Questions for Republicans/Evangelical Christians/Bushies

Vance

New Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,265
Reaction score
1
First of all, my apologizes for my harsh comments toward some Bushies around here. That is totally unnecessary, I was venting my frustrations & angers at you... That will never happen again. Again, I am sorry for that.

Anyway, I want to ask some republicans/evangelical christians/Bushies/faith-based community around here. I am trying to figure out about your 'moral values'. What does your moral values mean? What about your family values? Care to share about yours? I just had an hour chat with few college professors recently and it just hit us about Bushies' odd "moral values". I decided to ask some of you to clear up with me if you can or if you want to. So I probably can understand your 'moral values' better and why you people insists that moral values is far important than economy, women's rights & civil rights. I am ex-christian, I decided to resign for good reasons. I rather to believe in God & Jesus (do you know that Jesus was a liberal!?) based on 'practice what you preach' philosophy. Anyway here's verses & questions that I truly want to know about yours.


In Exodus 21:7, does it mean that if I have a daughter, do I have moral right to sell my daughter into slavery and make some money out of that? Is that what your moral value means?

In Leviticus 25:4, it stated that I may indeed possess slaves, both male & females, provided they are purchased from neightboring nations. But odd thing is that it was applied to black (well, we did brought them into America from Africa for slavery after all, right?) and mexicans but not Canadians? If not then why not? Care to elaborate about that one?

In Exodus 35:2, does it mean that I can kill anyone who works on Sunday? I see many people working in Target, Yum-Yum, In-N-Out, Wal-Mart, list going on.. Is it morally correct for me to kill them because they are working on Sunday? That is totally sin! Right? If not then why not?

In Leviticus 15:19-24, I know that I am not allowed to contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness but the problem is.. how do I tell? If I ask them and women surely will take offence. So how do I know?

In Leviticus 19:27, I realize that many male people get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples.. If you read Lev. 19:27, you will know thus that is expressly forbidden! So does it mean I will have to stone, stab or kill them too? If not, how should they die?

In Leviticus 24:19, since Bush invaded Iraq, a country that does not have WMD, does it mean that Iraq or other countries will attack him included us too?

In Leviticus 24:11-16, Bush gave a 'middle-finger' gesture to TV and Cheney once or twice said 'Fuck yourself' to the mass. Does it mean that we need to stone, stab or punish them for cursed? If not, why not?

In Malachi 2:11-16, it clearly states that God hates divorce. So why are the divorce rate among professing Christians higher than the unbelieving world while the divorce rate among Mass liberals is lowest? Is all that talk about "family values" is just that -- talk? If not, care to explain about these higher divorce rate?

In Leviticus 20:9, does it mean that our parents will have to kill, smite or beat us when we gave them our smartass comments? If not, why not?

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I have many more about these verses included homosexual issues but will hold it until later. I want to ask you one more thing before close this post, I don't understand why Bushies ranted that they have family values while we, liberals do not. Let me give you the examples:


Serial killer/rapist Ted Bundy campaigned for the Republican Party

Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.

Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.

Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.

Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a minor and sentenced to one month in jail.

Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges.

Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.

Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.

Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a minor working as a congressional page.

Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.

Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.

Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a juvenile and one count of delivering the drug LSD.

Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks, an advisor to a California assemblyman, was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.

Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.

Republican preacher Stephen White was arrested after allegedly offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.

Republican talk show host Jon Matthews of Houston was indicted for indecency with a child, including exposing his genitals to a girl under the age of 17.

Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling confessed to molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.

Republican Party leader Paul Ingram of Thurston County, Washington, pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.

Republican St. Louis Election Board official Kevin Coan was arrested and charged with trying to buy sex from a 14-year-old girl whom he met on the Internet.

Republican politician Andrew Buhr, former committeeman for Hadley Township Missouri, was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.

Republican politician Keith Westmoreland, a Tennessee state representative, was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to minors under 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).

Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15 year old girl.

Republican legislator, Richard Gardner, a Nevada state representative, admitted to molesting his two daughters.

Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.

Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.


Anyone can see that most republicans are obsessed with pedophillia, rape, torture, and an endless variety of illegal, unconcentual and frightening sexuality. According to one of professor pal of mine (who is old traditional republican) that was only small fraction of over hundreds of 'family values-based' republicans criminals.

So based on these lists, does that mean we will have to rape, torture or molest our kids or any kid to obtain these family values? We are confused about that part. Care to explain what does your family value mean? It is an honest and innocent question. Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Magatsu, you're forgiven...
Thank u for asking this Very Good question
about the definition of moral value
I was going to ask this same thing today but
you beat me ! Let me think of a good
definition/example of what does moral value
really mean using my own words/your own words
rather than copy from other websites or whatever.
This will take awhile for me to figure out
a simple good definition with a good example
together.
 
Thanks, I await to hear from yours. And one thing: Proverbs 6:16-19

There are six things which the Lord hates,

Seven which are an abomination to him:

Haughty eyes,

a lying tongue,

and hands that shed innocent blood,

a heart that devises wicked plans,

feet that make haste to run to evil,

a false witness who breathes out lies,

and a man who sows discord among brothers


Bush did these and why did he say that he have 'moral values' while liberals do not? Sorry about many questions but it bother me a while about moral issue... I mean, I can relate how important it is to people but I don't understand why did people like Bush not practice what he preach? Liberals already practice what they preach on 'moral values' ages ago. So I failed to understand what Bush & Bushies mean about 'moral values'.

once again, thanks for responding.
 
Last edited:
You're not going to get an honest answer. Democrats and Republicans alike have their hypocritical examples and people don't care because it's all about FEEEEEEEEEEEEEELINGS. If you feel they can't do any wrong because of the way you've been brought up to believe, you are willing to ignore and forgive and forget the bad things that they do.

So, in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not Strom had sex with a minor that produced an offspring, what matters is that he schmoozed the right people who kept him in office to pass the laws they wanted to pass.

Fix that schmoozing, and you'll get those politicians out of office right quick.
 
Magatsu said:
In Exodus 21:7, does it mean that if I have a daughter, do I have moral right to sell my daughter into slavery and make some money out of that?
Ok, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert on anything concerning the Bible, but I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. I looked up this verse in 2 different versions, the Modern King James version and the Contemporary English version.
These were the two results I got.

MKJV: And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
CEV: A young woman who was sold by her father doesn't gain her freedom in the same way that a man does.

Why then do you assume that you have a moral right to sell your daughter? To me, it sounds like someone is stating a simple point, not saying "go do this". Shouldn't you conclude, by your logic, that it's ok to sell either a daughter or a son? Could you kindly explain?

Magatsu said:
In Leviticus 25:4, it stated that I may indeed possess slaves, both male & females, provided they are purchased from neightboring nations.
Uh huh......now I'm verrrrry confused. Leviticus 25:4 doesn't even mention slaves or slavery.

MKJV: But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest to the land, a sabbath for Jehovah. You shall neither sow your field, nor prune your vineyard.
CEV: but the seventh year you must let your fields and vineyards rest in honor of me, your Lord.

Magatsu said:
In Exodus 35:2, does it mean that I can kill anyone who works on Sunday?
This I can't comment on, as it does mention putting those who work on Sunday to death. Very strange practice indeed.


Magatsu said:
In Leviticus 15:19-24, I know that I am not allowed to contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness but the problem is.. how do I tell? If I ask them and women surely will take offence. So how do I know?
MJKV:And if a woman has an issue, and her issue in her flesh is blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days. And whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything that she lies on in her impurity shall be unclean. Everything also that she sits on shall be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. And whoever touches anything that she sat on, shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. And if it is on the bed or on anything on which she sits, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until the evening. And if any man lies with her at all, and her impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days. And every bed on which he lies shall be unclean
CEV: When a woman has her monthly period, she remains unclean for seven days, and if you touch her, you must take a bath, but you remain unclean until evening. Anything that she rests on or sits on is also unclean, and if you touch either of these, you must wash your clothes and take a bath, but you still remain unclean until evening. Any man who has sex with her during this time becomes unclean for seven days, and anything he rests on is also unclean.

