm sure I could find something from some right-wing blog that says Liberals => Communists, but seriously , other than blatant trolling, what would be the point?

 

We live in a representative democracy. We have the right to vote our values. I don't believe Christ would refuse to take a position because it is "political."

He would understand that it is a sin. He never fails to forgive, but confession and repentance are necessary for salvation.

Mathew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolishthem but to fulfill them.

The Law (Old Testament) clearly describes homosexuality as detestable and an abomination. I sincerely doubt Christ would be in support of gay marriage.

Would you consider everlasting life a right that Christ gives to one segment (those of us who recieve salvation)of the population over the another (those who reject salvation)?

I don't think Christ would have His followers remain silent on political issues.

Mathew 28:31
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always to the very end of the age.

The above quote about his dedication to the Law is evidence of his conservatism: however, his concern for the poor is undeniable. That type of liberalism is something we should all aspire to. I just personally disagree with the efficacy of most socialist programs. I should not have been so crass earlier.

I should not have entered the Democrat vs. Republican debate. I spoke to a deacon at my church and he advised me of my error. If I was vitriolic earlier, I apologize. My smart alecky red neck was on display.

I would revise my statement to say that the views of modern liberalism and secular humanism are virtually the same. It's a fact. Look it up. BTW, it's not my definition of secular humanism, it's the definition on the official website of the American Humanist Association.

True, but not out of disregard for the poor. Conservatives believe the legislation is bad policy and ineffective. For too long, the criticism from the left has been irresponsible and dishonest on this issue.

We could go back and forth on this, exchanging names of people who switched and didn't. Let's just agree that Jim Crow was an embarassment and a stain in our history.

I think you are neglecting most major news papers, broadcast news channels (except Fox, obviously), the blogospere, and Hollywood. I don't think my sight is impaired here.

As the annual budget exceeds $2 trillion, the extra $50 billion is not that extreme: however, I would be interested in your long term plans on SS solvency. I would also like to hear more of your ideas on a consumption tax. How would the government insure such a tax wouldn't become regressive. If it could be done, I would welcome such a change.

 

I definitely believe that Christ was the Alpha and the Omega, savior etc. Christ came to fulfill the law of the old testament. But the understanding of those laws certainly changed by the time of the new testament, and hopefully have continued to change since then.

 

How so?

 

Well look at the differences in the way the law was practiced in the old testament and the way Jesus talked about it(The stoning of people, the way the temple was set up, the eye for an eye vs. turning the other cheek, etc. There are so many things... It was all practiced one way until Jesus came and then it evolved.) Jesus didn't change the law but he certainly illustrated a different and greater understanding of God's intent when he addressed those things in the New Testament.

Ideally man's search and spiritual path would continue to leading to a greater understanding of God.

 

this is absolutely how i read the NT.

i've said this a kabillion times here before...but i think if people cornered Jesus on the political issue of gay marriage he'd draw something in the dirt and look up and ask, "what's the divorce rate of heterosexual couples in the church? tell ya what, straighten that out and then come talk to me about the sanctity of marriage." we're all hypocrites.

 

Christ's arrival changed the way sin was dealt with. He didn't redefine it. Furthermore, I don't think it's our right to "evolve" sin's definition. If anyone should, it would be God himself.

 

I believe your talking about the story of Mary, the prostitute. Don't forget that after Jesus rebuked the townspeople, He told her to go and sin no more.

Christ doesn't equivicate.