Interesting "faith" read

[JR]

Gee, nineteen posts and half by the person who started the thread.

Talk about attention *****.

 

[alleyallen]

And you'll notice that a couple of us actually did comment on the article. Yet more posts have been dedicated to other crap.

 

[Born to Run]

Just my personal opinion: If you start a thread on faith, don't curse and don't treat people badly. Even if they disagree with your opinion OR don't post quickly enough.

 

[ScribePharisee]

Hey, Mr. Allen, I wasn't trying to "offend" you; my intention was to make light fun, apparently you took it way more seriously than it was intended. Nor was I trying to be an "attention *****" as another put it. But you have to admit by pattern that attacks on faith are quicker coming in here than defense of faith.

That's a shame as I read about two British pastors who were told that spreading their gospel in a predominantly Muslim area of London was considered a "hate crime" yet in many of those Muslim nations, "being" Christian leads to scorn, proclaiming it can lead to death.

 

[alleyallen]

But you have to admit by pattern that attacks on faith are quicker coming in here than defense of faith.

I have no problem with faith. I have faith, myself.

But what gets attacked on here rarely is faith, at least in any genuine form. And when that "faith" is used to attack the innocent, then it deserves to be attacked as well.

 

[JR]

What gets attacked here is intolerance masked as religion.

 

[ScribePharisee]

Oh gee. I guess then we should wipe out "sin" as a religious issue.

Brilliant.

I'm truly sorry I started this thread.

 

[ScribePharisee]

Look, this board has a reputation. What I heard: You stand for some things, you get ripped.

You **** off those same people, you mysteriously get banished.

And most of it is in the name of "intolerance."

Debate conditions are determined on one side of the fence. That's the take "out there" and it didn't take but a few days of sticking my neck out to prove it.


I've seen nothing to disprove this.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

Then go the **** away. You're just wrong about how this board works. But if you wanna play victim and cry about it, go ahead. You won't be the first or the last to do that.

 

[ifilus]

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Look on the bright side, ScribePharisee only has another 927 more posts to go until he can start his own 'I hit 1,000 posts' thread.

... said the poster who, in a moment of weakness, made his own 1,000-post thread.

 

[jgmacg]

Nor was the piece "interesting." Asserting that "virtue" is good, without a precise working definition of either goodness or virtue - only a citation of vapid attributes that may or may not be virtuous, especially in politicians - is neither insightful nor interesting. Worse still, the piece complains that voters often ignore virtue in favor of other, less heavenly, attributes. Like programs and positions. The trouble being, for both the authors and the voters, how do you reliably detect or even predict virtue in a public figure? Ted Haggard seemed virtuous right up until the moment he didn't. So did Larry Craig. And a thousand others. Sorry.

 

[Angola!]

Look, this board has a reputation. What I heard: You stand for some things, you get ripped.

You **** off those same people, you mysteriously get banished.

And most of it is in the name of "intolerance."

Debate conditions are determined on one side of the fence. That's the take "out there" and it didn't take but a few days of sticking my neck out to prove it.


I've seen nothing to disprove this.

Hmm, do we have a former poster in our midst?

 

[alleyallen]

Look, this board has a reputation. What I heard: You stand for some things, you get ripped.

You **** off those same people, you mysteriously get banished.

And most of it is in the name of "intolerance."

Debate conditions are determined on one side of the fence. That's the take "out there" and it didn't take but a few days of sticking my neck out to prove it.


I've seen nothing to disprove this.

Hmm, do we have a former poster in our midst?

I was beginning to think the same thing.

 

[T2]

Scanning the article, it seems to me that the writer was arguing that our President should be virtuous. But that doesn't require our President to be religious. To be "good," you don't have to be a Christian.

The writer even admits that the virtue of "faith" could be something other than faith in God; it could be faith in America.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

From page 6:

"The greatest fear we have regarding leaders is that they will misuse the power we grant them."

Misuse of power: A GOP constant, since Nixon.

Next.

 

[DemoChristian]

The Bible is pretty clear that God can use anyone, even non-Christians.
Politicians are liar and hypocrites. And every single president we've had in the country (and about 99 percent of elected politicians) are Christian, are at least claim to be.
I vote for who I think will do the most good, not who I think has the strongest faith/most virtue/whatever else.

 

[ScribePharisee]

I'm glad this got back to an honest discussion. There's hope in the world.

 

[alleyallen]

The Bible is pretty clear that God can use anyone, even non-Christians.
Politicians are liar and hypocrites. And every single president we've had in the country (and about 99 percent of elected politicians) are Christian, are at least claim to be.
I vote for who I think will do the most good, not who I think has the strongest faith/most virtue/whatever else.

I'm absolutely with you on this, but I also think that's where there starts a big divide among a lot of Christians or those of other faiths. Some people, like you, choose to be both a Christian AND a Democrat. But far too many fervently religious people refuse to compromise on their faith through their politics.

It doesn't make one side right, or more worthy, than the other. But unfortunately that's how so many people boil down the issue.

 

[DemoChristian]

I think I see what you're saying, but I don't believe I've compromised my faith at all. In fact, my faith informs most of my decisions, including my political beliefs.
I think a lot of Christians don't really think their politics through (I'm not calling out all of them, but specifically some I know).
Most people are the same religion and political affiliation as their parents. They follow the philosophy of that old hymn, if it was good enough for grandad, it's good enough for me.
But I think if you really study the Bible and the Christian message, you can just as easily come down on the Democratic side of most issues as the Republican side.
Show me a Biblical passage that says to vote for the Christian in elections, and I might have to rethink my beliefs, but otherwise, I'll continue to do what I believe is best.
I have the Holy Ghost to guide me just as much as anyone like James Dobson or Pat Robertson does.