AS a Christian can you ever vote DEMOCRATIC

ferengi

Well-known member
Which law? What if they've paid their debt?
Whatever law the states decide.
They still have the right, they just face consequences for committing crimes.
No they give up that right under certain circumstances.
Should the guy who faces felony charges for mistakenly catching a federally protected fish really be treated the same as the guy who's actually a danger to others?
His case needs to be fully adjudicated - your question is poor - just because you are charged does not mean you are guilty - your case must either be plead out, dropped or decided by a jury.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Would Jesus carry any kind of weapon?
Most likely not. But we know Jesus also did not drive a car or use a computer.

However, we do know that he approved the use of swords and even commanded His disciples to buy swords to protect themselves with.
"We" gave ourselves the right to bear arms. It is man made. We can give it and we can take it away.
That's a privilege, not a right.
The US Constitution is not a God derived document. Many of the founding fathers weren't even Christians.
And many were. Several were ministers and lay ministers, and even a seminary president.
You should read what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the bible.
I have.

"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man." (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383, to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse on June 26, 1822.)

"The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses." ( Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.)

"I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others." (Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.)

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." (Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.)

The constitution was written during a different era. If we strictly applied it we would have no standing army and no Interstate highways.
And if not strictly applied, slavery would be legal, women could not vote, and you would have no right to due process.
It is a man made document that needs to be revised as the US evolves over time.
Agreed. However, it is the law until it is changed. If you don't like the law, change it. But the fact that it can be changed at some point does not mean it is not the law now.
Gun related deaths is a real problem in the US. More guns is not the answer. If it was then the rate of deaths would be falling as the rate of gun purchases increase.
Not an excuse to infringe upon people's rights.
The opposite is happening. More guns = more deaths by gun.
Evidence?
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Wiki? Seriously?
Every college instructor, including myself, gives two speeches on the first day of class: Why plagiarism is wrong, and all the sorts of terrible things that will happen to you if you get caught, and why Wikipedia is not considered a valid source.

I think Stillbirth has either never been to college, or hasn't the brain cells to understand why Wikipedia is a dubious source.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
My evidence is the fact that my post does not say what you claim it did.

It means they can't be taken away. Just like I had to explain to Stillbirth, if it can be given and taken away, then it's a privilege, not a right.
Anything can be taken away (eternal life excluded)...and if, that is if the "great reset" happens there will no longer be a Declaration of Independence.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Anything can be taken away (eternal life excluded)...and if, that is if the "great reset" happens there will no longer be a Declaration of Independence.
Rights can't be taken away. The only thing the government can do is to punish you for exercising them.
Thats not evidence - its an unsupported assertion.
Here you go:

Mike McK said:
Oh, you mean like in the Soviet Union.
Your evidence is?
Just posted it for you. Don't know why, though. If you couldn't read it the first time, you won't be able to read it a second time.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Rights can't be taken away. The only thing the government can do is to punish you for exercising them.
I understand your point...and it's taken...but when the government punishes for excercising a right and because of that you don't excercise the right...in essence they took it away from you.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
I understand your point...and it's taken...but when the government punishes for excercising a right and because of that you don't excercise the right...in essence they took it away from you.
I don't believe so. If they have the authority to take it, then it's not a right. They've stolen it.

That's where we get tyranny.
 

Newbirth

Well-known member
If all you have are ad homs and childish insults, then I think we've reached the Proverbs 26:4 portion of our conversation. You're dismissed.
I am responding in kind, sir...you started it in post #233 You want to refer to people as stupid and not expect recourse?
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
I am responding in kind, sir...you started it in post #233 You want to refer to people as stupid and not expect recourse?
I didn't refer to anyone in particular as "stupid". I just said a person would have to be stupid to make the leap of logic that saying something is not a right is the same as saying it's illegal.

If you believe I called you stupid, please feel free to report me. I believe they'll see that I did not call anyone stupid.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
You are welcome to your unevidenced opinion.
I don't get the unprovoked nastiness, but here you go:

Where is it that criminals get to keep rights?
In the Declaration of Independence where it says that rights are "unalienable". If criminals don't get to keep rights, then why not just use prisoners as slave labor?
This is called projection
I didn't insult you. I gave a perfectly logical illustration and, rather than telling us why you disagreed with it, you just insulted me.
 

UncleAbee

Active member
Most likely not. But we know Jesus also did not drive a car or use a computer.
Apples and oranges comparison. Guns and cars are different things with different purposes. Jesus did not carry a sword and preached against violence (Love your enemy, turn the other cheek, etc).
However, we do know that he approved the use of swords and even commanded His disciples to buy swords to protect themselves with.
IMO opinion the use of swords in Luke 22:26 is about fulfilling prophecy (Is 53:12).
That's a privilege, not a right.
It's a right and the constitution says so. ".....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed......." We gave ourselves the right and can remove it as well.

On Thomas Jefferson .... he created his own bible. He threw out all the miraculous stuff. The founding fathers intent was to keep religion a private matter. They didn't want to move towards any type of a theocracy.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Apples and oranges comparison. Guns and cars are different things with different purposes. Jesus did not carry a sword and preached against violence (Love your enemy, turn the other cheek, etc).
But if your claim is that we shouldn't do something if Jesus didn't do it (which isn't Biblical, by the way), then, in order for your argument to be consistent, it's perfectly reasonable to point out other things Jesus didn't do.

