What is liberal? What is conservative?

Can you cite a "conservative" politician who doesn't change the way things are done in order to get votes? Any politician in this age?
Let's face it. These guys and gals are not altruistic. If they were they wouldn't wind up working for lobbyists and corporate boards when they leave Congress, the White House or wherever. They, whether liberal or conservative spend their time kissing asses and making promises in order to get elected or reelected.
I guess LBJ, a classic liberal, no?, was just pandering when he pushed for the Civil Rights act, which did change the way things are done for sure.
I guess by your definition, when liberals and conservatives support the same piece of legislation the left is doing it selfishly and the right is doing it because it is the right thing to do, and their decision is non-pragmatic.
I think you're right about the church. If it got back to Christ we'd certainly see the end of the religious right as war cheerleaders and devotees of prosperity theology. The church's cynical dance with the party of the hyper-wealthy and warmongers would become undefendable if Christ was back at the head of the church.
A Christ-centered church could not align with either political wing, as one is for killing babies and the other for blowing 3rd world countries to bits and torturing people. Neither group sounds like it would get the Jesus seal of approval.

The comment was mine, and you'll never hang a liberal noose around my neck. I have contributed heavily to the Republican conservativ cause for some 15 years. I've put my precious time into steering the conservative powers to do work for the little man...to offer a bootstrap that will help him be able to pull his own weight...
You tried to climb into my mind and analyze my outlook from one thought?
Incidently, you butchered the intent of the actual message.
If you want to push the far-right abortion and gay-bashing, you are wholeheartedly welcome to do so. But don't be suprised when the voters reject your stance in overwhelming numbers in the polls. You cannot tell them WHAT they will believe. All you can do is get a pulse of the truly important issues FROM them, and prepare your stance by using THAT information. You may want to use an elected office as a throne from which you decree righteous activities from those you do not approve of, but the voters do not want you to use it as such and will reject the thought of it on it's face.
You, and the many others who try here locally CAN NEVER LEGISLATE MORALITY, and somehow stay out of people's personal lives (another one of the Conservative values)

Dean, I'm a little nervous saying this without having read much of your ideas other than your endorsement of Samuel Smith's Imperial Stout but. . .I'm starting to like your point of view. . .

And yeah, Tom. . .word.

Can I cite a conservative politician who doesn't change the way things are done in order to get votes? How about Ford? He pardoned Nixon in order to get the country off the Watergate issue, even though he knew it meant political suicide. That would be the most recent, obvious example.

I already named a liberal (Carter). I also know that everyone is inconsistent at least at times. I do tend to think that Liberals do so more often. I would not cite the civil rights act as an example -- I tend to think of it as something they viewed as a means to an end of working for their historical constituency. It may have been a good thing, but it also ushered in reverse discrimination. And LBJ was the driving force behind the escalation of force in Viet Nam (Eisenhower may have gotten us in, Kennedy stayed, but LBJ was the one that put tens of thousands of troops on the ground.) Seems liberals are just as likely to be war mongers as conservatives.

I do not think the church is in a cynical dance with Republicans -- or Democrats. I believe that some of the church have pushed to have certain issues as important, and the issues have been such that the Republicans have been generally more amicable to those issues (abortion being one of the major issues). Since Roe v. Wade, that issue has pushed moral conservatives to the Republican party as the Democrats have consistently come down on the side of "choice". If you are a single issue voter on the abortion issue, you have no choice for the most part; you vote for the Republican. (I'm not saying that being a single issue voter is a good thing, I'm just making the observation.) That issue has given a base for many Republican candidates, and because it is so one sided, the "pro-life" votes have had many of the other things they support ignored. (If you know you have a person's vote because of one issue, do you care what they think on any other issue? Not if you are a pure pragmatist.)

I don't know as conservatives are for blowing 3rd world countries to bits and torturing people. Any more than I believe liberals are for killing babies. Conservatives are not going to concern themselves about 3rd world countries if the people in those countries aren't attacking them. And while I differ on what a human being is, I certainly believe that a liberal, "pro-choice" individual would switch to being against abortion if it were conclusively proven that a fetus was in fact a separate human being. (Sure, there may be a few that would say they don't care if abortion kills an innocent baby, I think they are in the vanishingly small minority.)

While I'm certain there are individuals like Patton who thought war glorious, and individuals like

Brian,
In many ways the label 'conservative' and 'liberal' are no longer meaningful in our public discourse. A conservative seeks to maintain the status quo, a liberal seek to change the status quo. The former seeks 'to do no harm', the later seeks to 'improve things'. While this model is not perfect it is a fundamental difference between the two philosophies.

Today Roe v. Wade is the status quo and the 'conservatives' seek to change this, the 'liberals' seek to maintain this. A strange predicament.

The liberals under Johnson got many of their legislative wishes to come true. Now they by and large seek to hold on to this, some of which has been eroded, by ... conservatives.

As you can see the labels at this point really now are a substitute for something else. Most liberals are in the Democrat party. Most conservatives vote Republican.

When you look at the platforms the modern day liberal types support, 'socialistic' comes to mind. When you look at the conservatives it is a more varied landscape. 'Moralist', and 'Libertarian' are two of the outlooks that come to mind when looking at the conservatives. Note within the Republican party not all meet the conservative outlook. 'Big Business' Republicans are not necessarily conservatives. The are just no socialists either.

Dean,

You obviously did not get the intent of my post. I do not believe that elective office is the answer to "saving" the country. That is not what I stated, nor what I intended. What I said is that the "pulse of the people" is sometimes what is wrong, and elective office cannot change that. What I said is the problem is with the church -- that the church is not staying true to what it believes.

It is absolutely true that morality cannot be legislated, in the sense of changing what the people believe is right or wrong. That is why this country is having so many problems. I fully believe Adams statement that the constitution is designed for a religious and moral people and is whole inadequate to the government of any other. Tytler stated it well:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

Legislated morality cannot be achieved unless the majority of the populace agrees upon the morality. All legislation is legislated morality though. We pass laws that say it is not legal to kill, steal, enslave people, and such. Even traffic laws are laws that pass a moral judgment upon those that travel the roads. The laws state that order and the limiting of the threat of killing/maiming of others is good, chaos and death are bad. So we put in place laws to order our driving regardless of how someone feels. We think it "right" that one person should not own others, and so we outlaw slavery (and monopolies that create "virtual" slaves). We value creativity (and morals and values are inseparably linked) and so create "intellectual property" (copyrights, patents, trade secrets and the like).