From everything I've heard, in the old testament, there was something bad about blood. I don't know what or why. If you think about it, women in the Bible didn't have trusty pads or tampons. I'm not sure you'd have a problem telling if a woman was having her period......

Magatsu said:
In Leviticus 19:27, I realize that many male people get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples.. If you read Lev. 19:27, you will know thus that is expressly forbidden! So does it mean I will have to stone, stab or kill them too? If not, how should they die?
Why should they die at all?

MKJV: You shall not round the side of your head, nor mar the edge of your beard.
CEV: I forbid you to shave any part of your head or beard or to cut and tattoo yourself as a way of worshiping the dead.

It says not to do that as a way to worship the dead, it doesn't say "kill them" or "they should die if they shave".

Magatsu said:
In Leviticus 24:19, since Bush invaded Iraq, a country that does not have WMD, does it mean that Iraq or other countries will attack him included us too?
Could you clarify?

MKJV: And if a man causes a blemish in his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him:
CEV: Personal injuries to others must be dealt with in keeping with the crime--

Magatsu said:
In Leviticus 24:11-16, Bush gave a 'middle-finger' gesture to TV and Cheney once or twice said 'Fuck yourself' to the mass. Does it mean that we need to stone, stab or punish them for cursed? If not, why not?
This doesn't have anything to do with the verses.

MKJV: And the son of the woman of Israel blasphemed the name of Jehovah, and cursed God. And they brought him to Moses. (And his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.) And they put him under guard, so that the mind of Jehovah might be declared to them. And Jehovah spoke to Moses saying, Bring forth the despiser outside the camp. And let all that heard lay their hands on his head. Let all the congregation stone him. And you shall speak to the sons of Israel saying, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemes the Name of Jehovah shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall surely stone him. And the stranger as well, even as he that is born in the land; when he blasphemes the Name, he shall be put to death.
CEV: Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri from the tribe of Dan, had married an Egyptian, and they had a son. One day their son got into a fight with an Israelite man in camp and cursed the name of the Lord. So the young man was dragged off to Moses, who had him guarded while everyone waited for the Lord to tell them what to do. Finally, the Lord said to Moses: This man has cursed me! Take him outside the camp and have the witnesses lay their hands on his head. Then command the whole community of Israel to stone him to death. And warn the others that everyone else who curses me will die in the same way, whether they are Israelites by birth or foreigners living among you.

These are about someone cursing God, not just cursing in general.


Magatsu said:
In Malachi 2:11-16, it clearly states that God hates divorce. So why are the divorce rate among professing Christians higher than the unbelieving world while the divorce rate among Mass liberals is lowest? Is all that talk about "family values" is just that -- talk? If not, care to explain about these higher divorce rate?
Could you state your sources for this information?

Magatsu said:
In Leviticus 20:9, does it mean that our parents will have to kill, smite or beat us when we gave them our smartass comments? If not, why not?
MKJV: And any man who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be on him.
CEV: If you curse your father or mother, you will be put to death, and it will be your own fault.

I don't see anywhere where it says that if we mouth off to our parents, our parents must kill us. It says "you will be put to death" not "your parents will kill you, smite you, or beat you"
While I admit it does say you will be put to death if you curse (not make smartass comments, but curse), it looks to me like you're reading things into the verse. In fact, it looks like you're reading things into a lot of verses.
 
Last edited:
Helpful Tips: Most of these chapters/verses
you mentioned (Leviticus, Exodus) have
nothing to do with these recent current events,
because they're in the Old Testament
based on history. If you look at
the New Testament (e.g. Revelation)
they're related to the future events.
 
dude, if you are tryin to say you dont like Bush then just say it...you dont have to keep repeating stories about bush as signs of you saying you hate his guts because we already got the idea!

