Is "Christian-Democrat" an oxymoron? ~ Video

[thrombomodulin]

Dwight,

Which side was God on - or which side was on God's side?

Which of the two political groups are more or less closely aligned with "God's side" on policy matters (e.g. slavery) is not the point - but nonetheless I will address that issue later. I believe the relevant point in applying Romans 13 to this situation is whether one or both sides had been authorized by God to rule. I'm pretty sure that you would agree that God authorizes wicked men and political systems to come to power and rule more often than not. Consider, for example, the behavior of Nero and other Romans emperors in Paul's time, or among modern States that there are those that operate by bribery, impose socialism, communism, or Sharia law. If God has authorized such States to come to power, then He is most definitely "on their side" in the sense of having them be established to be the ruling power (not in the sense that He agrees with particular political policies of that power). If He has authorized them to rule, regardless of the righteousness of their policies, then it logically follows that He has also authorizes them to exert the violence necessary to achieve or maintain that power. I would like to know this - Is it your opinion that the Confederacy was a power authorized by God to rule in the South, for a span of several years, or did God not authorize this power? If you affirm the power was authorized then I believe it necessarily follows, from the principles of your view, that John Wilkes Booth must be exonerated. Attributing labels of a "terrorist", a "coward", or "beliefs did not coincide with scripture" to Booth are not relevant in applying Romans 13 to this situation, nor is the fact that Lincoln was unarmed and temporarily had deficient personal security. On the other hand, if you deny that it was a power authorized by God, then I have to ask how that should be reconciled with the statement you made in another thread which is quoted below. Do you consider the Confederacy to have had no authority at all? How could the existence of the Confederacy as a ruling power, but with no authority, be reconciled with Romans 13:1?

If God wanted to show us that there is a difference between "valid" authority and "invalid" authority, then He could have used those terms in the Bible, but He does not

Coming back the issue of slavery, I would like to bring up this statement from the "Upcoming Election" thread.

My first thought is we should [obey any ruler] until they tell us to do something that violates God's word. But that would be the same for any ruler.

Does it violate God's word for a person to be involuntarily enslaved by the decree of a ruler? For me, nothing comes immediately to mind from the scripture that could be used to affirm that it is sin to be subjected to slavery. Is making full or partial slaves of some men within the limits of a rulers God given jurisdiction? After all, a ruler is not causing men to sin by doing this, and men declared by the ruling power to be slaves are instructed to submit to that ruler per the interpretation I've quoted above (and the premise it is not a sin to be enslaved). I'm wondering how you would refute the assertion that the government of the South was acting within its God given limits of authority by making black men slaves. If it was acting within the jurisdiction that God gave to the State, then its actions of making blacks (or any other arbitrary group) subject to slavery are not worthy of blame on a biblical basis.

Pete

[morbo3000]

That's what liberals do. If they can't refute an arguement, they call names. You give me your research and case studies to refute Dnesh.

Go back and read what I've said. I've not made any claims. And I haven't called any names. I have not stated any opinions. So I don't have anything to defend. I don't need to support anything I've said.

You, however, have made tons of claims, but refuse to do the work to back those claims up. One source is not enough.

You've already demonstrated you don't have any factual evidence to back up what you are saying. Simply anecdotes. So I will drop it. Thanks for demonstrating your methodology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dwight92070]

Go back and read what I've said. I've not made any claims. ("Hillary's America" is paranoid propaganda; if I call that liberal media bias, then I am engaging in conspiratorial propaganda) And I haven't called any names. (Dnesh Dsouza is a loon) I have not stated any opinions.(That's lazy)(Claiming a moral high ground for conservatives as not being an angry sort is so completely, objectively false) (Simply typing it doesn't make it true) So I don't have anything to defend. (Yes you do) I don't need to support anything I've said. (Because you refuse to do the work)
You've already demonstrated you don't have any factual evidence to back up what you are saying(Simply typing this opinion doesn't make it true) (I stated it quite clearly - I really don't have the time to do a lot of research and case studies, etc. So I offered someone who has - Dnesh Dsouza and his well-researched movie "Hillary's America". Also, as I already stated, if you won't even accept Dnesh's findings, then you certainly would not accept mine, even if I had the time to research. So I could spend hours and days trying to satisfy your request for research and case studies and you would still reject it, so it would be a waste of time, wouldn't it?) Simply anecdotes. (You have offered nothing more than that yourself) So I will drop it. Thanks for demonstrating your methodology. (Thank you for demonstrating yours, i.e. disagreeing with me, challenging me to do research, which you have demonstrated that you yourself are not willing to do to prove my claim false, or Dnesh's claims to be false, then concluding with a satirical "Thanks for demonstrating your methodology." , clearly implying that I have openly shown my laziness and unwillingness to do research to prove my own claims)

