Your Vote, Your Reasons

[DWest30]

You asked me a political question.


My fear is that it is a downward slope we are heading down- that it will go from:
Step one: all religions have equal rights ( everyone having a choice to worship as they will),

- that is where we are now in America & as God Himself gave all men free will, I cannot begrudge anyone that, even as I hope and pray that everyone chooses Jesus.

The concern I have is that America seems to be trying to transition into step two- the beginning of a downward spiral.

to Step two:all religions being categorized as the same.

- I feel Senator Obama already began this with the speech of his that was posted. His saying that we are no longer a Christian nation, but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation.
I feel like we are being conditioned now for things to be implemented later.
( Finish reading my post)

to Step three: A one world faith as an ideal

I think if you try to combine religions committed Muslims and Jews are going to have a problem with it along with committed Christians.
Those committed understand that like oil and water, religions don't mix.

Therefore, faith as an ideal is not going to work thus ushering in...

to Step four: a one world faith as a requirement.

It could take years for all these steps to happen- which is even more dangerous I think because people will find themselves in the midst of step four without realizing how it happened to them.

My first response to this was "you gotta be kidding me". The likelihood of this even being contemplated is lower than being struck by lightning while holding a winning lottery ticket. But thats unfair and I'll explain.

I beleive your steps one and two are identical and are a distinction without a difference. Please recall that this country was founded on the premise that a national religion is fundamentally inequal and that was burned into the Cons ution in the form of the Establishment Clause. To the framers, this wasnt a christian nation any more than it was a hindu nation. It was one nation with the freedom to worship how you see fit. Or, in the alternate, to not worship at all.

Steps 3 and 4 appear to me to be entirely fear-based and would have no traction to you if your own faith wasn't so deep. If your faith is everything to you than any threat to that faith is the most pressing issue in your life. Your concerns about Step one and two have led you to the fear of steps 3 and 4. As a non-christian, I can tell you that I would be manning the barricades right beside you if the things you describe were to come to pass. My relationship with God is my business, not the government's.

[BacktoBasics]

If God is God, then he is a first cause. If he is a first cause, then there is nothing that comes before him. If nothing comes before him, then time cannot come before him. If God comes before time, then he is not necessarily subject to it.

We define causality in terms of causes coming before effects. To say that a cause comes before an effect is to make a statement in time. If God is not subject to time, then a statement in time does not necessarily apply to him.

If God is a first cause, then all other things are effects of that cause. But if statements in time do not apply to time, then we cannot conclude that effects come after his causation in time. Ergo, temporal causality does not apply to God.

If temporal causality does not apply to God, then the effects of his causation can be in the past, present, or future.

One coming before the other does not equate to the later not being relative.

[angel_luv]

Manny,

I just wrote a reply to you and lost the whole thing.

Let me try again. One second, please.

[DarkReign]

Show of hands: who thought a thread about who to vote for would end up being a philosophical discussion on that nature of God?

Ha...welcome to Spurstalk. You could start a thread about the latest episode of Sponge Bob Squarepants and it would have a 60% chance to end in a conversation just like this one.

[SpursFanFirst]

Damn, MaryAnnKilledGinger with a hard hitting first post.

I'm not sure what is more noteworthy -- that there is a literate Miami Heat fan or this guy may know a way to get rid of Bonner . . .

Welcome

Welcome, MaryAnnKilledGinger
Nice first post.

[BacktoBasics]

Ha...welcome to Spurstalk. You could start a thread about the latest episode of Sponge Bob Squarepants and it would have a 60% chance to end in a conversation just like this one.

Thats why there are so many members here. BTW I love that cartoon.

[Extra Stout]

Again no respectable historian can argue definitively the resurrection ever took place as the only evidence to support it exists in the NT Gospels, which we know to be fabricated in many instances. If we can't even argue that Jesus existed historically, it logically follows that we can't say anything definitively about his supposed resurrection. Furthermore the conflicting stories WITHIN the Gospels about the ascension of Christ make it even more baffling that someone with a functioning brain would believe them. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove to ME that Jesus really lived, died, and was resurrected. You need to make a convincing argument to me that all of this really happened before I ever consider the Christian faith.

The bottomline is that you CAN'T. You can't explain what you believe rationally, in order to rationalize Christianity one must make so many ad hoc assumptions that it puts into question your mental health. So quit hiding behind "historical" facts which simply do not exist about your religion. It is just as likely, if not more, that everything you believe about Jesus was completely fabricated by the NT Gospel writers and that the followers of Jesus, if they existed, died out early on and took his real faith with them.

