Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    11:02 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Is it time for Christians to leave the Democrat Party??? Back to Topics
no1doc
Champion Author
Milwaukee

Posts:29,764
Points:2,554,865
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: Oct 1, 2012 7:12:57 PM

Bishop E.W. Jackson Message to Black Christians

"It is time for a mass exodus of Christians out of the Democrat Party…

My friends, the Democrat Party and their progressive coalition have become anti-God, anti-bible, anti-church, anti-family, anti-marriage, and anti-life. They have turned their backs on Christians.

It is time to turn our backs on them."

~ Bishop E. W. Jackson, founder and current president of S.T.A.N.D.
*************

So what do you think? Is it time?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,176
Points:869,180
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 11:00:51 PM



reb4, AMEN!

RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 10:39:15 PM

""What legitimate votes would that be???????""


Why the 6,947,196 legally registered voters in North Carolina, of course.
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,970
Points:2,603,890
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 10:29:58 PM

You would have to ask the atheists that are part of the republican party... sgm

as for "this" Christian.... I'll follow the wisdom written by Solomon found in Proverbs 4:

"Do not enter the path of the wicked or walk in the way of those who are evil.
Avoid it, do not go on it; turn away from it, and go on.
For they cannot sleep unless they cause harm; they are robbed of sleep until they make someone stumble. For they eat bread gained from wickedness
and drink wine obtained from violence."



as for being part of a party, I've chosen the desire of Solomon's father...
written in Proverbs 84

"Certainly spending just one day in your temple courts is better than spending a thousand elsewhere. I would rather stand at the entrance to the temple of my God
than live in the tents of the wicked."


I'll vote for and maybe support the person, not the party they are associated with, though frankly the democratic party has moved away from Christian values in my opinion....




[Edited by: reb4 at 3/5/2015 10:32:48 PM EST]
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:25,969
Points:2,379,740
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 10:19:18 PM

"What legitimate votes would that be???????"

Sounds pretty clear to me. What is not to understand about that?
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:29,764
Points:2,554,865
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 9:54:37 PM

"Many of us feel that some of the more recent laws block to many legitimate votes for a too small of a gain in fraud prevention."
...

What legitimate votes would that be???????????
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,176
Points:869,180
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 8:03:30 PM



no1doc, "How is requiring voter ID "restricting" voters? Use the same ID you use when buying beer at the grocery store."

Exactly, no1doc!

Or how about using the SAME ID that is REQUIRED to get into the Democrat National Convention?

Or how about using the same id that you use to get your welfare benefits?

Oh wait.

You may NOT need ANY kind of proof or id to get welfare!

ROTFL

sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:24,078
Points:3,159,745
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 7:38:27 PM

<<<"Of course there are. Who said anything otherwise?"I'm sorry, I'm not a lawyer, i interpreted this
"The Democrats are the party of inclusion" as an implication...
My HUMBLE apology... and evidently no response on the other questions, that's fine.. I get it.>>>

I would think that the atheists who are Republicans are well aware that their lack of beliefs is not welcomed by a large portion of their party, which makes no effort to make them feel included. Doesn't mean that they aren't in the party. I guess that's a subtle point?
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 7:33:12 PM

"Many of us feel that some of the more recent laws block to many legitimate votes for a too small of a gain in fraud prevention."


Bingo and Boom
IammeCA
All-Star Author Ventura

Posts:568
Points:189,970
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 7:30:39 PM

"What % of voter fraud do you find acceptable? How many legitimate votes is it OK to nullify?"

What percent of voter disenfranchisement do you find acceptable? How many legitimate votes is it OK to block?

There will always be some cheating and there will always be some left out. How do you prevent the most fraudulent voting while blocking the least amount of legitimate voting. The trick is finding the balance.

Many of us feel that some of the more recent laws block too many legitimate votes for a too small of a gain in fraud prevention.



[Edited by: IammeCA at 3/5/2015 7:32:22 PM EST]
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 5:35:08 PM

"What % of voter fraud do you find acceptable? How many legitimate votes is it OK to nullify?"