I dont like him that much either but do you see me spread links and rumors and statements and whine about Bush? No so I just say "fuck him and let Bush know how much people hates his guts" so you dont have to keep brawling that he won because it wont change anything...if he wins then he wins...nothing else can change that.

sorry.

I dont like Kerry either but I bet he would do a damn fine job with the ecomomics but would fuck up the military stuff in Iraq and Bush would improve our actions against terrorist threats as he stay in the office and learn more about the terrorist while he could still fuck up the ecomony, but safety is what counts, right? as a matter of fact, I've read the "usa today" newspaper this week and one article said that Bush could help try to reduce the price on gas after he runs second term next year so lets hope it's true.

meanwhile, we already know you hate bush and so do alot of people but do they really give a crap? not really. so there's really nothing you can do about it so you are just sitting there typing shit on your computer whining about Bush and his so called actions for his second term...right now...just worry about your life and your career than worry about whom will be the next president and it was obvliously gonna be bush again so...take care.
 
Magatsu said:
Anyway, I want to ask some republicans/evangelical christians/Bushies/faith-based community around here.
Well, I am not a Republican, I am a Christian, I don't quite know what you mean by "Bushie", and I am a person, not a community, but maybe you will allow me to answer some of your questions. I might not get to all of them tonight (I try to get at least 5 hours of sleep each night) so it might require more than one posting.

...why you people insists that moral values is far important than economy, women's rights & civil rights.
Let me ask you, if you don't have moral values, how do you make your life decisions? I believe if a person makes the right moral choices, the rest will fall into place.

I am ex-christian, I decided to resign for good reasons.
I don't understand what an "ex-christian" is. If a person is truly a born-again Christian, a sinner saved by Jesus, then they cannot become "unsaved". No power or person can separate a Christian from his Savior. A Christian cannot "resign." Do you actually mean you resigned a church membership? Church and Christian are not the same thing.

...do you know that Jesus was a liberal!?
What do you mean "liberal"? What is your definition?

...based on 'practice what you preach' philosophy.
Well, people can't practice what they preach until they are really sure of what they are preaching.

Anyway here's verses & questions that I truly want to know about yours.

In Exodus 21:7, does it mean that if I have a daughter, do I have moral right to sell my daughter into slavery and make some money out of that? Is that what your moral value means?
Of course not.

In Leviticus 25:4, it stated that I may indeed possess slaves, both male & females, provided they are purchased from neightboring nations.
If you lived in that land during that time, that was the law. That was not the law for other times and places.

But odd thing is that it was applied to black (well, we did brought them into America from Africa for slavery after all, right?) and mexicans but not Canadians? If not then why not? Care to elaborate about that one?
You asked about my moral values. Slavery is not one of my moral values. I believe all slavery is wrong. It should have never been allowed in the United States.

In Exodus 35:2, does it mean that I can kill anyone who works on Sunday?
No!

I see many people working in Target, Yum-Yum, In-N-Out, Wal-Mart, list going on.. Is it morally correct for me to kill them because they are working on Sunday?
No!

That is totally sin! Right? If not then why not?
It is sin for you to murder people. It is also against the law.

In Leviticus 15:19-24, I know that I am not allowed to contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness but the problem is.. how do I tell? If I ask them and women surely will take offence. So how do I know?
That was ceremonial law that applied to the Jews. It doesn't apply to you. Even back then, it was the woman's responsibility to keep herself private during her time of "uncleaness".

In Leviticus 19:27, I realize that many male people get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples.. If you read Lev. 19:27, you will know thus that is expressly forbidden!
Are you a Hassidic Jew? No? Then it doesn't apply to you.

So does it mean I will have to stone, stab or kill them too?
No, it is not your place.

In Leviticus 24:19, since Bush invaded Iraq, a country that does not have WMD, does it mean that Iraq or other countries will attack him included us too?
I am really not understanding your application here. Are you sure you are really seeking answers, or are you making statements?