The laws continually legislate morality. But what morality do they support? With no basis in objective truth, the law is nothing more than totalitarian dictatorship of the majority over the minority. Even if you point to constitutional "rights" if the constitution is not based on absolute truth, then a super-majority can change/revoke constitutional rights.

My point was that it takes a moral people -- something the government can only reflect, not institute -- to have true morals. The church is what is wrong with our society. Not so much because the church is not political, but because the church is corrupt in many places. My post is not against the government, or the secular institutions or people of this country. My post aims squarely against those that claim Christ, yet do not what he commands, and for fear of man teach less than what Jesus has taught.

I am not "gay-bashing" any more than I am "adulterous heterosexual" bashing (and in both cases, my "bashing" is limited to the church). If someone practices any sin continually, without repentance and has no intention of leaving their sin behind (when they are confronted with what the Bible says) then they do not belong in the church. The church is the one institution that should be saying what is truly right and wrong. It has an objective basis for evaluation. Yet the church, rather than standing for what is right, has opted for what is "relevant" rather than righteous. It has opted for popular rather than pure. My ire is more strongly against the church than any other organization -- but my ire is from within that body. My ire is also against those that are part of the church by virtue of belief, yet unwilling to work toward the correction of the church. I castigate myself as much as anyone else.

Brian, if I might. . .I don't like abortion. But to say that pro-life is a conservative stance befuddles me. Its conservative in a "Conservatives are the moral majority" sense but not conservative in the political process sense. I've always thought "conservative" meant the gov't was conservative with it's involvement in your life. Liberal, I've always understood, was that the gov't was liberally applied/involved in the average person's life. It then seems that for the gov't to step in and decide what you can and can't do (as with the issue of abortion) would make it a liberal issue, not a conservative issue. "Conservatives" seem to call themselves such as though it were coming from a moral perspective rather than from a political or legislative perspective. So it would seem that the "Conservatives" have created for themselves an alternate (or "additional" if I'm being nice about it) moralistic identity for the purpose of garnering votes. (wasn't the switch/moral movement circa 1960?)

I'm sorry that insuring blacks had the same rights as you has been such a double edged sword what with the reverse discrimination being such a problem today that us white folks are suffering under the weight of Jim Crow laws that have created a society in which we could be tied to an air conditioner and thrown in a river for even looking at a black woman.
Everyday I cringe as I drink from the spearate water fountains, and only wish my skin color wasn't an impediment to me getting a good job so I could afford to pay the poll tax and vote for someone who will right these four decades of injustice that have kept my pale people down.
As for conservatives only messing around with 3rd world countries that mess with them---Grenada? Iraq? Afghanistan? (let's face it-if the official story of 9/11 is true nearly all the hijackers were Saudi, and irregardless the Taliban govt did not attack the United States anymore than Saudi Arabia did) Panama? Nicaragua? El Salvador? I know we were supposed to fear Sandinistas invading us from the south, but come on...
As far as baby killing goes-my wife is pregnant right now, and if that's not a baby I feel kicking and flipping around in her stomach then what is it? It looked like a human on the sonogram too. I think anyone doubting the humanity of a fetus is being completely intellectually dishonest. I know from your post that you don't doubt this. I just wanted you to know that I'm not the liberal you might think me.
Nixon's pardon-you don't think there could have been non-electoral pragmatic reasons behind it? There is a pragmatism that extends outside of elections too.

Kevin-
Right on! It's the same with gay marriage, flag burning, drugs, etc... etc..
Who is really meddling or messing with individual freedom? The morality party of course!
Ron Paul is the only true conservative running for the GOP nomination.
Oh, and the only major candidate with the balls to speak out against the rendition and torture is McCain since he knows what it was like to be treated that way. show me any prominent conservatives speaking out against the treatment being dished out either in CIA secret dungeons or at Gitmo?

"four decades of injustice" LOL!

"show me any prominent conservatives speaking out against the treatment being dished out either in CIA secret dungeons or at Gitmo?"

None but you and I, Tom. None but you and I.

Jacob,

I suppose my view of conservative and liberal are based slightly different. I view a conservative as someone that views right and wrong as absolutes that do not change. He sees government as instituted to encourage what is good and discourage what is bad. Prohibitive laws are later, prescriptive laws the former. I view a liberal as someone that sees right and wrong "in the moment" and relative rather than absolute. A liberal has no true anchor in what is right and wrong -- there is no absolute on which to base law, so law is more "what is good for the most people at the time". Law is still to discourage what is "bad" and encourage what is "good" but good and bad are no longer well defined terms. A liberal has no appeal to absolutes, so there is no conservation of values -- there is no conservation because there were only temporary values to start.

A perfect example of this is a conservative would hate both racial discrimination and affirmative action (he would see both as the exact same thing). A conservative would point at affirmative action and state that two wrongs do not make a right. A liberal would see the former as bad (possibly, if he can be convinced it is a waste of human resources or some other value which he holds at that time) and would possibly embrace affirmative action as being necessary to correct what was an ongoing problem. He sees the end as justification for the means a lot easier than a conservative.

Frankly, I think this is exactly why Nixon was forced out of office, and Clinton was not. Both of them were scumbags. Both of them broke laws. Both deserved to be thrown out of office. Women's groups who fought hard to get sexual discrimination laws passed turned a blind eye to what was obviously sexual discrimination (a superior having a sexual relationship with an "employee") because they valued what Clinton did overall. If it had been a conservative, he would not be in office. Conservatives do not stand around while their representatives do what is wrong and then support them. We throw them out.

Kevin,
I will take a stab at your "pro-life is not conservative because it interferes in the private life of a woman"

If one fews the unborn as not human, then it is interference. If one views the unborn as human, then it is murder. Letting murder happen is not a conservative stance.

This is a somewhat simplified distillation of the argument. But if you go back and read Jack's and Marshmallow's ongoing war in this (and my occasional 2 cents) that is what it boiled down to.

Brian,
Correct me if I am wrong, but your view of conservative falls into the 'Moralist' branch I sighted above. Do you agree?

Granted Libertarians can be as beholden to principal as the next conservative, I just see you definition not very Libertarian in the conservative sense. Writing laws to encourage or discourage behavior runs against the Libertarian model.

