More Fundamentalist Follies...

[otterinbham 0]

"'Six weeks after urging voters to elect only "tried and true" Christians, Senate candidate Katherine Harris is questioning her opponent's faith by saying he "votes completely contrary" to Christian principles.

In an interview published by a Christian news service, Harris said incumbent Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson 'claims to be a Christian" but supports policies "completely contrary to what we say we believe.'"

Let's see...who decides what the "Christian viewpoint" on matters such as social policy and the conduct of foreign affairs? And when is the Republican Party going to be wrested back away from these kooks?

[CCTAU 3,351]

There are no "kooks" here. If a candidate claims to be a christian then votes contrary to that belief, then others have the right to point it out. If the christians out there who are worried about it agree, then they have the right to not vote for that person. How is that a bunch of "kooks"? If you were part of the communist party and the same thing happened, you would have the same options. You seem to have a problem with cristians. Maybe you should enter into some secular therapy and quit letting the big bad Jesus freaks upset you!

[Tiger Al 0]

More 'values' training from the republican experts.

[otterinbham 0]

There are no "kooks" here. If a candidate claims to be a christian then votes contrary to that belief, then others have the right to point it out. If the christians out there who are worried about it agree, then they have the right to not vote for that person. How is that a bunch of "kooks"? If you were part of the communist party and the same thing happened, you would have the same options. You seem to have a problem with cristians. Maybe you should enter into some secular therapy and quit letting the big bad Jesus freaks upset you!

Oh, typical sanctimoniuous horsesh*t from you, CC.

I'm very much a Christian. However, I think it's really a question of nomenclature. Instead of the word "Christian" to endorse certain governing philosophies, I think it's more important to be precise in one's language. Therefore, I think we should se more accurate terminology such as "Knuckle-Dragging Fundamentalist" instead of the blanket "Christian" to endorse certain policies. Not only would it be a far more accurate a description--It would also be much more honest. Personally, I'm tired of one section of Christianity appropriating my faith, and telling the world whether or not a candidate speaks to my values or not. And many a devout and conscientious Christian takes deep exception to many of the stances endorsed by the so-called Christian Coalition, which seems to prefer the tactics of the Brownshirts over any Christian denomination I know.

Put a Pentacostal, a Baptist, a Methodist, an Episcopalian, a Catholic, a Unitarian, a Congregationalist, a Lutheran, a Mormon, a Seventh-Day Adventist, a Quaker, a Church of Christ, and a Presbyterian all in a room and ask them to agree on what a Christian's approach to government should be. Guess what? NOBODY would agree. In fact, every single one could probably cite dozens of verses that validate their own personal approach. Yet, this collection of blasphemous halfwits known as the Christian Coalition seem to think that they have a hotline to God on tax policy, social programs, the military, and highway funding.

But they don't. And I don't either. That's my point. In fact, if God floated down tomorrow morning and said, "Listen you knuckleheads. This is what I think on the following issues...." Guess what? I bet all of us would be wrong in some very profound ways. And only the Fundamentalists would be shocked at how wrong they were.

[AUdaREALsecTigers 2]

Oh, typical sanctimoniuous horsesh*t from you, CC.

I'm very much a Christian.

Sorry...just thought that was funny.

[otterinbham 0]

Oh, typical sanctimoniuous horsesh*t from you, CC.

I'm very much a Christian.

Sorry...just thought that was funny.

Yes. I'm such a hypocrite. But I was aware of the irony when I wrote it.

[CCTAU 3,351]

I didn't see a link from you so I didn't assume that the topic was social policy or foriegn affairs. There are certain tenable subjects that most of chritianity believe in. If a candidate has opposed one of these, does that constitute a non-christian vote? I say it does. If he voted for abortion and claimed to be a cristian, then we could all pretty much agree that his vote was non-christian. If your version of christianity allows for abortion, then by all means be outraged. But I did not see any specifics here. Just you and your liberal critianity bashing fundamentalist for actually reading and deciding that the bible is the closest thing we have to God's word, and therefore trying to follow it. Not sure where you are headed with this. Unless the person in question did not vote against christian pronciples, then the "fundamentalist" have just as much right as the gays for calling him out. Funny how we "christians" seem to eat our own while ignoring our true enemy.

[TexasTiger 13,055]

I didn't see a link from you so I didn't assume that the topic was social policy or foriegn affairs. There are certain tenable subjects that most of chritianity believe in. If a candidate has opposed one of these, does that constitute a non-christian vote? I say it does. If he voted for abortion and claimed to be a cristian, then we could all pretty much agree that his vote was non-christian. If your version of christianity allows for abortion, then by all means be outraged. But I did not see any specifics here. Just you and your liberal critianity bashing fundamentalist for actually reading and deciding that the bible is the closest thing we have to God's word, and therefore trying to follow it. Not sure where you are headed with this. Unless the person in question did not vote against christian pronciples, then the "fundamentalist" have just as much right as the gays for calling him out. Funny how we "christians" seem to eat our own while ignoring our true enemy.

