Author Topic: Re: Obama (Read 14573 times)

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #50 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:13:31 PM »

.....I shouldn't respond to such ludicrous claims, but I will anyway because I am an idiot. I take full repsonsibility for any further conversation that goes on between myself and megamanlan.

That's fine that God gave capitalism to the Israelites, but we are not the Israelites. That is civil law that no longer is binding to any of humankind after Christ. If you want to say that this passage proves that Capitalism is the best system, I don't disagree with you. However, I just want you to recognize that Capitalism works the best because it assumes that everyone will work in their own interests - also known as be greedy and follow sin nature. Communism tries to assume that everyone will work in the best interests of another person. That is why it fails in the world. In heaven however, it would be perfect and successful. Judging from what little we know about heaven, one could easily make the arguement that Heaven is a communist area ruled by Christ.

You need to cite every single thing you said about Obama.
1. He isn't buying up major corporations. He has instituted welfare-like handouts to major corporations. But so did Bush, and I bet you like him, don't you?

2. What does implement hate crimes even mean?

3. While I disagree with healthcare, I appreciate his desire to aid the less fortunate in this country who can not afford healthcare because capatlism has driven the cost so high. Unfortunatley, his plan would not work.

4. Allowing gays into the military does nothing. The fact you even bring this up is just blatant hate.

megamanlan · « **Reply #51 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:15:54 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 07, 2011, 03:07:27 PM

Quote
there is no visible reason to think he is bringing direct harm to the United States.
lol wut

I also agree, what he has done in the last 2 yrs, is bringing harm. Several doctors say that if an when Healthcare begins to work, they will stop practicing their trade. (I saw a poll that said about 60% say that)
Quite the same w/ the military.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #52 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:17:23 PM »

You still refuse to cite any of your outlandish claims.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #53 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:19:31 PM »

For someone to compare the "Communism" of Acts 4 to present day Communism seems silly to me for one primary reason - one was entered into voluntarily and one is forced. The early Jerusalem church (before Stephen's martyrdom) succeeded so well in meeting the needs of its members because they CHOSE to help each other and "have all things in common." And even the apostles were not "forcing" this on anyone. Peter told Ananias that before they sold their property it was theirs to do with as they pleased, and after it was sold, the money was STILL theirs to do with as they pleased. In other words, those Christians that wanted to "opt out" of the "all things in common" trend were free to do so. It was the lying about the amount that condemned Ananias and Sapphira, not that they might not have given enough. Peter says that they did not HAVE to give any!

But in Communist nations today, where the "share the wealth and make everyone equal" mantra is tried, you don't have a choice to "opt out" (short of fleeing the country). History seems to show that wherever NON-CHRISTIANS try communism it leads to heartache, and/or slothfulness, and/or oppression. So short of a "Christian commune" patterned after the Jerusalem church, I fail to see how any government on this earth can achieve for its people what God did for that church in the book of Acts. And this is because 1) People are inherently selfish, and 2) "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

As for statements like Rush's famous "I hope he fails", I can see myself one day saying that about a president or candidate. If there were ever a candidate who ran on a platform saying "If I'm elected, I will pass laws forbidding the teaching of the bible, I will pass laws allowing same sex marriages (despite Jesus saying "man and wife"), and I will pass laws to force women to have abortions if we deem that they already have enough children (as is done in China).", OF COURSE you will hear me saying "I hope he fails!" Am I supposed to hope that he gets what he wants just because he got elected president?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #54 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:22:15 PM »

I agree with most of that post, but why the addendum about allowing homosexual marriages? Do you have a problem with a secular government affirming the "love" of any two persons? Homosexual marriage being immoral is a church issue, not a state issue.

goldencomet · « **Reply #55 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:23:12 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on January 06, 2011, 01:15:29 PM

Oholibamah
1/1 Brown
Search deck for an Edomite. May band to Esau.