As for why Nixon got nailed and Clinton did not, I am not inclined to disagree. Look at that Jefferson character from LA. If he were a Republican he'd be long gone. 100K in the freezer, and his defense is one step away from the "!@#$ set me up." (Forgive the crudity.) The whole morality of the moment thing hits the nail on the head when it comes to the left. Bravo sir.

My view of "moral conservative" and "libertarian" are diametrically opposed. A libertarian is at the start "liberal" (it comes from the same root word for heaven's sake!) While a libertarian might be fiscally "conservative" I do not support the idea they are conservatives. I'm not sure I support that as a possible premise, if there are no principles upon which a person is conservative, what exactly are they conserving? If someone is against spending money and having the government involved in prohibiting evil/promoting good, then are they just cheap? (I am NOT going to win any friends with that statement, but I'm conservative, I do not worry about winning friends, I worry about what is right ... and being honest is one of those things.)

Jacob,

I'm not sure letting murder happen is any body's stance. If "liberals" in general have convinced themselves that abortion is not murder that's one thing. But I don't think you'd find them saying "permitting murder is acceptable in some instances" the same as no conservative would say that about Capital Punishment. Though you'd likely find many liberals against Capital Punishment and many conservatives for it.

True? I would say it's nobody's business to allow for murder.

The whole abortion issue is one I don't usually get tied up in. Somehow, for some reason, Congress created a law with absolutely no Constitutional basis (by that I mean the Constitution had no way of dealing with the issue). The problem is in the definition of "person" and the question of when "personhood" begins. Nowhere in the Constitution did/does it indicate when personhood begins. (The issue of making slaves entire people is a non-issue, as I think we probably both agree that slaves were actual persons all along? Left alone the Constitution would have included them, they had to create an amendment to ensure that they were not considered entire persons, right?) Now, by way of amendment, the beginning of personhood is implied. Puh-lease. The Constitution can't tell me any more than SPMM or Jack can tell me about when personhood begins anymore than I can tell either of them.

I always thought that a conservative was someone who was reluctant to change the prevailing social/political order because that order had been built on the experience of people over hundreds if not thousands of years.

In other words, what makes us think we're so much smarter/more just/less prejudiced than all those generations that came before us, that we can change the social order on a whim?

That is not to say there should be not change, but rather that change, especially massive change, should only be done after a long consideration of what the impact of that change will be on society.

My two cents.

I am more inclined to line up with Ted.

"Conservative" to me, although it is often imaged as "conservation" (keeping everything just so, according to a designated or reimaged list from the past) due to the same root word, seems more a matter of carefully taking stock before a decision is made. Action is taken, but all the pros and cons are weighed first, and yes, right and wrong are part of those pros and cons!

"Liberal" to me seems more likely to "freely" institute changes, which as practiced sometimes leads to (far-reaching) unintended consequences.

So if we go to that meaning of the root word for liberal, and just "be free!", sooner rather than later the obvious becomes apparent that nothing is free, and somebody ends up having to pay for it.

Which is then often justified by painting that payer as part of a class of people that "deserves" to pay (whether they committed the "offense" being "righted" at the moment or not).

So yes, in modern practice most undead socialist "ideals" often end up in the "liberal" camp. Complete with demonization of whoever the "bourgeoisie" of the moment may be.

Ahh, the endless dance between "freedom to" (for free?) and "freedom from"!

I hope everyone had a wonderful Fourth of July!

(even Dean)

Brian,

Which "church" do speak about? Christianity is certainly not uniform by any means. And specifically which "church" policies are you referring to? Are you advocating a return to meatless Fridays year round?

As far as the Liberal/Conservative definition debate goes, I've always felt that as a general rule, Liberals are for more governmental control of corporations and less control of one's personal life, while Conservatives are for less governmental control of corporations and more control of one's personal life.

Brian,
While the root word is the same, the 'liberal' movement' has strayed far from its original intent. The canard 'every virtue is now a requirement' is the antithesis of the old (100 years ago old) liberal outlook. Today as I mentioned earlier, they resemble socialists more than anything else. The ideals for them is to change man. Man can be perfected. A central tenet of socialism.

As for your libertarians are not conservatives outlook, that is not true in the east. But it is true in the west. Many libertarians in VA have a strong sense of right and wrong. Out west it is more of a "it's my life so butt out" attitude.

"The ideals for them is to change man."

Wow, what a blanket (mis-)representation. I tend to harbor some Liberal ideals (and some Conservative as well). I certainly have no interest in "changing man". Maybe helping my fellow man, providing a safety net, using the government to provide opportunity for those who need it, etc. But I don't have the hubris to claim "changing man" as in my reach.

Although "liberal" and "liberty" share common root, the liberals of today have lost those roots. They have, indeed, become socialists, not liberals.

In fact, they fear liberty. The favor gun control, because they do not trust the people to have guns. They favor "The Fairness Doctrine," because they do not trust the people to listen to the right things. They favor taking the people's money, becuase the people cannot be trusted to spend their money wisely. They favor government takover of the healthcare industry. They favor punishing successful people and companies. They favor manipulating the tax code for social engineering, because society (the people) cannot be trusted to go where the liberals think it should go.

Liberals have nothing to do with liberty anymore.

There is so much malarkey in what you are saying Brian, with all due respect, that I don't know where to begin. Thanks to Tom and Kevin for cutting through much of it. And Eric is right: What "church" are you talking about? It seems like the church you are looking for is one that interprets the Bible in a way that most conforms with your ideology.

What does the Bible say about abortion? Nada. In fact Exodus 21:22 makes a clear distinction between the death of a mother which is considered a capital crime and the death of a fetus, which is not. Several biblical passages (Leviticus 27:6, Numbers 3:15 ) only consider children above 1 month old to be persons. I'm sure you can find passages in the Bible that do not specifically refer to abortion and twist there meaning to support your point of view but if you can do that, so can others.

Homosexuality is referred to in the Bible only a few times and usually pretty vaguely. Leviticus has the most clear condemnation of homosexuality but there are many, many laws in Leviticus that Christians don't follow. The other references to homosexuality appear to refer solely to temple prostitution. Even if you believe the Bible condemns homosexuality, it is hardly as important to the authors of the Bible as it is to today's right-wing Christians.

By contrast there are more than 40 references to the poor in the New Testament. But for some reason that doesn't seem to be so much of a priority for right-wing Christians, as David Kuo discovered. And what is the real Christian position on illegal immigrants. I think a case could certainly be made that Jesus would have cared more about the poor hard-working disenfranchised illegal immigrant that he would have cared about border security. I wonder, too, how Jesus would have felt about the death penalty or torture.

