I've read this entire thread, and I have to say that it is hard for me to take any positions on Biblical matters seriously from anyone openly supporting the one candidate in this election that supports abortion and infanticide.

 

You can paint with a broad brush or split hairs all you want. If you're willing to give BO an pass on these two issues, all your railing about the evils of greed, war, wealth, etc. ring very hollow to me.

 

It is a waste of time to even debate such matters.

I've read this entire thread, and I have to say that it is hard for me to take any positions on Biblical matters seriously from anyone openly supporting the one candidate in this election that supports abortion and infanticide.

 

You can paint with a broad brush or split hairs all you want. If you're willing to give BO an pass on these two issues, all your railing about the evils of greed, war, wealth, etc. ring very hollow to me.

 

It is a waste of time to even debate such matters.

 

I don't really see where this thread accomplishes anything in regards to McCain vs. Obama. Both support acts of war...they just differ on the specific war in Iraq.

 

So, if a Christian couldn't support a candidate based on them supporting war, it would rule both Obama and McCain out.

 

I'm with you on the bolded though.

So, let me understand the implication you have made in answering my thread and give you a chance to be clear on your actions.

 

War bad.

Abortion is acceptable.

 

 

For the record, both are bad.[/QUOTE]

 

:thumb:

I don't really see where this thread accomplishes anything in regards to McCain vs. Obama. Both support acts of war...they just differ on the specific war in Iraq.

 

So, if a Christian couldn't support a candidate based on them supporting war, it would rule both Obama and McCain out.

 

I'm with you on the bolded though.

All I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of people making issues they personally feel are "sinful" such as greed, war, accumulating wealth, etc. all the while ignoring what many others see as the sin of murder in abortions, infanticide, theft, etc.

 

I find it intruguing that we are continually subjected to the verse about the "rich young ruler" as if this was a prescription for all who want to be Christians and by extension a license for our government to do what we apparently are too stingy to do on our own. Most would agree that this is completely out of context. It was a specific requirement for that individual trapped by his idolatry of possessions. An idolatry that kept him from truly and fully following Christ.

 

If this is indeed a requirement for all believers, I find it even more puzzling that the individual making this assertion claims to own a house, a car, more than one change of clothing, and clearly has a computer, internet connection and paid utility bill. For this reason, the guilt trips about how all the rest of us are too greedy or too warloving to support Obama is hysterical.

All I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of people making issues they personally feel are "sinful" such as greed, war, accumulating wealth, etc. all the while ignoring what many others see as the sin of murder in abortions, infanticide, theft, etc.

 

I find it intruguing that we are continually subjected to the verse about the "rich young ruler" as if this was a prescription for all who want to be Christians and by extension a license for our government to do what we apparently are too stingy to do on our own. Most would agree that this is completely out of context. It was a specific requirement for that individual trapped by his idolatry of possessions. An idolatry that kept him from truly and fully following Christ.

 

If this is indeed a requirement for all believers, I find it even more puzzling that the individual making this assertion claims to own a house, a car, more than one change of clothing, and clearly has a computer, internet connection and paid utility bill. For this reason, the guilt trips about how all the rest of us are too greedy or too warloving to support Obama is hysterical.

 

I wasn't disagreeing with you on anything...I rarely (if ever) do.

 

I was just taking the time to point out that, if this thread is intended to be some kind of Obama/McCain thing, its absurd, because both support acts of war.

I wasn't disagreeing with you on anything...I rarely (if ever) do.

 

I was just taking the time to point out that, if this thread is intended to be some kind of Obama/McCain thing, its absurd, because both support acts of war.

Sorry about that Fiver... that was not directed at you. I was merely building on your post.

 

I enjoy your point of view as well... :thumb:

All I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of people making issues they personally feel are "sinful" such as greed, war, accumulating wealth, etc. all the while ignoring what many others see as the sin of murder in abortions, infanticide, theft, etc.

 

I find it intruguing that we are continually subjected to the verse about the "rich young ruler" as if this was a prescription for all who want to be Christians and by extension a license for our government to do what we apparently are too stingy to do on our own. Most would agree that this is completely out of context. It was a specific requirement for that individual trapped by his idolatry of possessions. An idolatry that kept him from truly and fully following Christ.

 

If this is indeed a requirement for all believers, I find it even more puzzling that the individual making this assertion claims to own a house, a car, more than one change of clothing, and clearly has a computer, internet connection and paid utility bill. For this reason, the guilt trips about how all the rest of us are too greedy or too warloving to support Obama is hysterical.

 

Well then, Paul's admonitions against homosexuals were only for those who were so overwhelmed by it that it kept them from worshipping God appropriately - It certainly is meant to apply to all people.

 

Get off the hypocritical stuff, you know we are just having fun and raising questions. These threads are simply a satire of the all the ones accusing people who support Obama of not being Christians b/c he is pro-choice. It is obvious as has been pointed out that neither are perfect and neither support perfect policies so to call people out on one issue is just silly. Now, being on the other end of it, you may see just how silly it is.

Still no answer to the original question. Got it. More name calling. Got it.