From what I read, I don't recall any of the 121 cases resulting in successful prosecution. Be that as it may, if you're insisting on Voter ID, then there is no reason to eliminate same day registration or out of precinct voting if you have the state approved ID.

So why did they remove those easier avenues to the voting booth, if their primary concern was voter fraud.

Again, its kinda hard to commit fraud when your state approved/issued ID is following you wherever you go...

Sounds like your GOP pals are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:29,764
Points:2,554,865
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 4:53:58 PM

"..the state Board of Elections said 121 alleged cases of voter fraud were referred to the appropriate district attorney's office.

That means of the nearly 7 million votes cast, voter fraud accounted for 0.00174 percent of the ballots."
...

No, that means fraudulent (or suspected fraudulent) voters that could actually be identified and referred to the D.A. for possible prosecution accounted for 0.00174 % of ballots cast. The fact that few voters were referred for prosecution simply means few were caught. And that is hard to do, especially if you're not really looking.

In Milwaukee County, in presidential elections, it's routine to have thousands more ballots cast than we have registered voters.

What % of voter fraud do you find acceptable? How many legitimate votes is it OK to nullify?

RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 1:00:46 PM

"How is requiring voter ID "restricting" voters? Use the same ID you use when buying beer at the grocery store."


Ok, so:

"One of the more compelling arguments for voter identification is the suppression of voter fraud. But for North Carolina, the number of cases of voter fraud reported by the state Board of Elections is minimal.

In 2012, nearly 7 million ballots were cast in the general and two primary elections. Of those 6,947,317 ballots, the state Board of Elections said 121 alleged cases of voter fraud were referred to the appropriate district attorney's office.

That means of the nearly 7 million votes cast, voter fraud accounted for 0.00174 percent of the ballots.

Looking back at the 2010 election cycle -- which was not a presidential year -- 3.79 million ballots were cast and only 28 cases of voter fraud were turned over to the appropriate DA's office. So in 2010, voter fraud accounted for 0.000738 percent of ballots cast."


0.00174 percent...Um, ok.

Moreover, North Carolina also eliminated same-day registration and out of precinct voting, which, if you're using a state approved ID, should not be a problem in either instance, so why eliminate the easier access to the voting booth???





no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:29,764
Points:2,554,865
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 12:39:41 PM

How is requiring voter ID "restricting" voters? Use the same ID you use when buying beer at the grocery store.
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,970
Points:2,603,890
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 12:07:13 PM

"Of course there are. Who said anything otherwise?"I'm sorry, I'm not a lawyer, i interpreted this


"The Democrats are the party of inclusion" as an implication...

My HUMBLE apology... and evidently no response on the other questions, that's fine.. I get it.
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 11:51:43 AM

And six weeks after that Ruling by SCOTUS, North Carolina passed the most restrictive voter laws in the country, in an effort to "wipe out voter fraud", but yet could not produce ONE instance of voter fraud in North Carolina...

So again, if the GOP is about protecting the minority vote, why did they pass such restrictive laws (they control North Carolina)????
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:29,764
Points:2,554,865
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 11:34:51 AM

"The Voting Rights act has been weakened by a recent SCOTUS decision. The GOP is now in control of both houses and has yet to offer, let alone pass, legislation that will strengthen the Voting Rights Act...

Why is that????"
.........

From my understanding, only section 4 of the act has been shot down as unconstitutional. That section required a few states (I think it was 9) to get federal preclearance for any election laws. Before the Voting Rights Act, these states evidently had "tests and devices" in place to suppress minority voting. The evidence presented to the court indicated minority voter turnout and registration in these states had reached parity and in some states exceeded white voter turnout. So aside from constitutionality, the court said the section is no longer necessary and places an unnecessary burden on those affected states, and not other states, requiring getting the feds OK for any election law changes.

sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:24,078
Points:3,159,745
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 11:07:42 AM

"By the way, I read of one atheist that works (or worked) in the Republican party at a local level... I am sure there are others."