So your interpretation of what the priorities of the church should be says a lot more about you than about Christianity.

Your interpretation of politics is no more accurate. Ascribing questionable motives to those who disagree with you is disingenuous at best. If you are going to start from a position that liberals just want to get elected and conservatives have only altruistic motices then it is hard to take anything you say seriously. Did the Republicans who switched their votes on the immigration bill do it because they feared for their reelection or because they had sudden epiphanies? One of the problems we have with discourse in this country is the whole idea that one side is acting out of good intentions and the other only out of evil. Thanks for adding to this ridiculous idea.

I was particularly disturbed by your smearing of Lyndon Johnson. When signed the Civil Rights bill in 1964 he said "There goes the South for a generation," meaning that southerners would leave the Democratic party and become Republicans. He was right. Nixon's Southern Strategy helped solidy this change. The power of the modern Republican party is based on this Southern power base hich was originally motivated to switch to the Republican party because of racism. Johnson knew that doing what was right would be bad for his party but he did it anyway. As far as the Civil Rights laws ushering in "reverse discrimination" I cannot do better than Tom's eloquent take-down of that reprehensible statement.

Here we go...

"The favor gun control, because they do not trust the people to have guns."

No they favor gun control because guns are dangerous pieces of equipment that need to be well regulated as has too often been shown. They do not trust everyone to be a good gun owner anymore than they trust everyone to be a good school bus driver.

I certainly do not see The Fairness Doctrine as a defining issue for Liberals. I can not say that I personally believe in it. By the same token, I certainly do not want one mega-corporation to own the airways and only allow one viewpoint to be aired. Common sense and balanced regulation of OUR airways would seem appropriate.

Liberals do not "favor taking people's money". Period.

Liberals favor universal healthcare to be sure. Frankly it needs to be done, imo.

Liberals do not favor punishing successful people. That is absurd.

And Liberals do NOT believe in social engineering. They do not manipulate the taxcode any more than conservatives.

Basically this entire post is nothing more than hyperbole.

Zimzo is off his medicine again.

Abortion:

Let's look at Lev 21:22-25
"If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

The passage is clearly speaking about the CHILD, not the mother. Why else would it specify a PREGNANT woman? If it were speaking of injury to the woman, then one must assume that no punishment would ensue if the woman were injured or killed, but not pregnant.

As for Leviticus 27:6 and Numbers 3:15, they simply reflect the high infant mortality at the time. They did not want to count those that had a high probability of dying soon.

Homosexuality:
1Cor6:9-10 "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

There doesn't seem to be anything about temple prostitution in there.

Leviticus 20 prohibits incest, adultery, bestiality, and homosexuality. There is something earlier in the chapter about Molech and prostitution, but it has nothing to do with the later passage forbidding homosexual acts, incest, bestiality, and adultery.

The Poor:

The Bible certainly does emphasize the treatment of the poor. However, I do not recall anywhere that the GOVERNMENT should be taking care of the poor. That is for the people and church to do. "Liberals" have all the sympathy in the world for the illegal immigrant, but none for the people who respect our laws and have waited years to come legally, nor have they any sympathy for those who jobs are taken by illegals, nor for those who have been put out of business because their competitors hired illegals.

If I remember correctly, Jesus had great condemnation for those who flouted the law while acting self-righteous.

I have a hard time with Dean Settle's comment that being Pro-Life and for Traditional Marriage will be the reason why we lose elections. Abortion is an issue where there is no consensus, but there is no doubt that this country supports traditional marriage; just look at how many states has codified it into law to prevent same-sex marriages. So saying it's an extreme view or will lead to electoral defeat is plain hogwash.

"Liberals" have all the sympathy in the world for the illegal immigrant, but none for the people who respect our laws and have waited years to come legally, nor have they any sympathy for those who jobs are taken by illegals"
So what you're saying is that liberals plan to lose the support of everyone who is legally entitled to vote for them? Statements such as these scream out for support.
Show me where any "liberal" has expressed opposition to legal immigration.
I think you'd be far more likely to uncover some conservative voices supporting that sentiment.

Lot of ideas here ... I suppose that is exactly what I had expected, and wanted. Some questions as well.

The 1/2 troll (even if the questions are not sincere and only to start flame wars) I'll answer his first.

The church of which I speak is the invisible church first -- the body of Christ that transcends all time and space, all denominations and is the full number of those that are in Christ Jesus from Able to the last saint standing at the end of this age. Ultimately, it is that church that matters the most. That church is the church with true power -- the bride of Christ.

Secondarily, the visible church in our age is also whom I address. Those that claim Christ and submit to his word. This is no specific denomination, but all those denominations that are not heretical (an ecumenical council must determine heresy -- the most recent ecumenical council occurred in the 5th century before the great schism).

I do not believe "conservative" has anything to do with the status quo. Licoln created great change in the status quo, but is a conservative in that the rational for the change was going back to the source of right and wrong (a Biblical world view that rejects racial slavery). Conservative should always be looking back to the source of right and wrong. While conservatives should be careful when contemplating changing from what has been "the status quo" for the reasons stated (we are no more intelligent than those who have gone before) but conservatives should always be checking the absolutes and looking to conform to those absolutes.

"Liberals do not "favor taking people's money". Period."

Then please tell me how they expect to fund the universal health care you favor and all the additional social programs they want?

By voluntary contributions?

As for Leviticus. I grow weary of people selectively choosing commandments from it. It seems they only pick the ones that marginalize minorities.
For instance: when will those seeking to restore traditional values ban the consumption of fat (7:22-25)?
When will we bring priests our mildewed garments (13:47-53)?
When will Republicans demand that any clay pot touched by a man who has had a discharge must be borken(15:12)?
Not touch menstruating women (15:19)?
No mixed-cropping of farm fields(19:19)?
My favorite though comes from Deuteronomy 22:28
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered he shall pay the girl's father 50 sheckels of silver. He must marry the girl for he has violated her..."
So when will conservatives demand the betrothal of rapists to their conquests?
I have here "objective" Biblical support for doing so.

Kevin, you seem to be in need of a little history lesson. The SOUTHERN states wanted the slaves counted as whole people, the NORTHERN states did not want them counted as people at all.