In Leviticus 24:11-16, Bush gave a 'middle-finger' gesture to TV and Cheney once or twice said 'Fuck yourself' to the mass. Does it mean that we need to stone, stab or punish them for cursed? If not, why not?
You are describing Bush and Cheney saying or doing vulgar things. They should not do that. It is rude and crude. However, that is not the same as blaspheming God. That is a direct attack and rebellion against God. God ordered His people (the Jews) to carry out a specific punishment for a specific sin at a specific time in history. It does not apply to the scenario you describe.

In Malachi 2:11-16, it clearly states that God hates divorce. So why are the divorce rate among professing Christians higher than the unbelieving world while the divorce rate among Mass liberals is lowest? Is all that talk about "family values" is just that -- talk? If not, care to explain about these higher divorce rate?
I would like to see your exact statistics first.It is hard to give a complete answer without complete information. In general, I can say that Christians are not perfect, and they sin also. Also, the percentage of couples who marry rather than live together is higher for Christians, so that would also impact the percentage that divorce. In other words, if a couple never marries, obviously they never technically divorce, but they could break up.

In Leviticus 20:9, does it mean that our parents will have to kill, smite or beat us when we gave them our smartass comments? If not, why not?
Again, you are using laws that were for the Jews for everyone. The levitical laws weren't intended for everyone. They were from God to His chosen people, the Jews, in order to keep them pure and safe for future generations.

I am surprised that you asked no questions out of the New Testament. That part of the Bible is full of the doctrines that today's Christians use for their moral values.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't understand why Bushies ranted that they have family values while we, liberals do not.
Again, I don't know who the "Bushies" are, and I haven't heard any "ranting" about family values, except when liberals complain.

Let me give you the examples:
I don't have time tonight to check out each link. I will try to get to them tomorrow.

I must say that I have never before seen sex offender lists sorted by political party. It is truly amazing that no Democrats, Independents, Green Party members, or non-voters committed any sex crimes. I guess it makes it easier for the police when they have a new sex crime to solve. They only have to question Republicans. That solves the case a lot quicker.

Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
I am not excusing Sen. Thurmond's behavior, but just to be clear, you do realize that at the time he had sex with the girl he was a 22-year-old Democrat? He didn't become a Republican until decades later.
From your link:
"...She claims Thurmond got her unmarried 16-year-old mother pregnant when he was a 22-year-old living in his parents' home, long before his political career started...
Thurmond ran for president in 1948 on a ticket of strict racial segregation, before leaving the Democratic party to further the cause."

Anyone can see that most republicans are obsessed with pedophillia, rape, torture, and an endless variety of illegal, unconcentual and frightening sexuality.
No, "most" Republicans are not obsessed with perversion. The only "fact" here is the fact that you are listing only Republicans. That proves nothing. Any statistician would :lol: at your methodology.

According to one of professor pal of mine (who is old traditional republican) that was only small fraction of over hundreds of 'family values-based' republicans criminals.
Uh-huh. We are supposed to accept that pal's unverified statement as a documented fact?

So based on these lists, does that mean we will have to rape, torture or molest our kids or any kid to obtain these family values? We are confused about that part.
You got that right.

Care to explain what does your family value mean? It is an honest and innocent question.
No, that is a very dishonest and misleading "question". You really don't care at all about learning about anyone's family values. You just want to fling out accusations and inuendoes.

I'll give you a serious answer when you ask a serious question.
 
Magatsu said:
Thanks, I await to hear from yours. And one thing: Proverbs 6:16-19

There are six things which the Lord hates,

Seven which are an abomination to him:

Haughty eyes,

a lying tongue,

and hands that shed innocent blood,

a heart that devises wicked plans,

feet that make haste to run to evil,

a false witness who breathes out lies,

and a man who sows discord among brothers


Bush did these and why did he say that he have 'moral values' while liberals do not?
Because Bush did NOT do those things; just because you accuse him of these things doesn't make it so.

Remember, God commands us to NOT bear false witness! You can have opinions if you want, but that doesn't give you the right to lie about people.
 