Of course there are. Who said anything otherwise?
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:24,078
Points:3,159,745
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 11:07:06 AM

"Do you have any idea how booing God excludes, Muslim, Jews, Christians, etc.?"

Once again, they were not booing God. Just because you repeat that misstatement does not make it true.
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,970
Points:2,603,890
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 8:42:22 AM

"You are saying because I used the word "slavishly" and he used "slavish" that I was quoting him? How odd. "



LOL, How odd you used the same term... Is that common word in your vocabulary?

I thought you were using it because of the original topic focus.
Though you didn't say you did or didn't.... How odd.....



By the way, I read of one atheist that works (or worked) in the Republican party at a local level... I am sure there are others.

As I have said before, though you may have forgotten this, The original topic had nothing to do with going from democratic party to Republican party.


As no1doc stated.... "Regardless of party identification, shouldn't a Christian vote for candidates whose voting record is in line with Christian values? And don't compromise."


It's something I thnik many people still just automatically do...

And I take it you were not going to answer my previous questions..

Guess that's par for the course... or did I somehow miss them?

[Edited by: reb4 at 3/5/2015 8:49:27 AM EST]
mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:27,908
Points:2,005,685
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 12:19:06 AM

Inclusive of all, but the right to life. I would say that is a very big exclusion. Doesn't get anymore Primary than that.Do you have any idea how booing God excludes, Muslim, Jews, Christians, etc.? Democrats only think they are inclusive.

[Edited by: mexicomaria at 3/5/2015 12:25:24 AM EST]
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,176
Points:869,180
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 12:06:44 AM



sgm4law, "The Democrats are the party of inclusion"

ROTFL

I think she actually meant that when she said it.

But it simply reflects badly on her and her credibility.

Since "The Democrats are the party of inclusion", I guess that is why there are so many speakers at Democrat conventions and events who support the rights of the most vulnerable and innocent among us - babies.

Oh, that's right.

They have been thrown out on their ear and booed.

But then they are in good company because the Democrats even BOO God!@

ROTFL

mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:27,908
Points:2,005,685
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Mar 5, 2015 12:01:36 AM

Once again...sgm....can you give a cite for your statement, "It is sad that Obama felt he needed to do the same thing as Romney, that he would kowtow to him." I had never seen that written anywhere, or stated by Obama anytime, or is it just a convenient conjecture on your part, to once again make an evil by the Democrats look like it is a conservatives problem, Romney's problem, they booed God. It was the problem of the Democratic delegates, you can hear it is a greater number who boo and nay...than ayes.

Nice try at the blame game. The Democratic party delegates eat this...not Romney. sad, very sad blame game. Momma made me do it.



[Edited by: mexicomaria at 3/5/2015 12:06:37 AM EST]
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:24,078
Points:3,159,745
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 11:50:18 PM

"as you used one of the quotes that E.W. Jackson used"

You are saying because I used the word "slavishly" and he used "slavish" that I was quoting him? How odd.

It is sad that Obama felt he needed to do the same thing as Romney, that he would kowtow to him. I did not approve then, either.

The Democrats are the party of inclusion, so using language specific to one religion is unnecessary in the party platform. I know I would feel uncomfortable trying to be part of the GOP, even though I agree with them on certain issues, because of their litmus test of public religiosity. I am glad the Democrats do not play that game.
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,176
Points:869,180
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 10:43:21 PM



jayrad, "sgm, well said!"

Not so much, jayrad. ;-)

reb4, ""They were booing the concept of incorporating religion into official documents"

LOL, Sgm4law, It certainly was not the impression most people had...

Just curious Sgm4law, where did you ascertain that was the reason? Do you have some link you would like to provide?

And why would you think that the Democratic party platform was an official document? It's a political document, is it not?"

reb4, could be that a progressive liberal considers the Democratic party platform an "official document" because that is their mindset.

They are better than anyone else. We know because they have told us so. And what they think and do IS 'holy writ'.

If Democrats say it, so shall it be!

ROTFL

[Edited by: AnotherOne at 3/4/2015 10:45:20 PM EST]
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 10:20:48 PM

"We will be robbed of voting rights."


