Don't let the "progressives" fool ya... they are totalitarians...

[Smellin Coffee]

Just a thought...Sander's being the extreme, but overall the democrats who want control over our lives and make us dependent on the government for everything are totalitarian by both definition and necessity!

Both major parties want control, not just the Dems. The NC law is just another red flag, not particularly in the bathroom issue, but in the way the state limited local governing bodies to make local decisions and opened up discrimination by allowing people to be fired for being old or gay. What the Republicans are doing is giving extraordinary freedoms to Big Biz so Big Biz can line their pocketbooks in exchange for power. Then they use the media to whine when Big Biz decides to go cultural (Target).

In a democracy, the cultural majority should determine the laws being made. Localities should have a voice if not the choice in matters that aren't interwoven with other states' rights. The government was set up for cultural rule so if the culture deteriorates, that is how the government should be set up. We aren't set up to have a dictator or dictatorial party rule, benevolent or evil. So we have means by which we can protest. I'm OK with people boycotting Target if it violates their principles. Just don't expect everyone else's to conform.

Both sides are dictatorial in intent.

First, I'm glad I'm not a part of either party and have not been for over 30 years.  Secondly, I don't expect everyone else to conform to what I choose to do, but I do expect professing Christians to stand up for what is morally & biblically right...but hey that's just me!

So I take it you are for gun control, anti-capital punishment and anti-war. Cool!

(My point is some of us are standing for our morality and what we believe God intended to be biblical, but we disagree on how that exactly plays out. Don't assume a single hermeneutic position should control governmental legislation.)

No, pro 2nd Ammendment...pro capital punishment for capital crimes & when it comes to war, I take the "just war" position (knowing that not all wars fought fit that category).

If ones hermeneutics place them opposite of biblical truth, then they are being driven by the flesh rather than the Spirit...and from an honest biblical evaluation, that is clear to see.

"hermeneutics...opposite of biblical truth" - defined as "having a different, thus sinful perspective when interpreting the Scriptures"

The idea of what 'biblical truth' is generally a point of view. Granted, it doesn't mean it is the right point of view but if executing someone who was created in the image of my God, like my Savior was executed is the bee's knees, who am I to object? And can one have "an honest biblical evaluation" and still not align with mainstream Evangelicalism?

 

[T-Bone]

Just a thought...Sander's being the extreme, but overall the democrats who want control over our lives and make us dependent on the government for everything are totalitarian by both definition and necessity!

Both major parties want control, not just the Dems. The NC law is just another red flag, not particularly in the bathroom issue, but in the way the state limited local governing bodies to make local decisions and opened up discrimination by allowing people to be fired for being old or gay. What the Republicans are doing is giving extraordinary freedoms to Big Biz so Big Biz can line their pocketbooks in exchange for power. Then they use the media to whine when Big Biz decides to go cultural (Target).

In a democracy, the cultural majority should determine the laws being made. Localities should have a voice if not the choice in matters that aren't interwoven with other states' rights. The government was set up for cultural rule so if the culture deteriorates, that is how the government should be set up. We aren't set up to have a dictator or dictatorial party rule, benevolent or evil. So we have means by which we can protest. I'm OK with people boycotting Target if it violates their principles. Just don't expect everyone else's to conform.

Both sides are dictatorial in intent.

First, I'm glad I'm not a part of either party and have not been for over 30 years.  Secondly, I don't expect everyone else to conform to what I choose to do, but I do expect professing Christians to stand up for what is morally & biblically right...but hey that's just me!

So I take it you are for gun control, anti-capital punishment and anti-war. Cool!

(My point is some of us are standing for our morality and what we believe God intended to be biblical, but we disagree on how that exactly plays out. Don't assume a single hermeneutic position should control governmental legislation.)

No, pro 2nd Ammendment...pro capital punishment for capital crimes & when it comes to war, I take the "just war" position (knowing that not all wars fought fit that category).

If ones hermeneutics place them opposite of biblical truth, then they are being driven by the flesh rather than the Spirit...and from an honest biblical evaluation, that is clear to see.

"hermeneutics...opposite of biblical truth" - defined as "having a different, thus sinful perspective when interpreting the Scriptures"

The idea of what 'biblical truth' is generally a point of view. Granted, it doesn't mean it is the right point of view but if executing someone who was created in the image of my God, like my Savior was executed is the bee's knees, who am I to object? And can one have "an honest biblical evaluation" and still not align with mainstream Evangelicalism?

Cruel and inhuman punishment is another matter and does not always equate to capital punishment, atleast in my mind.  And yes I don't believe that the standard of honest evaluation is contained only in Evangelicalism, but neither do I believe that the truth is so broad as to encompass any and every view.

 

[FSSL]

Now... Progressives are getting more comfortable wearing their totalitarian cloaks in public. "Confiscation" of guns, not just "control" is part of their totalitarian vocabulary: https://drhurd.com/2016/05/12/59152/

MOLON LABE

 

[subllibrm]

Traditional marriage being promoted by Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.

Do Rush or Newt push anything down our collective throats?
No, because they do not have the power or position to do such.
Institutional Liberalism does that every day.

And, I love Rush! 

Follow the thought.

Consistently inconsistent.

If I took that to its logical conclusion, any authority/influential  figure would be labeled inconsistent...including parents.

Who said they aren't?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Cruel and inhuman punishment is another matter and does not always equate to capital punishment, atleast in my mind.  And yes I don't believe that the standard of honest evaluation is contained only in Evangelicalism, but neither do I believe that the truth is so broad as to encompass any and every view.