Steel, uhhh. This topic is not about Bush. I don't care about him. I don't know where did you get the idea from. This topic is all about moral values that Bushies kept ranting about. I want to understand their logic about moral values & family values. I am not whining, I don't have to because reality will set in for all of us soon. Please don't put your words in my mouth. That was unnecessary. Thank you.

Y, excellent that you raised a issue about that because Bush plan to implement the Old Testament in governments & schools. That's why I want to bring it up about Old Testament, not New Testament. If we want to talk about New Testament, sure. I want to bring up about Jesus. As many of you know (or should know) that Jesus was a liberal. According to New Testament that Jesus had no trouble with sinners, drinkers, prostitutes. (He didn't mention gays or abortion at all by the way) The children and sick and widows he loved and cared for. Whoever know about Jesus will be aware that Jesus had the greatest issues with one group, the Pharisees. A group which were VERY religious, followed the outer rules, made even more. Several more from Matthew:


For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.

But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

Matthew 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Matthew 23:17 [Ye] fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier [matters] of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Matthew 23:24 [Ye] blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Matthew 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Matthew 23:26 [Thou] blind Pharisee, cleanse first that [which is] within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and of all uncleanness.

Matthew 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Matthew 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

Matthew 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?


Did you see where I am going with that?
 
Reba said:
Because Bush did NOT do those things; just because you accuse him of these things doesn't make it so.

Remember, God commands us to NOT bear false witness! You can have opinions if you want, but that doesn't give you the right to lie about people.
Opinions? What?

My god. I would think you would notice by now. I guess not. Ok, good thing that I have the evidences to back me up. Remember about Osama bin Laden? That's one of many examples.

Remember when Bush said that he does not concern about Osama bin Laden or his whereabouts several months ago? Yet in second debate vs Kerry, he said he never said that. Explain that please. I have many, many more... I have plenty evidences to back up my defense.
 
If you want hard evidences about Osama Bin Laden, here it is:

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.

From White House's source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html


Mr. Bush: Gosh, I don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. That's kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden.

From New York Time's source: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/13/p...f=login&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=


That's one of many evidences I have on Bush. Indeed, I didn't NOT bear false witness. Bush just did that on himself.

Soooo, any question, Reba?
 
Last edited:
Whats funny about Democrats and Republicans is we will all argue all day (and night) long saying we are right. If it came down to it, however, and were sitting side by side, I'm sure we could all agree with what is right and what is wrong. We'd probably agree more than we would disagree. It becomes rather muddy when speaking in terms of community and then throwing politics in there, its like nails on a chalkboard.

In our local government (local meaning city, county, and state), Democrats have tried to push some laws that I find pretty stupid.
For example, a local democrat was trying to push a gun ban. Not only was it banning guns as in firearms, but included toy guns (no more cops and robbers for the young ones).
I can laugh all day at the prospect of banning toy guns and think trying to push a gun ban was a total waste of resources.

With that said, I can honestly say the politicians heart is definately in the right place.
We both agree that crime is rampant in our city and the citizens deserve better.
We both agree that our children are an assett and their future should be taken into consideration.
We both agree that children are influenced by things that happen in their everyday lives.
We both agree that criminals use guns.
We both agree that guns kill people, and that is guns only purpose.

As you can see, we both have moral values that influence our decisions. I disagree with the politician, but I do not disagree with their moral values.
We have the same goal in mind, but completely opposite ideas on how to achieve the end product (a better place for all).

I believe that Bush does have strong moral convictions, and I believe that John Kerry and every other presidential candidate (and most politicians for that matter) have the same moral convictions. The dispute and argument comes into play when you are trying to get to the final goal.

George Bush believes murder is wrong, but believes he is in the war for the right reasons. John Kerry would believe murder is wrong, and believes the war is being fought for the wrong reasons. Both are still trying to achieve the same result, and that is to make the world a better place.