Jesus never taught against self defense, war, capital punishment, hunting, recreation, etc.
IMO opinion the use of swords in Luke 22:26 is about fulfilling prophecy (Is 53:12).
Your opinion isn't supported by the text and Isaiah 53:12 isn't relevant to Jesus' command to His disciples to buy swords to protect themselves with.
It's a right and the constitution says so. ".....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed......." We gave ourselves the right and can remove it as well.
The Declaration of Independence says we did not give ourselves that right, but that it is a natural right, endowed to us by God, an is unalienable.

If it can be taken away, then it is not a right, but a privilege.
On Thomas Jefferson .... he created his own bible. He threw out all the miraculous stuff.
First, no, Jefferson never "created his own Bible". He did compile two works that are commonly called "The Jefferson Bible", but he never claimed they were Bibles nor saw them as such.

And he didn't "throw out all the miraculous stuff". That's the talking points you've received, but that isn't what happened.

There are actually two versions of the "Jefferson Bible".

I can tell you haven't actually looked into this yourself, so you probably don't realize that the actual title of the "Jefferson Bible" is "The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the Account of His Life and Doctrines as Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John; Being an Abridgement of the New Testament for the Use of the Indians Unembarrassed with Matters of Fact or Faith Beyond the Level of Their Comprehensions."

It's quite a mouthful, so it's usually just referred to in shorthand as "The Jefferson Bible" and was written to teach the Indians the philosophical ideas of Christ, just as the title states, not to get into theology or biography. Remember, in Jefferson's world, everyone was familiar with Christ and His miracles and the Gospel, so it wasn't necessary to establish those things. The Indians were pagans who were mostly naturalistic in their religious views, and Jefferson felt that to get too deep into theology with them would only confuse them. It was not because he did not believe.

However, it does still contain mention of numerous miracles of Christ, including
Jesus sending His disciples to “heal the sick,” “cleanse the lepers,” “raise the dead,” “cast out devils” (Matthew 10:8), Healing a man on the Sabbath (Luke 14:1-6), raising Jairus’ daughter from the dead (Matthew 9:18-25), healing the bleeding woman (Matthew 9:20-22), and healing two blind men (Matthew 9:27-31).

The second "Jefferson Bible" is similar. Jefferson never claimed or intended it to be a Bible, but merely a collection of Jesus' moral teachings, compiled for his nephew and was not published until long after his death. Again, the miracles that were omitted were not omitted becuse Jefferson did not believe them, but because this was not a proper translation of the Bible, but merely a compilation of Jesus' moral teachings.

Now, you alluded to something Jefferson said about the Bible. Since I've provided quotes and citations, would you mind telling us what statements you're alluding to?
The founding fathers intent was to keep religion a private matter.
Seems kind of odd that they would believe religion is a private matter, and then fund the printing of Bible for evangelism and proclaim Christianity in so many of their writings.
They didn't want to move towards any type of a theocracy.
That much is true. But remember, they did not receive your talking points and did not conflate being influenced by Christian philosophy with a "theocracy". They were against a theocracy, hence, the oft misinterpreted line in the Treaty of Tripoli that we are not a Christian nation.

However, they stated many times that religion, specifically, Christianity, is vital to our liberty and our prosperity.
 
Last edited:

Tweedle

Active member
1 Sam 8:6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.

Christians are anarchists, or they aren't Christian.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
1 Sam 8:6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.

Christians are anarchists, or they aren't Christian.
Did you notice that the verse you cited begins with the word, "but"? "But" is what's commonly known as a conjunctive phrase. To make a long explanation short, that the verse begins with a conjunctive verse should have told you you were taking the verse out of context.

In any event, this passage is addressing the Nation of Israel, not Christians. Anarchy is not a Biblical or a Christian concept. There's simply no way to reconcile Romans 13 with anarchy. And we certainly don't see anarchy as a requirement to be a Christian.
 

Tweedle

Active member
Did you notice that the verse you cited begins with the word, "but"? "But" is what's commonly known as a conjunctive phrase. To make a long explanation short, that the verse begins with a conjunctive verse should have told you you were taking the verse out of context.

In any event, this passage is addressing the Nation of Israel, not Christians. Anarchy is not a Biblical or a Christian concept. There's simply no way to reconcile Romans 13 with anarchy. And we certainly don't see anarchy as a requirement to be a Christian.

Wow, what a mental gymnastic feat to disobey God. 10 for 10.

Not only are Christians necessarily anarchists, anyone who votes for these immoral two that they pick for you is going to have to answer for it.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Wow, what a mental gymnastic feat to disobey God. 10 for 10.

Not only are Christians necessarily anarchists, anyone who votes for these immoral two that they pick for you is going to have to answer for it.
I don't know what to tell you. The only Bible verse you posted was to the Nation of Islam, not to Christians, while I cited two that were given specifically to Christians.
 
Top