My point in capital punishment is not debating the issue, but rather somebody who chooses to follow Jesus, sees he asked God to forgive those who were murdering him as opposed asking God for retribution or even justice. This Christian might look at what Jesus taught and use his response as the moral code, applicable to every facet in life, including governmental responsibility. Others might look at OT laws and demand (on a biblical basis) that capital punishment is necessary for the good of a society. Both sides grab their perspective from their own hermeneutic and both have an honest, biblical reason behind it.

Either God is for or against capital punishment so one side is wrong. But which one? This is my point. I am not stating that EVERY view is truth, but rather much of what the Bible teaches is in red/blue hues and we make it black/white and mandate others conform to our viewpoint. Yes, Progressives do this as much as Fundamentalists. But this is what debates are about and we shouldn't be snarky about the others' positions (yeah, I am snarky from time to time so I'm preaching to myself here too).

(FWIW, I don't think you personally have been snarky toward me, so that was a general statement and not an accusation against you personally.)

In the end, we have to accept that our interpretation, regardless of what evidence we base it, is strictly on faith. And this goes for other social matters as well including the transgender issue, abortion, cannabis intake, alcohol consumption, movies, music, etc. If we accept our position is by faith, then we have to accept the other side of the argument (as least with Christ-followers) are accepting of their position by faith, even if the conclusion is different than ours. So we can be respectful (again, preaching at myself again) instead of attacking others (transgenders/liberals anyone?), yet attack opposing positions with logic, ethics, love, our interpretation of truth and still respect that someone still might differ in the end.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Traditional marriage being promoted by Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich.

Do Rush or Newt push anything down our collective throats?
No, because they do not have the power or position to do such.
Institutional Liberalism does that every day.

And, I love Rush! 

Follow the thought.

Consistently inconsistent.

If I took that to its logical conclusion, any authority/influential  figure would be labeled inconsistent...including parents.

Who said they aren't?

Im sorry, I thought you meant that anyone not completely void of inconsistency lacked moral authority to teach or advance a position.

If we're applying the technical definition of inconsistent, I'll cede the point.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Now... Progressives are getting more comfortable wearing their totalitarian cloaks in public. "Confiscation" of guns, not just "control" is part of their totalitarian vocabulary: https://drhurd.com/2016/05/12/59152/

MOLON LABE

Liberals are totalitarian by nature. Case in point, free speech on college campuses unless it's conservative speech and then they will shout you down.
That is also why that when progressive liberalism completely controls a country, they must build walls to keep the lucky people IN.

 

[Ransom]

My point in capital punishment is not debating the issue, but rather somebody who chooses to follow Jesus, sees he asked God to forgive those who were murdering him as opposed asking God for retribution or even justice.

And who was it who created the laws requiring capital punishment in the Torah?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

My point in capital punishment is not debating the issue, but rather somebody who chooses to follow Jesus, sees he asked God to forgive those who were murdering him as opposed asking God for retribution or even justice.

And who was it who created the laws requiring capital punishment in the Torah?

It matters not because the Torah was interpolated (according to Jeremiah). For me, what matters is the teachings of Christ.

Again, that is my hermeneutic and others will see it differently. Jesus modeled the Torah to some extent but obviously not to the letter. This is one of those moments, praying for forgiveness and mercy rather than judgement on those who were literal murderers. It might not be convincing for some but it does carry much weight with me personally.

 

[Ransom]

It matters not because the Torah was interpolated (according to Jeremiah).

Meaning what (and chapter and verse)?

For me, what matters is the teachings of Christ.

Why should I believe that the teachings of Christ are opposed to the penalties of the Law in the Old Testament?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

It matters not because the Torah was interpolated (according to Jeremiah).

Meaning what (and chapter and verse)?

Jeremiah 8, specifically verse 8.

For me, what matters is the teachings of Christ.

Why should I believe that the teachings of Christ are opposed to the penalties of the Law in the Old Testament?

For me, I never see where he endorsed them when he had the opportunity, never advocated them when it was obvious to all, never condemned the sinner worth of execution. I believe that is the model I am to follow. And when he preached that God requires mercy and NOT sacrifice, considering Christianity is based entirely on a sacrifice, it is telling to me how much mercy means to God. And when he taught that God will not forgive the sins of those who do not forgive others, it is kinda hard for me to imagine pulling the lever to 'fry' somebody for whom I am to extend mercy.

But in the end, it is between you and God to work out.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

They want you to think they are the liberally minded, rights oriented class... regarding LGBTs, Abortion and Pot, until you break out a Marlboro (i.e. Sanders) or give KoolAid (i.e. Bloomberg) to the neighborhood kiddos... oh... and what about guns?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-cigarettes-222351

BOTH sides are consistently inconsistent.

Both?

earnestly contend

 

[FSSL]

For me... it doesn't come down to defending Trump on these kinds of things. In fact, Democrats have absolutely no voice to even worry about those things.

For me.. it comes down to rejecting Hillary.

BTW: Trump just told us Trey Gowdy is his pick for Attorney General!

 

[prophet]

They want you to think they are the liberally minded, rights oriented class... regarding LGBTs, Abortion and Pot, until you break out a Marlboro (i.e. Sanders) or give KoolAid (i.e. Bloomberg) to the neighborhood kiddos... oh... and what about guns?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/bernie-sanders-cigarettes-222351

BOTH sides are consistently inconsistent.

Both?

earnestly contend

That's only two sides of the polygon, my friend.



earnestly contend