One of the earliest Christian writings is Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, composed in the mid-to-late 50's. Chapter 15 reads as follows:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

The question I ask is, how can scholars claim that only the Gospels mention the resurrection and that the early epistles do not? Is 1 Corinthians missing from their Bibles? Is it some esoteric, hidden work? How can anybody with a shred of scholarly integrity make that claim when the countervailing evidence is so obvious?

[DWest30]

Ha...welcome to Spurstalk. You could start a thread about the latest episode of Sponge Bob Squarepants and it would have a 60% chance to end in a conversation just like this one.

I suddenly feel like being a vandal.

Chris Paul is the Second Coming!

[Extra Stout]

One coming before the other does not equate to the later not being relative.

If God existed before time, it cannot follow that God must exist in time.

[JoeChalupa]

that is not the point. She is saying that only lead by a true christian president will this country prosper. Led by any other leader from other religions, and this country will go to chaos. Not only chaos, but end of the world.

do you agree with her?

Scare tactics at it's finest. Mcain campaign should definitely hire her right away.

No, I don't agree with that thinking at all.

[TheMadHatter]

One of the earliest Christian writings is Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, composed in the mid-to-late 50's. Chapter 15 reads as follows:


The question I ask is, how can scholars claim that only the Gospels mention the resurrection and that the early epistles do not? Is 1 Corinthians missing from their Bibles? Is it some esoteric, hidden work? How can anybody with a shred of scholarly integrity make that claim when the countervailing evidence is so obvious?

Bull . You are a clever one, and if I had not done my research I would have conceded this point to you.

Actually, for quite some time, biblical scholars of all stripes have divided even the Pauline epistles into the "authentic" and the "inauthentic", the litmus test being the "unique and powerful voice" said to speak through the genuine article. Perhaps as few as four, or as many as seven, of the whole collection are deemed "authentic".

Scholars around the world are in agreement that indeed many of the epistles of Paul that Christians cite today have been doctored to support the NT Jesus.

I repeat, the burden of proof is on you....not me.

[Findog]

Chris Paul is the Second Coming!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...?series=dalnor

[angel_luv]

Manny,

First of all, you do realize I am half black, right?

If TD Jakes, or any candidate with his strong Christian convictions, were to run for president, while sticking to those convictions, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

If said candidate were green, I would vote for him.

I have a problem with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain because neither of them have stood up and consistently said this election, " I am a Christian and this is how my Christianity is going to effect the way I run the country."

My beliefs may not always be popular or even respected but I am always consistent and emphatic in my statements about my beliefs.
As such I have no qualms in seeking the same in the men asking me to elect them president.

You and others have compared the election process to a job interview.
Well I want to elect a sold out Christian as my president and I am within my rights to vote or not vote along those standards.
For someone to attempt to regulate why or how I vote would undermine the whole process.

Unfortunately for me, neither Senator has impressed me. I wish there was a third party candidate with a viable chance of being elected that I could consider voting for.

But since there is not, I have to go with the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

McCain may not stand up for my faith the way I wish he would. But of the two candidates, I think he is least likely to undermine my faith.
How will Senator Obama undermine my faith? I tried to explain it above.
Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.
The fact that people do compare Senator Obama to being a messiah and more so, that I have never heard of him saying, " There is no way I am the Messiah because Jesus is"- again giving credit where credit is due- concerns me as well.
If Senator Obama had said such a thing, my guess is it would have been all over the news.
Since I watch the news and have not heard it, I am assuming no such comment has been made.
If I am wrong, correct me.

Am submitting this before I lose it again.

[CuckingFunt]

God cheats at solitaire.

Second best newbie poster ever.

[Shastafarian]

Manny,

First of all, you do realize I am half black, right?

If TD Jakes, or any candidate with his strong Christian convictions, were to run for president, while sticking to those convictions, I would vote for him in a heartbeat.

If said candidate were green, I would vote for him.

I have a problem with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain because neither of them have stood up and consistently said this election, " I am a Christian and this is how my Christianity is going to effect the way I run the country."

My beliefs may not always be popular or even respected but I am always consistent and emphatic in my statements about my beliefs.
As such I have no qualms in seeking the same in the men asking me to elect them president.

You and others have compared the election process to a job interview.
Well I want to elect a sold out Christian as my president and I am within my rights to vote or not vote along those standards.
For someone to attempt to regulate why or how I vote would undermine the whole process.