Tom -- I did not say that liberals "oppose legal immigration." However, anyone who would put illegal immigrants before those who are trying to obey our laws and come here legally has their sympathies in the wrong place.

Of course the South wanted slaves counted as whole persons; that would've given the slave holding states even more representatives per voter than the non-slave holding states since the slaves would be counted but not allowed to vote!

"I did not say that liberals "oppose legal immigration"
Actually, in so many words you did by saying they have no respect for the people who follow the rules.
Can you show me any attempt at recent legislation in the "liberal" congress that shows no sympathy to attempted legal immigrants?
I'm guessing that the conservatives would be far more open to restricting all immigration legal or otherwise.
I do want to pose one question though. First, let me say I'm no fan of illegal immigration-it has wrecked my neighborhood in Western Fairfax. My question though is, am I insane or has illegal immigrant become the new, improved, acceptable nigger for the conservatives to use to rally their base?
Is Nixon's Southern Strategy being replaced with a Southern Border strategy?
I'm all for cracking down on illegal immigration, but remember it's your conservative government allowing it to happen. It's your conservative government that supports cheap, unorganized fearful labor over a unionized workforce. It's your conservative government providing billions in subsidies to agribusiness corporations that use illegal labor. The ones you should demonize are not the ones seeking to make a pathetic living, but the ones who are encouraging the criminal use of their labor that encourages them to come in the first place. Incidentally, they're the ones most of you voted for. Until this January you all had controlled all the branches of government for 6 years, and Cngress for 6 before that as well. Why did your conservative lawmakers do nothing? And how can you blame liberals for it now?

Tom, you might try a dose of that medicine zimzo has stopped taking.

First, the dietary laws were repealed both in the Gospels and in Acts.

Second, the cleanliness laws in Lev 15 are not cleanliness of the soul matters, but of the body. They were the best that could be devised for the people. They had no antibiotic soaps, no Bactine, and no Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages.

Lastly, only the newer translations say "rape." Most (including the Latin Vulgate and German Bibles) have some version more like the King James' Translation: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

One, the "New Living Translation," even has it as "Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered...."

"Can you show me any attempt at recent legislation in the 'liberal' congress that shows no sympathy to attempted legal immigrants?"

YES, the last immigration bill!! It would have put illegal immigrants BEFORE those trying to get in legally.

Second, Tom, I think you should look into where the parties get their funding. The Democrats get a lot more from Big Business than the Republicans do.

"It's your conservative government that supports cheap, unorganized fearful labor..."

Tom, you just answered your own question about "new southern strategy": No, because the "conservatives" are split on this, as you seem to be realizing. The new split in the conservative movement might be called "corporatist" vs populist, and I suggest it presages a new, slightly different division within the "liberal" movement as well.

Regardless of how you translate it it still doesn't sound very nice.

At least with agriculture, the Dem's are getting more funding now than the GOP-but that only changed with the change of congressional control. The businesses buy whomever has clout.
However, from 1990-2006, Agribusiness gave the vast majority of its cash to Republicans.http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=A
Ditto for construction, another field using illegal labor.
Ditto for Defense.
Ditto for energy/natural resources
Ditto for finance/insurance/real estate
Ditto for health care
Not ditto for lawyers, which tilt heavily left.
Ditto for transportation
Ditto for miscellaneous business
Not ditto for labor, obviously.
Using the above link and database, you can see that the GOP has dominated cash contributions from almost every major industry from 1990-2006.
Now in the current presidential cycle, which you can look up as well it's about split with half of the industries tilting one way and half the other.
So thanks for the idea, Jack! I did look up where the money comes from. And it didn't support your statement.

Joe,
I think the split is a very good thing. The populists really do need a party of their own, as the one you've got has betrayed you, even though the current bill got shelved.
I'm very pleased when I read on your site and some of those linked to it the discontent with Bush and his policies toward immigration. I find it exciting that there is so much independent thinking going on, whether I agree with it or not.
Apparently, someone on your site already decided I was a liberal/democrat. I would lustily disagree with that characterization.If I am a liberal I must be the only one posting here who thought Bill Clinton deserved impeachment, and thinks Hillary would be an abomination as president. I am still looking for a political party that is beholden to citizens and will do what is promised in the preamble to the Constitution. Neither party today approaches that level of governance.

"YES, the last immigration bill!! It would have put illegal immigrants BEFORE those trying to get in legally."
This was the bill of your party's leader, and one of its main presidential candidates.

"YES, the last immigration bill!! It would have put illegal immigrants BEFORE those trying to get in legally."
As someone who opposes what was in that bill myself, let me play devil's advocate and ask this-by scuttling the bill aren't you all just insuring that the flood of illegals will continue unabated without any new enforcement mechanisms at all until the next president comes along, and probably develops something even more horrifying from your perspective?

Oh, and thank you for humbling me about sanitation in the Biblical period. I was wrong.
What's concerning though is that since all scripture is supposedly God breathed how can some of it become completely outmoded by the passage of time and changes in social/cultural conditions?
Could it be that the statements against homosexual acts were also a response to uncleanliness, and that in this age of "safe sex" that these concerns are allayed provided people take sanitary precautions.
But, in this age there are people in many parts of the world lacking basic sanitation so does Leviticus still stand in say sub-Saharan Africa, but not in the Western world where we have the miracle of Johnson and Johnson?

Jack, I really don't want to engage you because of your lack of ability to conduct an honest argument, but I must point out that your interpretation of Exodus 21:22 is the opposite of what it says. It says if the fetus is killed and the woman lives there should be only a fine but if the woman is killed, then it is a capital crime. Clearly, the life of the fetus is not as highly valued as the life of the woman.

I note that you have ignored the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Bible.

For the passage from Corinithians you rely on an English translation while the original Greek uses terms that refer solely to temple prostitution. Still, my point is that homosexuality is mentioned so little in the Bible and yet seems to be the overwhelming preoccupation of the Christian Right, while poverty is mentioned quite a few times and yet seems to be a very low priority for them.

The Bible does discuss the government caring for the poor. Here are just a few examples:

Proverbs 28:3 – A ruler who oppresses the poor is a beating rain that leaves no food.

Proverbs 28:15-16 – Like a roaring lion or a charging bear is a wicked ruler over a poor people. A ruler who lacks understanding is a cruel oppressor; but one who hates unjust gain will enjoy a long life.

Proverbs 29:14 – If a king judges the poor with equity, his throne will be established forever.