I'd like to point out that many of the things that you pointed out in regards to murder and pedophilia are examples taken for your side of the case. I could locate a similar number of examples where it was democrats doing the same thing. I'd disagree with you in lumping all republicans into the same examples that you mention. I'm a republican and think pedophiles should never see the light of day. If entire groups are lumped together because of some bad apples, then I would have voted for Bill Clinton and getting a little sucky sucky on the side.

I could also point out a Virginia Republican who cheated on his wife. Instead of denying it and fighting the accusations, he stood up and took his lumps by resigning his position and said he would turn his attention to restoring his family. It was the right thing for him to do. In your line of thinking, I could then say that all Republicans are morally right because when they screw up, they don't deny they did something wrong, and they make efforts to correct their screw-ups. Obviously all republicans are not like that (and all democrats don't believe that oral sex with your intern is the right thing to do).

While I see your point, be cautious of lumping everyone together and trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 
Last edited:
Taylor, once again you have some points and I realize that I did lumped everyone together and that's my mistake. However I am in same shoes as you do but in different size of shoes. I found some laws/taxes that republicans created are pretty stupid as well. Such as Corporate Tax, good for low/middle class people? Please. Corporations does not need any tax hike, they have thicked and well-sewed pockets while low/middle class does not. I mean, middle class people are the backbone of america, once middle class are gone, the backbone is gone then America is gone. That's where republicans and some democrats failed to see the point or I assume.

That's why I like Sweden & Norway's government system. So far, it is perfect and they are pretty happy about it. Anyway, about your comment:

I'm sure we could all agree with what is right and what is wrong.

Not always. Many democrats feel that it was mortally incorrect to destroy whatever environment left in our lands with these oil drills. We need it for our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and then great-great grandchildren. Freedom of choice is always debatable between republicans and democrats. I mean, I and many believe that it is our right to choice organic or convenience foods while most republicans does not. They want people to choice what government give them (especially with foods & drugs). Believe it or not, Abraham Lincoln was a Liberal Republican. If he is here and plan to run for president, I would jump off from the democratic platform to register as republican and vote for him. I can promise you on that one ;)


We'd probably agree more than we would disagree.

In most cases, yes you are quite correct. See? I agree with you! :P
 
This topic really boils down to sour grapes. Let's forge ahead to a new day!
 
Magatsu said:
If we want to talk about New Testament, sure. I want to bring up about Jesus. As many of you know (or should know) that Jesus was a liberal.
Please define "liberal".

According to New Testament that Jesus had no trouble with sinners, drinkers, prostitutes.
What do yo mean "had no trouble with sinners"?
Jesus died for all sinners, that they can repent (turn from) their sins, and be forgiven. Jesus told sinners, to go and sin no more. Jesus never accepted sin

John 5:14 "Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou are made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee."

John 8:10-11 "When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condmened thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Mark 1:15 "And (Jesus) saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

Luke 13:3, 5 "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
"I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

(He didn't mention gays or abortion at all by the way)
Jesus didn't use the words "gay" or "abortion" but He did preach against those sins. Jesus preached that any sexual relations outside of marriage between one man and one woman was fornication or adultery (depending on the situation). That is sin. Jesus preached that man must not murder, so that includes abortion and infanticide.

Whoever know about Jesus will be aware that Jesus had the greatest issues with one group, the Pharisees. A group which were VERY religious, followed the outer rules, made even more.
Yes, Jesus taught that no one, including Pharisees, should add man-made laws to God's way of salvation. Salvation is thru a person's heart relationship with Jesus Christ. Salvation is NOT thru following a list of laws. Jesus knew the Pharisees' hearts. He could see that their hearts' beliefs did not match their outward behavior. Only Jesus can see that. Only Jesus can judge hearts. People judge behaviors because that is all we can see.

The Pharisees were building barriers to prevent people from becoming saved. The Pharisees were adding rules to salvation, and that was wrong. Jesus preached against them for that.
 
[That's why I like Sweden & Norway's government system. So far, it is perfect and they are pretty happy about it. Anyway, about your comment]


SO GO THERE PLEASE :bye:
 
Back
Top