So, for example, if someone is strongly pro death penalty, because that is clearly an unchristian position, his commitment to his faith should appropriately be questioned, right?

[otterinbham 0]

I didn't see a link from you so I didn't assume that the topic was social policy or foriegn affairs. There are certain tenable subjects that most of chritianity believe in. If a candidate has opposed one of these, does that constitute a non-christian vote? I say it does. If he voted for abortion and claimed to be a cristian, then we could all pretty much agree that his vote was non-christian. If your version of christianity allows for abortion, then by all means be outraged. But I did not see any specifics here. Just you and your liberal critianity bashing fundamentalist for actually reading and deciding that the bible is the closest thing we have to God's word, and therefore trying to follow it. Not sure where you are headed with this. Unless the person in question did not vote against christian pronciples, then the "fundamentalist" have just as much right as the gays for calling him out. Funny how we "christians" seem to eat our own while ignoring our true enemy.

Again, do not use the word "Christian" to endorse a candidate. Use "Fundamentalist," instead. Please.

For the record, I'm vehemently against abortion. I'm also vehemently against capital punishment. However, I do not see any New Testament verses that endorse capital punshment. In fact, when Christ was confronted with a woman committing adultery (A capital offense of the period), Christ merely counsels the mob that the one without sin be the first to cast a stone. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of execution, if you ask me. Yet if a candidate publicly condemned capital punishment, the "Christian" Coalition would be as outraged as if the man had publicly sodomized a Girl Scout on the lectern.

As far as the Bible being the closest thing to God's word, I agree. But the Bible is not inerrant. Heck, even Paul's letters in the New Testament were inconsistent from letter to letter in both content and teaching. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul says that women should not be preachers. In Romans he comissions Phoebe to be the Deaconess of the Roman Church, and goes on to name other women in positions of authority. The accounts of Christ's resurrection were different from one another in the Gospels. And any biblical scholar will tell you of the maddening inconsistencies present in the text. For example, was Mary a virgin or not? Of course we have the soaring poetry of the Magnificat and the exchange between Mary and the Angel in Matthew. At the same, in two separate chapters, Christ's geneology was traced from David through Joseph, not Mary, wth the Greek equivalent of "begat" being thrown in for good measure, presuming that Joseph sired Christ. If God truly scribbled every word of the Bible, then he was in sore need of an editor.

So while the Bible is our best guide for understanding God, it certainly is not a perfect representation of Him, nor His will on earth.

[DKW 86 7,451]

otter, most unitarianists cannot really be considered Christian since they deny Christ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian

Unitarianism comprises a number of related religious denominations. Historic believed in the oneness of God and not the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in one God) proclaimed at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Historic Unitarians believed in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus. Unitarians are characterized by some as being identified through history as free thinkers and dissenters, evolving their beliefs in the direction of rationalism and humanism.

There is a small percentage of Unitarian Universalists who have a Christian-centric belief system.

Unitarian Universalism'—There is no formal creed or set of beliefs required to join a Unitarian Universalist congregation, reflecting an institutional consolidation between Unitarianism and Universalism in 1961 in the United States and Canada.[2] Today, many Unitarian Universalists no longer consider themselves to be Christians [3]. Of those who do, there is no requirement of unitarian or trinitarian belief other than what the individual concludes on his/her own, although the Trinity itself, being a dogma, is generally rejected as such by this anti-dogmatic denomination. Unitarian Universalists promote a set of Principles and Purposes rather than a doctrine as their bond of union. Notable Unitarian Universalists are Tim Berners-Lee (founder of the world wide web), Pete Seeger, Kurt Vonnegut and Christopher Reeve.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/un...beliefs_2.shtml

God

Not all Unitarians believe in God or even use the word. Some find the word 'God' meaningless, others believe it is too burdened with wrong ideas to be useful.

I have some friends in the UU church in HSV. The UU church in HSV believes and practices paganism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Islam, Fred-ism, Rastafarianism, etc. They believe EVERYTHING but Christ as Deity.

In-errancy:

At the same, in two separate chapters, Christ's geneology was traced from David through Joseph, not Mary, wth the Greek equivalent of "begat" being thrown in for good measure, presuming that Joseph sired Christ.

Not true: Matthew is the lineage to Joseph. Luke gives the lineage to Mary. Many argue it but most agree with what I just outlined.

If God truly scribbled every word of the Bible, then he was in sore need of an editor.

Maybe we just need more information to interpret it correctly. No one human has ever nor will ever understand all things in the Bible. We cannot even come close to understanding God's will and thought process.