Psalm 72:1-13 – Give the king your justice, O God, and your righteousness to a king’s son. May he judge your people with righteousness, and your poor with justice ... May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor ... For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy.

Isaiah 1:10-17 – Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Listen to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah! What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams ... bringing offerings is futile; incense is an abomination to me ... I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity. Your new moons and your appointed festivals my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you stretch out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.

Isaiah 3:14-15 – The Lord enters into judgment with the elders and princes of his people; It is you who have devoured the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor? says the Lord God of hosts.

Daniel 4:27 – Therefore, O king, may my counsel be acceptable to you: atone for your sins with righteousness, and your iniquities with mercy to the oppressed, so that your prosperity may be prolonged.

Proverbs 22:16 – Oppressing the poor in order to enrich oneself, and giving to the rich, will lead only to loss.

Isaiah 10:1-3 – Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?

Jeremiah 8:19-22 – Hark, the cry of my poor people from far and wide in the land ... For the hurt of my poor people I am hurt, I mourn, and dismay has taken hold of me. Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then has the health of my poor people not been restored?

Amos 8:4, 7 – Hear this, you that trample on the needy, and bring to ruin the poor of the land ... The Lord has sworn by the pride of Jacob: Surely I will never forget any of their deeds.

Hve you actually read the Bible, Jack?

Brian, if the Church you speak of is "invisible" how are you privy to what it should believe? I also find it convenient that you seem to believe some of the "visible" Churches are heretical but you can't say which ones because an ecumenical council has to do that and, alas, the last one was in the 5th century. So then we are to take your word for it as to what a "real" Christian church should believe? Are Mormons heretical? Are gay and lesbian churches heretical? Are the Episcopal churches that have ordained gay priests heretical? Is the Catholic Church that harbors pedophile priests heretical? Was Ted Haggard's church heretical? Are Unitarians heretical?

I also must take issue with your simplistic and inaccurate idea that conservatives have absolute values of right and wrong and liberals do not. Do those conservatives who believed that Clinton should be impeached and Scooter Libby pardoned have absolute values of right and wrong? Do those conservatives who sanction torture and excuse Abu Ghraib have absolute values of right and wrong? Christians and conservatives certainly do not have a monopoly on morality as you claim. And many liberals have more consistent and absolute moral values than conservatives do.

Zimzo:

Look at the Exodus passage. Why even mention the woman's pregnancy? If it is the life of the WOMAN at issue, then there is no penalty save when the woman is pregnant? That interpretation simply makes no sense.

As for the poor, of all your Bible quotes, only one, Psalm 72, says anything about the government's (in this case, the King's) doing anything FOR the poor. The rest speak only of not oppressing them. The Psalmist said, "May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor ... For he delivers the needy when they call, the poor and those who have no helper."

He speaks of "deliverance." From what or whom? From the oppressor, not from poverty. No, zimzo, that is left for the people and the church, not the government.

I do read the Bible. Every day.

Jack, at what point did I make a reference to SOUTH or NORTH when it came to making slaves whole persons? You are absolutely off your rocker. Maybe you are in need of a reading lesson.

"Apparently, someone on your site already decided I was a liberal/democrat. I would lustily disagree with that characterization.If I am a liberal I must be the only one posting here who thought Bill Clinton deserved impeachment, and thinks Hillary would be an abomination as president. I am still looking for a political party that is beholden to citizens and will do what is promised in the preamble to the Constitution. Neither party today approaches that level of governance."

HazzzAH!! Nice work, bro.

"Could it be that the statements against homosexual acts were also a response to uncleanliness...?"

A fair question. The answer is, "No." The passages against homosexual sex also forbade marrying close relatives, even my marriage, and against marrying a woman and her mother, or a woman and her sister (Lev 18). These prohibitions have nothing to do with cleanliness.

"But, in this age there are people in many parts of the world lacking basic sanitation so does Leviticus still stand in say sub-Saharan Africa, but not in the Western world where we have the miracle of Johnson and Johnson?"

Yes, following the cleanliness guidelines of Leviticus would certainly be a good idea for the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa.

"[The immigration bill] was the bill of your party's leader, and one of its main presidential candidates."

It was also the bill of Ted Kennedy. It was never a bill of the Republican Party. The conservatives killed it, and McCain's campaign is going down the toilet.

Tom, in that case you and I are on the same page.

zimzo,

You seem to have a misunderstanding of the Hebrew in Exo 21:22. I can understand this if you rely on the English KJV translation, but even here, the problem is understanding the old English. The NASB does a better job of translation:

"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.
But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

The passage has two words that get translated for give birth prematurely: yalad and yatsa' (the editor here does not support hebrew characters, so I provided transliterations). The two mean close to the same thing, to go out or bring forth. The passage says that if the child is born early, then there is a fine, but if there is any further injury, then the very next statement is life for life. If the child is killed, there is no fine set by the husband -- it is life for life. The KJV confuses the issue greatly with lack of knowledge of 17th century English. A man who causes a woman to have a premature birth has to pay a fine -- if there is injury (the child or the mother) the penalty is the reflection of the crime.

Somebody asked about "the invisible church" and how could a person know what that church is to believe. That is the same answer that has been around since the close of the cannon at about 90ad. The Bible is what defines the church and what it is to believe. God speaks, and his sheep hear his voice. What the church invisible should believe is the some total of the message of God's word. Not that there are no differences between how that word is viewed, there are as there always has been from the time Jesus was on the earth himself. Yet what is to be believed is not so obscure that the vast majority of it is not clear.

More later ....

"Yes, following the cleanliness guidelines of Leviticus would certainly be a good idea for the peoples of sub-Saharan Africa."
But, does it affect their salvation?
Does anyone have a response as to how in the infinite wisdom of God so many of his commands seem completely time and culture bound to a small area of the Middle East several thousand years ago?
Are they only meant for Jews whom he was speaking to at the time?
If that's the case then I'm getting something started with my cousins.
Is/was the law only intended for that particular period? If the answer is yes, then why is it still considered holy? If the answer is no then why can we rationalize away certain commands by pointing to our modern sewage systems?

Big Al....exactly where in my offering did I even type TRADITIONAL MARRAIGE??
I voted for it, for cry'in out loud.
But FIXATING on what kind of sex occurs behind your neighbors closed doors will not win any elections. People will figurer that you've got nothing better to fixate on.I do not fixate on it. I am required by my belief to witness to them once in an effort to point out that they are living against God's wishes. If they send me away and do not wish to accept that message, I've done my part. I can pray for them, but constantly berating them is useless. Hate the sin...not the sinner.
Now, activists are another deal, altogether. They constantly push the agenda that I MUST accept their condition as normal, and that I must accept them and their choices. I never will, but I'll never invade the private party's homes or lives to counter their beliefs.