The Voting Rights act has been weakened by a recent SCOTUS decision. The GOP is now in control of both houses and has yet to offer, let alone pass, legislation that will strengthen the Voting Rights Act...

Why is that????
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 10:16:15 PM

"Remember, somewhere in the world, you are not worthy of life. We are talking out the back side of our head if we stay, "oh, let's feed all, and cloth all, but first if we find them of no value by our own definition....let us kill them. We are not animals, we are humans. I can not vote democratic because of a lack of respect for life."


Wow, Maria.

You sure have a knack there for putting YOUR words into other people's mouths.
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,970
Points:2,603,890
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 9:24:40 PM

sgm4law, did you answer my questions???

And why would you think that the Democratic party platform was an official document?

It's a political document, is it not?


"The idea that a party would slavishly follow the unconstitutional behavior of the opposing party is something worth booing."

Sgm4law, that is funny comment... Since Obama did it according to the articles that I quoted... of course as you used one of the quotes that E.W. Jackson used, of Christians, those that Believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, Son of God, and Savior who sacrificed his life and paid the penalty of all the sins (be it lies / adultery / and even murder) if you confess and believe . Of course there is repentance involved.. David, who committed adultery, murder, and lied about it, was considered a man after God's own heart... why, one reason, was because he repented of his sins...
sorry, got carried away.... I wanted to include the comment from E.W. Jackson, who used the term "Slavish", which you used....

" It is time to end the slavish devotion to the Democrat Party. They have insulted us, used us, and manipulated us. They have saturated the black community with ridiculous lies. Unless we support the Democrat Party, we will be returned to slavery. We will be robbed of voting rights. The Martin Luther King holiday will be repealed. They think that we are stupid and that these lies will hold us captive, while they violate everything we believe as Christians."
And of course The reason Obama placed the changes to the platform was just to react with the Republican party calling them out on it.. It's not that the leaders of the democratic party really believed in that ... just that they wanted to counter the criticism they were taking...LOL
"Thou shalt not bear false witness"



The lies mount up, but the Christians defending the deceptions continue.... SMH
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:24,078
Points:3,159,745
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 8:42:01 PM

reb4, your quotes support my contention. The idea that a party would slavishly follow the unconstitutional behavior of the opposing party is something worth booing.
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,612
Points:338,585
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 8:29:43 PM

"I think this is quite a willful misunderstanding of what they were booing at the convention en masse."

Charitably put. I pointed this out earlier, with a link to snopes.com, not that it caused anyone to challenge their own preconceptions of what the booing was all about.




[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 3/4/2015 8:30:59 PM EST]
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,970
Points:2,603,890
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 8:28:10 PM

"They were booing the concept of incorporating religion into official documents"



LOL, Sgm4law, It certainly was not the impression most people had...




The video is quite clear, they booed, and the boo's got louder at each vote...




Just curious Sgm4law, where did you ascertain that was the reason? Do you have some link you would like to provide?



And why would you think that the Democratic party platform was an official document? It's a political document, is it not?




Democrats change platform to add God, Jerusalem



"CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Needled by Mitt Romney and other Republicans, Democrats hurriedly rewrote their convention platform Wednesday to add a mention of God and declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel after President Barack Obama intervened to order the changes"


Further down, in the article:



"Obama intervened directly to get the language changed both on Jerusalem and to reinstate God in the platform, according to campaign officials who insisted on anonymity to describe behind-the-scenes party negotiations. They said Obama's reaction to the omission of God from the platform was to wonder why it was removed in the first place."



LOL I love this statement..




"Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., the party chairman, said both the God and Jerusalem omissions were "essentially a technical oversight." She insisted in a CNN interview there had been no discord on the floor and said the vote definitely met the two-thirds threshold."


From the voice count, the nays were definitely louder then the ayes...