[tgr4lfe 220]

I didn't see a link from you so I didn't assume that the topic was social policy or foriegn affairs. There are certain tenable subjects that most of chritianity believe in. If a candidate has opposed one of these, does that constitute a non-christian vote? I say it does. If he voted for abortion and claimed to be a cristian, then we could all pretty much agree that his vote was non-christian. If your version of christianity allows for abortion, then by all means be outraged. But I did not see any specifics here. Just you and your liberal critianity bashing fundamentalist for actually reading and deciding that the bible is the closest thing we have to God's word, and therefore trying to follow it. Not sure where you are headed with this. Unless the person in question did not vote against christian pronciples, then the "fundamentalist" have just as much right as the gays for calling him out. Funny how we "christians" seem to eat our own while ignoring our true enemy.

Again, do not use the word "Christian" to endorse a candidate. Use "Fundamentalist," instead. Please.

For the record, I'm vehemently against abortion. I'm also vehemently against capital punishment. However, I do not see any New Testament verses that endorse capital punshment. In fact, when Christ was confronted with a woman committing adultery (A capital offense of the period), Christ merely counsels the mob that the one without sin be the first to cast a stone. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of execution, if you ask me. Yet if a candidate publicly condemned capital punishment, the "Christian" Coalition would be as outraged as if the man had publicly sodomized a Girl Scout on the lectern.

As far as the Bible being the closest thing to God's word, I agree. But the Bible is not inerrant. Heck, even Paul's letters in the New Testament were inconsistent from letter to letter in both content and teaching. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul says that women should not be preachers. In Romans he comissions Phoebe to be the Deaconess of the Roman Church, and goes on to name other women in positions of authority. The accounts of Christ's resurrection were different from one another in the Gospels. And any biblical scholar will tell you of the maddening inconsistencies present in the text. For example, was Mary a virgin or not? Of course we have the soaring poetry of the Magnificat and the exchange between Mary and the Angel in Matthew. At the same, in two separate chapters, Christ's geneology was traced from David through Joseph, not Mary, wth the Greek equivalent of "begat" being thrown in for good measure, presuming that Joseph sired Christ. If God truly scribbled every word of the Bible, then he was in sore need of an editor.

So while the Bible is our best guide for understanding God, it certainly is not a perfect representation of Him, nor His will on earth.

How can you claim to be Christian, but say this?? THe Bibile is the inspired word of God. No ifs, ands, or buts. Could a woman not be in a position of "authority" (i.e. deaconess), and not preach. I think a woman could hold a position as described, but not be preaching. The accounts of Crhist's resurrection are from the view point of different men. Just b/c God is inspiring them to write, doesn't negate the individuality of that man showing in his writing or what he experienced as being a part of that event. I think you put all the accounts together to get one large picture of the event. What DKW said about the genealogy.

The Bible is our ony guide for understandign and knowing God.

[CCTAU 3,351]

So, for example, if someone is strongly pro death penalty, because that is clearly an unchristian position, his commitment to his faith should appropriately be questioned, right?

Bad example. This falls under the render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Jesus will forgive, but you are still subject to man's law. And I do not think that Christians all agree on the death penalty such as the abortion issue. Abortion is one of the issues that galvanize christians. The death penalty is not. You knew exactly what I was saying, you just wanted to sound clever. Didn't work. Just sounded combative...as usual.

[channonc 466]

And I do not think that Christians all agree on the death penalty such as the abortion issue. Abortion is one of the issues that galvanize christians.

CCT, I am very much a Christian, but do not agree with outlawing abortion. Does this make me any less of a Christian?

[TexasTiger 13,055]

So, for example, if someone is strongly pro death penalty, because that is clearly an unchristian position, his commitment to his faith should appropriately be questioned, right?

And I do not think that Christians all agree on the death penalty such as the abortion issue. Abortion is one of the issues that galvanize christians. The death penalty is not.

Those who sincerely walk with Christ agree that the death penalty is wrong. Those who only invoke his name when it is convenient, don't.

[CCTAU 3,351]

And I do not think that Christians all agree on the death penalty such as the abortion issue. Abortion is one of the issues that galvanize christians.

CCT, I am very much a Christian, but do not agree with outlawing abortion. Does this make me any less of a Christian?

That is between you and God. If after reading the bible and professing to believe in him you decide that is OK to kill that baby inside of you, then that is something you must live with. Legality at that point is moot.

So, for example, if someone is strongly pro death penalty, because that is clearly an unchristian position, his commitment to his faith should appropriately be questioned, right?

And I do not think that Christians all agree on the death penalty such as the abortion issue. Abortion is one of the issues that galvanize christians. The death penalty is not.

Those who sincerely walk with Christ agree that the death penalty is wrong. Those who only invoke his name when it is convenient, don't.

Not true. The bible teaches us to forgive but to still expect punishment. Even the bible shows that there are offenses that come with a penalty of death. Even so. I applaud you in your sincere walk.