"The passages against homosexual sex also forbade marrying close relatives, even my marriage, and against marrying a woman and her mother, or a woman and her sister. . ."

Jack, that is a tantalizing bit of information. Do tell. Is it your sister? Your mother? Or something even more sinister? Bwoohaahaahaa!

Good catch, Kevin!! A slip of the thumb! That should have been "BY marriage." Darn those spell-checkers, anyway.

"But FIXATING on what kind of sex occurs behind your neighbors closed doors will not win any elections. People will figurer that you've got nothing better to fixate on."

That's what kills me about the animal-rights crowd. If that's their biggest beef, life must be pretty good!

That had me laughing pretty hard. Even still. Ha!

"What I said is the problem is with the church -- that the church is not staying true to what it believes."

Brian,

Visible church, invisible church. I suppose it is inconsequential WHICH church you are discussing. I am curious as to which specific issues you think the "church" is not staying true on?

Can you please elaborate?

"What is to be believed is not so obscure that the vast majority of it is not clear," Brian says. And yet here we are arguing about the one passage in the Bible that may possibly have something remotely to do with abortion, which is the number one issue of the Christian Right. The number two issue, homosexuality, is barely mentioned in the Bible at all. Poverty, on the other hand, is mentioned hundreds of times but the Christian Right doesn't seem to care too much about that.

On Exodus 21:22 there is indeed a lot of controversy. "Further injury" has traditionally been taken to refer to the woman not the baby, since most babies born prematurely at that time would not have survived. Anti-abortion apologists now claim that it refers to the child but the Hebrew is too vague to make that claim. Even so this passage still does not refer to abortion per se but to the accidental harming of a fetus. Secondly, it's the only passage in the Bible that can even be manipulated to have anything to say about the issue and yet right-wing Christians claim that they know for certain what God's opinion is. Talk about hubris.

Jack said: "I do not recall anywhere that the GOVERNMENT should be taking care of the poor. That is for the people and church to do." Even though you admit that at least one of the passages I cited does say that (and the ones I cited were just a few of many in the Bible), are you not able to admit that your statement was in fact wrong. No, of course not.

I'm glad that Brian and Jack are so certain that they know what God believes. The rest of us are not so sure and we would rather not have your opinions based on the flimsiest of evidence imposed on the rest of us. You are perfectly free not to abort any babies or engage in homosexual activity but you do not have the right to tell others that they may not. That seems like a perfectly conservative position to me.

That one was me, Brian.

"I do not recall anywhere that the GOVERNMENT should be taking care of the poor. That is for the people and church to do."

Then how the heck is it these people ain't got new vans?! or a riding lawnmower?!

http://www.loudounhomeless.org/gsawishlist/view_alone.nhtml?profile=gsawishlist&UID=10002

Why is it, when I pointed out last winter that LOUDOUN is one of the richest towns in the US, and asked (albeit only here on this blog)that someone in a church donate some freakin vans to the shelter, that a church cannot/will not buy them or donate them new vans or a riding lawnmower? You cannot count on rich churches to do the right thing. They're only interested in taking more of your money to build bigger buildings to fit more people in so that they can take more of your money.

YOU brought up the passage, zimzo. Don't cry about it now when it does not support your claim.

Certainly you know this one: " Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)

And of course, "And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." (Luke 1:41)

Now, back to the poor. Your ONE supporting passage says that the government (king) should deliver the poor from their oppressors. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the government's dealing with poor as with the rich. But is the government to feed and house the poor? No, friend, that is OUR job. This is why Republicans give more to charity than Democrats do -- the Democrats think it's the government's job, not theirs: http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

"I'm glad that Brian and Jack are so certain that they know what God believes."

Certain? No. But pretty sure. I'm pretty sure God does not want us to kill a babe in the womb. And with clear prohibitions against homosexual acts, I think it is pretty stupid to bet one's soul that the Bible does not mean what it says. And don't think you are in the clear because you do not yourself engage in homosexual acts or abortions -- teaching others to sin is also sin.

Kevin -- I'm a little confused. Why does a homeless shelter need a RIDING lawnmower? Whom are they serving? Can't they push a lawnmower? How much lawn does a homeless shelter have, anyway?

Van drivers? They can't get some of these homeless people licenses?

Babysitters? How about the ADULTS IN THE SHELTER!?

"it is pretty stupid to bet one's soul that the Bible does not mean what it says."
Ok, fine then. One of you who understands God so well please answer my question-how come modern sanitation invalidates scripture relating to not going near a man who has had an emission? But modern sanitation doesn't invalidate other scripture that refers to men who are a scapegoat in this society because they have had said emission in or on another man?

Fair enough, Jack. Why don't you ask them? I say fair enough because I have no idea myself. My guess is that the babysitters are needed while the adults are going out looking for jobs or trying to become productive members of society by learning English and such. All great questions. Likely the can push a lawnmower but have you seen the countryside in Loudoun Co? The plots of land (maybe even that the homeless shelter is built on, I don't know) that need mowing? If it's mowing for money then time is of the essence, is it not?
My guess is that homeless people either can get licenses and they are helping those that can to do so, but they may even need van drivers to drive those individuals to the DMV. I'm just saying. All good questions, and questioning is always good when donating or giving your money. Sounds like a good project for you!

Anonymous, the difference is between cleanliness of the body and cleanliness of the soul.

Ok. I can't argue with your belief there. no point.
But, if we jump to the New Testament, it becomes sinful and adulterous to even look upon a woman with lust.
So, since you are passing judgement on the cleanliness of the homosexual's soul, I trust yours is pure, and that you never had a lustful thought about a woman not your wife?
I just want to get at why gay is so much worse than all the other sins people commit, and why the passage of time invalidates so much of the literalness of the Bible, but not the passages relating to homosexuals.

Jack, if God truly has entrusted you with the true meaning of his teachings, then I guess He shouldn't be surprised that so few people want to follow them. My advice is that if He wants to win over more people he should find better messengers.

"So, since you are passing judgement on the cleanliness of the homosexual's soul, I trust yours is pure, and that you never had a lustful thought about a woman not your wife?"