SMH



[Edited by: reb4 at 3/4/2015 8:33:06 PM EST]
mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:27,908
Points:2,005,685
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 7:22:39 PM

When one party does not honor life, you have about hit the base of all crimes...if you do not respect life, you will not respect any lesser need.
I am just plain mortified by that lack of care for the incapable of defending themselves human. We actually feel we know what is best for the living....and when they are worthy of life. Remember, somewhere in the world, you are not worthy of life. We are talking out the back side of our head if we stay, "oh, let's feed all, and cloth all, but first if we find them of no value by our own definition....let us kill them. We are not animals, we are humans. I can not vote democratic because of a lack of respect for life....of what some consider lesser humans.
jayrad1957
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:25,969
Points:2,379,740
Joined:Nov 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 6:30:03 PM

sgm, well said!
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:24,078
Points:3,159,745
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 6:06:40 PM

"A party in mass wanted to take God out of their party statement....that to me sends me to another party."

I think this is quite a willful misunderstanding of what they were booing at the convention en masse.

They were booing the concept of incorporating religion into official documents, when our country was founded on religious freedom. Everyone is free to worship the God they believe in. Worship of God does not belong in the text of political documents, especially not particular creeds. That does not make the Democrats the party of atheism. It is the party of religious freedom.

And to go further, that does not mean that anyone who is a Democrat may not involve God in their decisions and acts. Of course they do! It just means that an inclusive party does not exclude others who do not agree on religious statements by forcing dogma of one type or another on their fellow Americans.
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 4:09:33 PM

"And it's neither sinful nor hypocritical not to shine a light on the individual failings of others while rejecting certain immoral principles promoted by an entire group. That's what our Lord did. We should all do the same."


If you are saying that when a person sins, regardless of what party they belong to, that no one should have anything to say about that, then you are greatly misconstruing the message of the Bible, because it says the complete opposite in numerous places. In fact, John the Baptist was eventually beheaded for calling out Herod, who had married his brother's wife. Moroever, Jesus didn't ignore the sins of the scribes, pharisees and the like, nor did he ignore the sins of the individual either (see the woman at the well, among others)...

Sounds like you have some selective reading going on there.
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 4:00:16 PM

"You refuse to criticize the purposeful anti-Christian principles of the Democrat Party and instead throw up a smokescreen of individual GOP members that fail in their personal lives to live up to the stated principles of their Party."

No, I've stated my position on abortion and same-sex marriage, so I don't need to repeat that every day (like some here). Moreover, you and others seem to think that as long as the GOP isn't "booing God" then whatever else they do as a party is ok; whether it be trying to weaken the voting rights amendment, make life easier for the rich, but harder for the poor, or whatever, as long as their platform says "God", then whatever ungodly things happen in their party are overlooked, because they're operating under that blanked of "God's Own Party"...

Not to mention, that you, as well as others, are QUICK to jump on the personal failings of ANY democrat, but woefully silent when there's a republican guilty of the same thing.

Kinda duplicitous there...
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:29,764
Points:2,554,865
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 3:51:35 PM

MM, "I thought, norm, we were talking about a Party and not a person.
...

"Norm, "No, Maria, Doc made it quite clear that we were talking about a person(s):

doc, "Regardless of party identification, shouldn't a Christian vote for candidates whose voting record is in line with Christian values? And don't compromise."
...

No Norm. My statement clearly refers to a candidate's voting record and not to a person. Maria is correct. There are only two short sentences in that statement and the "don't compromise" refers to voting for a candidate whose voting record in not in line with Christian values.
...
That statement in completely nonpartisan but, rather than answer that question generically, as it was posed, you zero in on another Republican sinner, by name, as you've done many times before.
...

Norm,"Its also no surprise that you can't address my question, which is why I reposted it and am waiting for Doc to answer the question instead of repeatedly bringing up irrelevant points and non-sequitors in an effort to side-step a simple question."
...

I haven't brought up any irrelevant points or non-sequitors and haven't side stepped your question. I only posed another generic, non-partisan question.

I didn't ask,"So when Christian democrats repeatedly elect a known (insert sinful status here), say like (sinner's name), to office, are they compromising and putting party politics before their Christian values???"
...