 

he told the rich young ruler that if we wanted to be right with God to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. If Jesus tells you that you HAVE to do it to be right, is it then charity? Jesus also said to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and much of the taxes collected in Rome went to promote the free circuses and etc., for the poor in the community.

Did Jesus call on Ceasar to redistribute wealth or did he call on his followers to do so voluntarily?

Edited October 30, 200817 yr by Hoot Gibson

All I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of people making issues they personally feel are "sinful" such as greed, war, accumulating wealth, etc. all the while ignoring what many others see as the sin of murder in abortions, infanticide, theft, etc.

 

I find it intruguing that we are continually subjected to the verse about the "rich young ruler" as if this was a prescription for all who want to be Christians and by extension a license for our government to do what we apparently are too stingy to do on our own. Most would agree that this is completely out of context. It was a specific requirement for that individual trapped by his idolatry of possessions. An idolatry that kept him from truly and fully following Christ.

 

If this is indeed a requirement for all believers, I find it even more puzzling that the individual making this assertion claims to own a house, a car, more than one change of clothing, and clearly has a computer, internet connection and paid utility bill. For this reason, the guilt trips about how all the rest of us are too greedy or too warloving to support Obama is hysterical.

:thumb: Well said.

Well then, Paul's admonitions against homosexuals were only for those who were so overwhelmed by it that it kept them from worshipping God appropriately - It certainly is meant to apply to all people.

 

Get off the hypocritical stuff, you know we are just having fun and raising questions. These threads are simply a satire of the all the ones accusing people who support Obama of not being Christians b/c he is pro-choice. It is obvious as has been pointed out that neither are perfect and neither support perfect policies so to call people out on one issue is just silly. Now, being on the other end of it, you may see just how silly it is.

Is it greedy or dishonest of Obama to disable software that processes donations made by credit cards to ensure that donors are making legal donations? Was it greedy for Obama to agree to accept public campaign financing and to limit his expenditures and then back out on the deal when he realized that he could collect far more money on his own and without the spending constraints? Was it greedy of Obama to purchase a larger house than he could afford by accepting convicted felon Tony Rezko's help? If you are looking for a greedy candidate, then perhaps your focus should be on Obama.

Is it greedy or dishonest of Obama to disable software that processes donations made by credit cards to ensure that donors are making legal donations? Was it greedy for Obama to agree to accept public campaign financing and to limit his expenditures and then back out on the deal when he realized that he could collect far more money on his own and without the spending constraints? Was it greedy of Obama to purchase a larger house than he could afford by accepting convicted felon Tony Rezko's help? If you are looking for a greedy candidate, then perhaps your focus should be on Obama.

 

Is this a response to the post it quotes.

You do know that Revelations is a metaphor don't you. Or do you take the 7 heads and 7 crowns and 7 jewels stuff literally. The whole point of revelation was to couch it in terms so that the Romans wouldn't understand it, yet you take the river of blood and the four horsemen literally?

 

Jesus talks about overthrowing the powers and prinicipalities, but in his own words he tells Peter to put away the sword because that is not of his kingdom. Did he lie to Peter?

 

And yet he told his disciples to take swords when he sent, I believe, it was the 72 out.

 

Ace, it gets dangerous when you either don't know or don't care about ALL the Scriptures.

 

You are right in what he told Peter but in other cases and other circumstances he said something different.

 

Why is your view of Revelations the right one? I thought that would be judging my view to be wrong and we were not allowed to judge and make stances on issues, in your view?

 

Plus, not sure it was in Revelations where it was said that Jesus would come back as judge not Savior. I will look that up for you.

Is this a response to the post it quotes.

Actually it should have been part of a previous post. I quoted the wrong post. Sorry.

Still no answer to the original question. Got it. More name calling. Got it.

 

he told the rich young ruler that if we wanted to be right with God to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. If Jesus tells you that you HAVE to do it to be right, is it then charity? Jesus also said to render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars and much of the taxes collected in Rome went to promote the free circuses and etc., for the poor in the community.

 

So, by YOUR OWN ADMISSION, Jesus WANTED NO PART of collecting more taxes and redistributing the wealth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

He said give Caesar the taxes that are Caesar's.

 

He DID NOT SAY, hey, let's take more of Caesar's and redistribute it out to the poor.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. Good argument against your own point.:thumb:

 

HE DID SAY, for the church to take care of the poor. Paul actually gave an order. 1)help yourself; 2)family helps you; 3)church helps you. And that is where Paul stopped.

So, by YOUR OWN ADMISSION, Jesus WANTED NO PART of collecting more taxes and redistributing the wealth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

He said give Caesar the taxes that are Caesar's.

 

He DID NOT SAY, hey, let's take more of Caesar's and redistribute it out to the poor.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. Good argument against your own point.:thumb:

 

HE DID SAY, for the church to take care of the poor. Paul actually gave an order. 1)help yourself; 2)family helps you; 3)church helps you. And that is where Paul stopped.

 

Then the government should do nothing about homosexuality and abortion. they are religious issues.