"These are the sons of Oholibamah, Esau's wife: the chiefs Jeush, Jalam, and Korah; these are the chiefs born of Oholibamah the daughter of Anah, Esau's wife." Genesis 36:18

cool card idea. id like to see an edomite theme. funny name lol

stefferweffer · « **Reply #56 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:27:09 PM »

Considering the precedent of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the laws that they received from God, and then Romans 13 stating that government's purpose is for the punishment of evildoers (rather than the promotion of it), YES, I have a problem with a government that would encourage same sex marriages. Isaiah says "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil." And what is ANY law of human government, if not a judgment on the "morality", the inherent rightness or wrongness, of a given activity?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #57 on:** January 07, 2011, 03:28:36 PM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on January 07, 2011, 03:27:09 PM

Considering the precedent of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the laws that they received from God, and then Romans 13 stating that government's purpose is for the punishment of evildoers (rather than the promotion of it), YES, I have a problem with a government that would encourage same sex marriages. Isaiah says "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil."

Hey, finally someone who has a decent argument about it. I'm cool with that. I personally don't think the government should sanction marriages at all, so the issue is somewhat moot to me.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #58 on:** January 07, 2011, 05:29:22 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on January 07, 2011, 03:15:54 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 07, 2011, 03:07:27 PM
Quote
there is no visible reason to think he is bringing direct harm to the United States.
lol wut

I also agree, what he has done in the last 2 yrs, is bringing harm. Several doctors say that if an when Healthcare begins to work, they will stop practicing their trade. (I saw a poll that said about 60% say that)
Quite the same w/ the military.

What he has done is not direct harm. We are not currently being attacked by another country/entity as a direct result of his choices. Maybe in the long run, but that's somewhat of a possibility, not a guarantee.

-C_S

JSB23 · « **Reply #59 on:** January 07, 2011, 05:46:32 PM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on January 07, 2011, 03:27:09 PM

Considering the precedent of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the laws that they received from God, and then Romans 13 stating that government's purpose is for the punishment of evildoers (rather than the promotion of it), YES, I have a problem with a government that would encourage same sex marriages. Isaiah says "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil."

Unfortunately banning same sex marriage is against the constitution (well the bill of rights actually), don't believe me?
Then let's look at the facts:

Quote

Article III
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Which according to the supreme court means that neither the federal government nor a state "can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."*

Confused on how this applies to gay marriage?
Well your evidence for opposing same-sex marriage is "the Bible says so", unfortunately the government is not allowed to make laws aiding or supporting the beliefs of one (or multiple) religions therefore it cannot ban gay marriage without another good reason, which (to my knowledge) there isn't

*http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/meaning_of_establishment.htm

SomeKittens · « **Reply #60 on:** January 07, 2011, 06:30:30 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on January 07, 2011, 03:12:49 PM

I quite argree w/ u on this, except that Healthcare was not wanted by an overwhelming Majority.

Bush wasn't wanted by even a normal majority, yet he got in. Heathcare reform is needed in the US today. [SOURCE: Sicko]

joeycauldron · « **Reply #61 on:** January 07, 2011, 07:06:17 PM »

The new republican House is already thinking about modifying the health care.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #62 on:** January 07, 2011, 07:40:14 PM »

All while whining that they don't get their own government health care soon enough.

The Schaef · « **Reply #63 on:** January 07, 2011, 08:22:36 PM »

They work for the government. That is employer-based health insurance just like any other. That is simply not a valid comparison.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #64 on:** January 07, 2011, 08:31:01 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on January 07, 2011, 06:30:30 PM

Quote from: megamanlan on January 07, 2011, 03:12:49 PM
I quite argree w/ u on this, except that Healthcare was not wanted by an overwhelming Majority.
Bush wasn't wanted by even a normal majority, yet he got in. Heathcare reform is needed in the US today. [SOURCE: Sicko]

Just don't model it after Canada, ok?

-C_S

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #65 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:31:33 PM »

Quote

which aid one religion

Good thing Muslims are also against it. Two religions, BAM!