But, getting back to your question, I'll let Panama go first. This might actually help us get back to the OP:
...
...
Panama responding to Norm, "Both Parties have plenty of individuals in them that fall well short of expectations, and even legality, but there is a vast difference between individual failures and the purposeful aims of the Party.

You refuse to criticize the purposeful anti-Christian principles of the Democrat Party and instead throw up a smokescreen of individual GOP members that fail in their personal lives to live up to the stated principles of their Party.

The differences in the stated principles of the Parties is the subject of this discussion, not your bobbing and weaving to avoid criticizing the immoral principles of the Party you have said that you support."
.................

doc, "Exactly. Christians are called to reject sin, not to point fingers at the personal failings of individuals. Jesus attacked the corporate vices and bad examples of groups. He avoided offensive personal remarks. As Christians, we're to do the same. Jackson is doing just that in pointing out the Democrats promotion of unbiblical and immoral principles which they would have become the law of the land, affecting all of us.

Every political party is made up entirely of sinners, including all registered independents. So there's never a need to point out the shortcomings of any individual. We all have them.

But, it's a sin to promote sinful behavior and that is what the Democratic Party is doing, as Jackson has pointed out. That promotion of sin should be condemned by all Christians. And it's neither sinful nor hypocritical not to shine a light on the individual failings of others while rejecting certain immoral principles promoted by an entire group. That's what our Lord did. We should all do the same.

And we don't have to be perfect ourselves to do it, and nobody should be demonized for doing so. What kind of a country do we want our grandkids to inherit? That's the real question."



[Edited by: no1doc at 3/4/2015 3:58:44 PM EST]
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 12:44:57 PM

"So then you are justifying booing God, and Israel? by saying the other parties do some stuff wrong also."


I'm justifying nothing.

I'm just pointing out how you keep bringing up "booing God" when its not even relevant to the question I asked (no surprise there).

Its also no surprise that you can't address my question, which is why I reposted it and am waiting for Doc to answer the question instead of repeatedly bringing up irrelevant points and non-sequitors in an effort to side-step a simple question.

Have a nice day.
AnotherOne
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:28,176
Points:869,180
Joined:Aug 2010
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 12:42:31 PM



mexicomaria, "So then you are justifying booing God, and Israel? by saying the other parties do some stuff wrong also.

The other parties do not support late term abortions...they do not boo God.

A party in mass wanted to take God out of their party statement....that to me sends me to another party."

Good one, maria!

Isn't it just stunning to see what MTMarty and the progressive libs endorse and excuse?

SMH

mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:27,908
Points:2,005,685
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 12:40:45 PM

So then you are justifying booing God, and Israel? by saying the other parties do some stuff wrong also.

The other parties do not support late term abortions...they do not boo God.

A party in mass wanted to take God out of their party statement....that to me sends me to another party.
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,612
Points:338,585
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 12:32:19 PM

Are parties people too?
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 12:31:36 PM

"I thought, norm, we were talking about a Party and not a person."


No, Maria, Doc made it quite clear that we were talking about a person(s):

""Regardless of party identification, shouldn't a Christian vote for candidates whose voting record is in line with Christian values? And don't compromise.""





"If you have seen the Republican Party boo God, bring it up here."

So basically, as long as they don't "boo God" then whatever else they do is ok?

That's like saying as long as you're not a murderer, but only commit adultery, or tell "white" lies, or only stole a little bit, you're ok.

Um, maybe that's ok for you, but not for me.

[Edited by: RNorm at 3/4/2015 12:36:30 PM EST]
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 12:15:09 PM

"I'll answer you after you answer this question. Can a Christian (or if you like, anyone, marital fidelity isn't just a Christian issue) support a known adulterer for/in elected office?"


Sure you can; but before you do, you need to know is it a one-time thing that he learned from and hasn't repeated or is it a pattern of behavior -- for that makes a difference.

You do know that foreign agents look for people in key positions that are vulnerable to adultery because its easier to compromise them and then use their compromised position to gain information they would not otherwise have access to. This is what happened with David Petraeus, who just pled guilty to doing just that.

