"Keynes"
"randy"
>>My own pastor has no qualm with applying religion to the
>>"real world" of politics. He was in fact invited a long
>>time
>>ago to go to Olympia (capital of Washingtong State) and
>>present a Christian prayer for the State Congress.
>>(Interestingly, he was criticized for closing his prayer
>>"in
>>the name of Jesus.")
> I'd consider that 'swearing an oath'.
> Making Jesus responsible for one's own actions,
> and to excuse them in the eyes of believers.
Making prayer in the name of Jesus is what identifies the
religion being represented, ie Christianity. It has nothing
to do with swearing an oath.
> If you love Jesus, why make him responsible for
> the mistakes you surely will make?
I take responsibility for my own mistakes. Prayer in the
name of Jesus is what Christians believe is the kind of
prayer that pleases God. Prayer in the name of "God's Son"
represents everything that pleases God about man.
> And public prayers are not recommended by Jesus are they?
> Those are just a hypocritical show for the people.
> One must pray in secret.
That's the typical protest by those uninitiated in the
teachings of Jesus. The typical teaching style employed by
Jesus was designed not to prohibit public prayer, but
rather, to expose the pitfalls of public prayer. The biggest
problem with public prayer is that it was often used to
"show off," ie to make a public show of one's own supposed
"spirituality." It would be like saying, "Lord, thank you
that you gave me the means to donate some of my great wealth
to charity. Thatnkyou for enabling me to give this
substantial gift."
>>But my pastor unashamedly admits that Republicans hold
>>more
>>of the conservative Christian positions, anti-abortion,
>>pro-family, vouchers for private schools, etc. But he
>>never
>>says that the Democrats do not have Christian candidates
>>or
>>positions. And he never says who we should vote for. He is
>>only telling us that if we want to vote for a particular
>>"issue," then this is the party that represents that
>>issue.
> So he doesn't have to tell you. You can make up
> your own mind based on the 'spiritual' information
> the pastor gives you. How convenient.
People are told what they should know in politics about how
it will effect religious issues. They are not told how to
vote. There is no "party of God" in the United States that I
know of.
> Evangelizing is great in the hands of a true leader of
> the light. But anyone can evangelize anything, right
> or wrong. What most evangelicals lack is any sort of
> humilty or self-reflection. The church gives them a
> comforting certainty, and they go with that however
> uncertain it may be. They are all afire to correct
> everybody else by any means necessary. YOUR
> family must be correct. YOUR beliefs have to change.
> Never mind about MY family or MY beliefs. I know
> the Truth! (Even if I have no intention of correcting
> myself any time soon. At least I can correct YOU.)
I don't know how you can possibly know whether Christian
leaders are in general "humble" or not. Obviously, if they
are truly humble, they aren't trumpeting their spirituality
around.
> Then rather than persuasion or good example they pass
> hypocritical laws that they can't follow themselves.
> IMO coercion is not the business of religion, and
> neither is politics. If one is not right with God
> himself,
> he has no business trying to make others be right.
> He may well be blind leading the blind to destruction.
What makes you think Christian leaders are not leading
exemplary lives? Are you judging all Christian leaders by
the mistakes of a few?
> McCain is now a certified whore. He'll say anything
> to get elected. How can anyone believe him now?
As critical as McCain has been towards the "Christian Right"
I'm still seriously considering voting for him. I like his
"straight talk." His honest and forthright view of things
went against political correctness on the Republican Right,
and almost cost him a chance at the nomination. Now he's
doing pretty well, because everybody knows he's honest for
the most part.
> My wife is a pious catholic. We get their newspaper.
> The catholic position is christian right down the line,
> concern for the poor, working for peace, equity, and
> mercy, and anything a liberal might desire.
> But the church is fixated on the abortion issue and it
> appears to trump ever other issue. Therefor many
> catholics vote as they are told by their 'spiritual'
> leaders.
> (All [presumably] celebate men with vast experience
> in sexual and family matters, and who admit to women
> no voice in the church.)
Yes, Catholicism is Christian in doctrine and in practise,
but obviously, some of it is hypocritical, some of it is
just supporting one's own tradition regardless of principle
or reason. As a Protestant the issue you're here raising is
close to my own heart, because too strong a central
government even in religion is dangerous and lends to
irresponsible behavior by those leaders and the people.
> What would happen if abortion were illegal? We know
> exactly what would happen because it used to be illegal.
> There were still abortions, both medical (sanitary and
> unsanitary) and self administered. Many young women
> (our daughters, our sisters, our friends) died for the
> sins
> of their partners (who escaped scot free). Many others
> entered loveless marriages that condemned them and
> their partners and their offspring to hellish lives.
You have to understand that the Catholic and Christian
position in general supports human life. Even if human life
begins under a cloud, it is still valuable in the eyes of
God and should be valued in our eyes as well. So abortion is
really a symbol of what Christianity is all about, the
importance and value of human life.
> Or the women were left on their own with a child
> to support and no means to support it.
If we spent half the love that we spend on animals on
unwanted human life we would have the most prosperous
economy imaginable, the most fulfilled life imaginable. Can
you imagine all the zeal we spend on frivolous things like
sports being spent on ways to preserve the dignity of human
life? After all, it is self-esteem and good morale that
propels the human race towards accomplishment, towards
space, towards energy development, etc.
> I think if a woman isn't ready to love and support her
> child it is better not to have one. And there are no
> 'unborn children' except in the minds of the 'undead'.
> That's just semantic hocus pocus to beg the question.
I'm certainly for responsible family management--don't get
me wrong!
> If the anti-abortion crowd gave a single damn about
> the unwanted kids who are born, one might give them
> some credit. But they don't give a damn. Except to
> damn those unfortunate kids to poverty and squalor
> and violence. They're just no-goods from birth on.
> It's obviously all their own fault too. The Lowlifes.
> Not nearly as good and holy as we are.
I'm against abortion (for the most part), and I certainly
don't feel the way you're characterizing it. Those who don't
"give a damn" are beyond your help. Others can benefit from
your criticism, perhaps.
randy