Also, Sicko as a source rofl.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #66 on:** January 07, 2011, 09:36:05 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on January 07, 2011, 05:46:32 PM

Quote from: stefferweffer on January 07, 2011, 03:27:09 PM
Considering the precedent of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the laws that they received from God, and then Romans 13 stating that government's purpose is for the punishment of evildoers (rather than the promotion of it), YES, I have a problem with a government that would encourage same sex marriages. Isaiah says "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil."
Unfortunately banning same sex marriage is against the constitution (well the bill of rights actually), don't believe me?
Then let's look at the facts:
Quote
Article III
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Which according to the supreme court means that neither the federal government nor a state "can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."*

Confused on how this applies to gay marriage?
Well your evidence for opposing same-sex marriage is "the Bible says so", unfortunately the government is not allowed to make laws aiding or supporting the beliefs of one (or multiple) religions therefore it cannot ban gay marriage without another good reason, which (to my knowledge) there isn't

*http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/meaning_of_establishment.htm

All very interesting points, but I did not say that banning gay marriage would be constitutional. I said it would be the right thing to do considering God's purpose for government. If that means ammending the constitution to make it happen then so be it. The role of government, as defined by Romans 13, is not to obey the US Consitution. That would be men obeying other men. The purpose of governement is to promote good and punish evil. And history (and the bible) shows us that once a governement stops doing this, its days of power and splendor are limited.

As an aside, isn't "humanism" a religion? I'm quite content to leave things as they are too, but it sure seems to me that a politician that campaigns on "I will legalize same sex marriages by means of a national law" (which was the example I gave), would be promoting a religion.

JSB23 · « **Reply #67 on:** January 07, 2011, 10:37:15 PM »

1. Humanism is a philosophy, not a religion
2. How is legalizing gay marriage promoting a religion?
3. I must have missed the part where it's the government's job to enforce religious laws

SomeKittens · « **Reply #68 on:** January 07, 2011, 10:38:58 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 07, 2011, 09:31:33 PM

Also, Sicko as a source rofl.

Whoops, I must have missed the part where you quoted a reliable source disproving mine.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #69 on:** January 07, 2011, 10:43:59 PM »

LOL at this being a "New Card Ideas" thread. You guys will throw political banter wherever you can sneak it in. Excuse me while I laugh at y'all.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #70 on:** January 07, 2011, 10:53:22 PM »

The public overwhelmingly supports public health care option.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/policy/21poll.html

Also, I am in belief that if gay marriage isn't allowed the constitution needs to be amended. Get rid of the first amendment, the bill of rights doesn't really do anything these days anyway (except provide a nice tourist destination). The establishment clause implies there be a separation of the church and state, and conforming to biblical standards doesn't meet that. Keep in mind that the important founding fathers weren't Christian.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #71 on:** January 07, 2011, 11:07:38 PM »

FWIW, although I believe gay marriage is wrong, Sauce has a point that it is (technically) unconstitutional, and the Government should technically allow it.

Then again, the Government should technically allow psychopaths.

The Schaef · « **Reply #72 on:** January 07, 2011, 11:08:42 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on January 07, 2011, 10:38:58 PM

Whoops, I must have missed the part where you quoted a reliable source disproving mine.

You cited Michael Moore, you're already behind the eight ball. Also, I'm not sure exactly what fact you "sourced" in saying so. To be honest, the inclusion seemed kind of random.

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on January 07, 2011, 10:53:22 PM

Keep in mind that the important founding fathers weren't Christian.

This is an odd statement since the idea of "importance" is pretty subjective, and I'm certain the guys who were sitting there founding a new nation considered it important that they were there. Also, the actual number is considerably small, but a lot of people like to lean on Franklin, diminish Jefferson's faith, and neglect to mention that Paine's deist writings came later in his life, after the Constitutional Conventions, and for which he was eventually ostracized by many of his friends.

JSB23 · « **Reply #73 on:** January 07, 2011, 11:23:05 PM »

Quote

Jefferson's "Life and Morals" argues no theology. It is simply his edited version of the Gospels. He literally cut out the virgin birth, miracle stories, claims to Jesus' divinity and the resurrection.

Doesn't look like Jefferson had much faith to begin with

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #74 on:** January 07, 2011, 11:25:53 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on January 07, 2011, 10:37:15 PM

3. I must have missed the part where it's the government's job to enforce religious laws

Religious laws=morality. There is no morality without religion. Laws are based around morality (hence why I can't kill you. Which I should totally be able to do, the government is restricting my rights. I can do what I want), therefore the government essentially enforces religious law.

News:

Author Topic: Re: Obama (Read 14573 times)

The Schaef

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk

The Schaef

Warrior_Monk