So you drop it, walking away with a self-righteous, smug attitude thinking, "I'm glad I'm not like Dwight"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

The anger of man does not produce the righteousness that God requires. (James 1:20 ESV)

[morbo3000]

Here is an example of a researched study on the attitudes of conservatives and liberals. It is even-handed and not judgmental of either.

http://www.alternet.org/fascinating-dif ... ersonality


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paidion]

Thanks, Morbo. That article is very descriptive of both camps.

In my early years, I definitely would have aligned myself with conservatives. Indeed, in Canadian elections, I still vote for Conservative candidates. However, my mind and values have gradually shifted to more liberal thinking, as I have opened up my mind to consider a broader range of needs in humanity.

I have always been concerned about needy people, and have contributed to their assistance, but I now see that governments can help them far more than the relatively few individuals who choose to do so.

[dwight92070]

The "I am a victim" mentality that socialists and the Democrats foster and nurture is, by itself, destructive to all minorities, and yes, the entire nation. No wonder that so many of them are angry. Anger is the SOP of Democrats, which is why they are almost always the name-callers: Sexist, Homophobe, Islamaphobe, Xenaphobe, Racist, Deplorables, Extremists, Radical, White Supremacists, Bigots, Hate groups, religious finatics, etc. How often do Republicans call people these names? Seldom, not never, but very little compared to the Democrats.

So, yes, "Christian-Democrat" is an oxymoron.

[Paidion]

The "I am a victim" mentality that socialists and the Democrats foster and nurture is, by itself, destructive to all minorities, and yes, the entire nation.

You are generalizing, Dwight, in the same way that racists generalize—e.g. "Aboriginals are alcoholics", "Blacks are Lazy", "the fighting Irish", "The tightwad Scotch," etc. etc. etc.

There are many poor people who do not have the same opportunities as the middle class. These people don't have a "victim mentality"; they have a "What-can-I-do-to-survive mentality"; they have a "Where-can-I-find-a-job mentality"; they have a "How-can-I-provide-for-my-family mentality.

I believe in equal opportunity for all. In what do you believe?

Is the following what you believe?———"You can't find a job? If you really tried, and weren't so lazy, you could find one like everyone else! If I am rich, I deserve it—that's just the way it is. If you're poor—Tough luck! Don't expect the government or me to look after you!"

Christian-Democrat is NOT an oxymoron.

[morbo3000]

@dwight, re: anger of liberals

Here is some perspective. Follow these google searches for "angry liberals" and "angry conservatives."

https://www.google.com/#q=angry%20conservative

https://www.google.com/#q=angry+liberal

Both sides say the other is angry and irrational. It is human nature to demonize the person you disagree with. We need to reject demonizing other people and rise up to the better angels of our nature.

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature

- Lincoln

[thrombomodulin]

I believe in equal opportunity for all. In what do you believe?
Is the following what you believe?———"You can't find a job? If you really tried, and weren't so lazy, you could find one like everyone else! If I am rich, I deserve it—that's just the way it is. If you're poor—Tough luck! Don't expect the government or me to look after you!"

I'm not Dwight, but I would like to state that I'm not sure why I ought believe in the things you are suggesting: I do not believe in equal opportunity at all, and I don't believe the government should look after people. I do believe in private property rights for all, which in my opinion is a more defensible and well defined set of rights. You may or may not be implying that there is a right to have a job. Is it your view that a person has a right to demand a job from another human being?