I brought up Vitter because it was known that he slept with prostitutes even BEFORE he was elected to the senate, denied those charges, won election to the senate, was caught up in yet another prostitute scandal, and won re-election to the senate once again.

So it would seem that in Bible Belt Louisiana, it doesn't matter that the person many christians are voting for doesn't share the Christian value of fidelity in marriage. Because again, you said "And don't compromise." So it seems repeatedly voting for a serial adulterer is compromising indeed.

[Edited by: RNorm at 3/4/2015 12:21:36 PM EST]
no1doc
Champion Author Milwaukee

Posts:29,764
Points:2,554,865
Joined:Oct 2007
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 12:03:10 PM

doc,"Regardless of party identification, shouldn't a Christian vote for candidates whose voting record is in line with Christian values? And don't compromise.
...
"Norm, "So when Christian republicans repeatedly elect a known adulterer, say like David Vitter, to office, are they compromising and putting party politics before their Christian values???"
....

I'll answer you after you answer this question. Can a Christian (or if you like, anyone, marital fidelity isn't just a Christian issue) support a known adulterer for/in elected office?

[Edited by: no1doc at 3/4/2015 12:03:37 PM EST]
mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:27,908
Points:2,005,685
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 11:41:00 AM

I thought, norm, we were talking about a Party and not a person.

Remember it was the Democratic National Convention that booed God and Israel, see video below.

It is a Party en total Or as a unit that booed God. That is distasteful to me. Every single person we vote for still sins...just as you, just as me...but Christians who love our Savior never boo Him as a group.

NOw, if you know any Senator that is without sin....bring him up here.

If you have seen the Republican Party boo God, bring it up here.Sgm...that was a very nice article...thoughtful. I am not saying I am in agreement with all she said but I believe she is my sister.

[Edited by: mexicomaria at 3/4/2015 11:42:05 AM EST]
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 11:28:53 AM

So when Christian republicans repeatedly elect a known adulterer, say like David Vitter, to office, are they compromising and putting party politics before their Christian values???

2nd request.
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:24,078
Points:3,159,745
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Mar 4, 2015 10:00:37 AM

I doubt she is saying this as a first move towards the GOP. A liberal "comes out" as a Christian.
mexicomaria
Champion Author Minnesota

Posts:27,908
Points:2,005,685
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 10:51:10 PM

Oh,no reb....remember, to one democrat that is in GB; lying is satire. First time I have ever heard that. I Hcw heard, "I misspoke", or we lost the emails, or it was a video, or it was two guys in the Cincinnati office of the IRS; but never had I heard lying called "satire."

[Edited by: mexicomaria at 3/3/2015 10:59:02 PM EST]
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,970
Points:2,603,890
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 10:03:02 PM

Thou shalt not bear false witness
reb4
Champion Author Chicago

Posts:25,970
Points:2,603,890
Joined:Sep 2004
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 9:42:54 PM

"Regardless of party identification, shouldn't a Christian vote for candidates whose voting record is in line with Christian values? And don't compromise."of course, no1doc... Which is what the message from E.W. Jackson was communicating...

As to the democrats booing the addition to the party platform, which has been the Presidents bible for his political decisions.... here is a video:

Jerusalem And God Vote Gets Booed At Dem ConventionI personally think it was a faction of the delegates that were not to keen in adding God and Jerusalem being the capital of Israel... to the party platform.... even though it was clearly something that Obama wanted added...




MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:23,612
Points:338,585
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 2:04:08 PM

" So am I to deduce that the Democratic party does not love God because they bood him at the Democratic Convention..."


How about when Christian republicans lie?

Thou shalt not bear false witness

[Edited by: MiddletownMarty at 3/3/2015 2:06:08 PM EST]
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:54,823
Points:1,422,195
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Mar 3, 2015 1:41:07 PM

"You seem to forget that we all sin but I do not hear those who love God boo him. So am I to deduce that the Democratic party does not love God because they bood him at the Democratic Convention..."


What?

That doesn't even touch the simple question I asked.

Try again.
Post a reply Back to Topics