Unfortunately for me, neither Senator has impressed me. I wish there was a third party candidate with a viable chance of being elected that I could consider voting for.

But since there is not, I have to go with the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

McCain may not stand up for my faith the way I wish he would. But of the two candidates, I think he is least likely to undermine my faith.
How will Senator Obama undermine my faith? I tried to explain it above.
Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.
The fact that people do compare Senator Obama to being a messiah and more so, that I have never heard of him saying, " There is no way I am the Messiah because Jesus is"- again giving credit where credit is due- concerns me as well.
If Senator Obama had said such a thing, my guess is it would have been all over the news.
Since I watch the news and have not heard it, I am assuming no such comment has been made.
If I am wrong, correct me.

Am submitting this before I lose it again.

Those are the juicy parts.

[CuckingFunt]

You asked me a political question.


My fear is that it is a downward slope we are heading down- that it will go from:
Step one: all religions have equal rights ( everyone having a choice to worship as they will),

- that is where we are now in America & as God Himself gave all men free will, I cannot begrudge anyone that, even as I hope and pray that everyone chooses Jesus.

The concern I have is that America seems to be trying to transition into step two- the beginning of a downward spiral.

to Step two:all religions being categorized as the same.

- I feel Senator Obama already began this with the speech of his that was posted. His saying that we are no longer a Christian nation, but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation.
I feel like we are being conditioned now for things to be implemented later.
( Finish reading my post)

to Step three: A one world faith as an ideal

I think if you try to combine religions committed Muslims and Jews are going to have a problem with it along with committed Christians.
Those committed understand that like oil and water, religions don't mix.

Therefore, faith as an ideal is not going to work thus ushering in...

to Step four: a one world faith as a requirement.

It could take years for all these steps to happen- which is even more dangerous I think because people will find themselves in the midst of step four without realizing how it happened to them.

... seriously?

I don't even know how to argue this because I can't, on any level, relate to the thought process that inspired it.

[Extra Stout]

Bull . You are a clever one, and if I had not done my research I would have conceded this point to you.



Scholars around the world are in agreement that indeed many of the epistles of Paul that Christians cite today have been doctored to support the NT Jesus.

I repeat, the burden of proof is on you....not me.

The ones that are most often questioned by some liberal scholars are Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and us, not 1 Corinthians, which is cited by the earliest patristic sources.

Your remaining argument appears to be that 1 Corinthians cannot truly mention the resurrection because it was interpolated, and it had to have been interpolated because it mentions the resurrection.

[nkdlunch]

Senator Obama saying " We are no longer a Christian nation but a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish nation" concerns me.

This is a fact and noone with an IQ > 50 should deny it. BTW this nation was founded on freedom of religion. Maybe the USA is not for you?

[angel_luv]

In fairness to you, Manny.

I did not give a reason for my distrust of Obama yesterday as I, obviously, was not able to quantify my feelings in words.

So in that sense I deserve the post from you I just responded to.

However, now that I am able to express my actual concern, I hope you will consider it based on its own merit ( whatever you give it) and take the sum of all I have said into your consideration.

[Extra Stout]

Second best newbie poster ever.

I did enjoy that quip.

[rascal]

But because God is not bound by time, God already knows (and in fact has always known) whether or not we will "choose" his plan, so how can it really be considered a free choice?

Because we chose it with free will. Just because the future is known by God doesn't mean it was not chosen by our free will.

[RandomGuy]

Manny,

First of all, you do realize I am half black, right?

Would that be your left half or your right half?

Or maybe it is a bottom/top half kinda thing...

[DWest30]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playof...?series=dalnor

Youre really going to hate me for this, but....

Scene outside New Orleans Arena after sending the Mavs home. In the full-size version, you can see the Soul Rebels Brass Band in the forground leading the parade.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2154/...e663056000.jpg

[angel_luv]

This is a fact. BTW this nation was founded on freedom of religion. Maybe the USA is not for you?

As a Christian I am sad that the USA is not a Christian nation but saw no sign that Obama shared any of that concern.

It is my belief that one's faith in Jesus ought to determine one's politics not that politics should define faith.

Senator Obama is not the first (and unfortunately, likely won't be the last) to shy away when a microphone is put underneath his face.

[Shastafarian]

As a Christian I am sad that the USA is not a Christian nation but saw no sign that Obama shared any of that concern.

It is my belief that one's faith in Jesus ought to determine one's politics not that politics should define faith.

Senator Obama is not the first (and unfortunately, likely won't be the last) to shy away when a microphone is put underneath his face.

That's why you scare people.