And that is where you go astray, Tom. No-one is perfect (not even I). I sin, but I "repent and return to the Lord," as we say. I do not go around trying to convince everyone that my sin is not sin.

"I just want to get at why gay is so much worse than all the other sins people commit, and why the passage of time invalidates so much of the literalness of the Bible, but not the passages relating to homosexuals."

Because the homosexuals are trying to tell everyone that their sin is not sin, in direct contradiction to the Bible. There are many sexual prohibitions in the Bible -- why is THAT one now not valid, when all the others (incest, bestiality, marrying your wife's sister or mother, etc.) still hold? Comparing rules for bodily cleanliness with sexual immorality is simply not a valid comparison.

Zimzo, God did not give me that gift -- there are far better messengers than I. But I doubt you would listen to them, either. Still, you might try listening to WAVA for a while. They are far better at it than I am.

But you are right about one thing: few people want to follow His teachings, "Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." (Matt 7:14)

Tom,
"I just want to get at why gay is so much worse than all the other sins people commit, and why the passage of time invalidates so much of the literalness of the Bible, but not the passages relating to homosexuals."
It is not. God does not grade on a curve. The penalty for all sin is death.

The Bible does not say the penalty for some sin is death, and for other sin is being sent to bed without dinner. We all fall short of the glory of god so that none can boast, other than God. There is no special penalty for engaging in Gay sex.

The point that Jack is making is that due to our fallen nature we sin. We all sin. The 'good news' (Gospel) is that if you repent of your sins, you will be forgiven. So if you try to justify yourself, then you are obviously not repenting.

Kevin,
"Fair enough, Jack. Why don't you ask them? I say fair enough because I have no idea myself."
It comes with the mindset that the gov'mint needs to provide forms in 30 languages. It comes with the nanny state. Instead of thinking and doing for themselves, seeking opportunity people have been taught that the government will take care of them.

I have kids, my instinct is to do everything I can do for them. That instinct is fatal. I must let them walk (and fall down) so they learn to run. I must let them fail on occasion so they learn how to deal with it. So that the next time, when they succeed, it tastes all the sweeter.

Guv'mint is not here to guarantee us happiness it is there to provide for the common defense, so we may have the liberty to pursue said happiness. This was a country of frontiersman; self reliant and rugged. We have become a nation of whiners.

Tom,
"Are they only meant for Jews whom he was speaking to at the time?"
Some of the dietary prohibitions certainly were target directly at the Jew and the Jew alone.

Zimzo,
I also have noticed that you tend to quote from the KJV. Try this site
http://www.biblegateway.com/

It provides multiple translations.

I have what is called an 'interlinear' bible , it is an excellent source for interpretation. As would be a Concordance. Hope you find this helpful.

Zimzo,

With all due respect, while I understand a lot of what you are saying -- it is not from the standpoint of the historic confessions of the church. For instance, you salute those that question "what church, which one" when if you read carefully what I've posted, I've posted what is in accord with the historic creeds "I believe in one catholic and apostolic church." (Please note the small "c" catholic -- the word means "universal".) That would mean there are parts of that church in many places. It is not a denomination, it is the church. It may not fit nicely into your world view, but do not think it is illogical just because you don't understand it.

It seems your statement:

"Several biblical
passages (Leviticus 27:6, Numbers 3:15 ) only consider children above 1
month old to be persons. I'm sure you can find passages in the Bible that
do not specifically refer to abortion and twist there meaning to support
your point of view but if you can do that, so can others."

Can be looked at as the former (saying that the Lev. and Num. passages refer to when a child becomes a person) is exactly what you state in the later (twisting the meaning to support your point of view -- which you say "others" can do). If you thought that the Leviticus passage did not attribute personhood to those less than 1 month old, then full personhood would only happen at after 20, and would end at 60 (those over 60 have the exact same treatment as those less than 1 month) and yet you know the Bible is replete with references to the value of the old -- they are to be more honored, not counted as non-persons. The passages in fact says nothing about who is a person and who is not. By simply attributing logical consistency to the text, the interpretation you take from this is patently false.

While you seem to think that homosexuality is important to "right wing Christians" as you put it, I would say that all Biblical doctrine is important to any Christian. If a person thinks anything that God has said is trivial, then *they* should question seriously if they are a Christian at all.

You do point out that caring for the poor is a concern of the Christian, and I would tend to agree -- to a point. Caring for the fatherless, the widow, the oppressed, for those that try to better themselves and do what they can I very much think the Bible does command we help. It does not command we help the sluggard, the immoral, those who waste what they have been given. In a sense, the church should be there ahead of the government (and in general it is) yet I have few problems with social programs that are geared toward helping those that do wish to help themselves (Ack! Did I just say that I actually support some social programs? Yes, I did!) Now does that mean that we should have a welfare system that is run by the federal government? No. Should that system be run by the state government? That would be better than the federal government running it, but it should be more local still. Should social programs then be run at the local government? As local as you can possibly get! I don't know about people on the other side of the state as to the events that have led to them being in need, but I do know about the events for the woman in my church whose husband left her with several children. I know about the guy who had a heart attack and couldn't keep his job because of it (and how he is doing). I know when someone loses a spouse and is left with small children to take care of when it happens in my community. I know what they are doing to manage their affairs to do what they can. Those people I can easily say need help, and I have made sure they have the help they need. That is a more Biblical model. Is it impossible for a government to help? No, but it should be enough that the government not oppress the poor, or treat them unjustly. The government should care for the poor in the sense they should have equal protection under the law, and I don't even mind a workfare system (like gleaning in the Bible).

You need not turn to the new testament to find condemnation of oppressing the poor, the book of Amos is clearly concerned with that as much as anything else.

As to the current crop of politicians, you have not been reading all of my posts. I've pounced on just about everyone I've seen on the issue of consistency and honesty. Look through all I've posted. Then try to read through to what the basic principles I hold would be. Figure that out before think about arguing one way or another on any one of the individual points. While you probably won't agree with the axioms from which I start, you would at least understand the reasoning.

As to reverse discrimination, Tom's "take down" is simply not a logical argument, it is pure emotion and rhetoric. There was no logic to it. There was allegory, but no axioms, no theorems derived, no logic. The best example I can recall is from the 70's when I worked at Westinghouse. They were under extreme pressure to achieve numbers that would show they did not have a different ratio of minority/female workers to white male workers. What that worked out to was the hiring of workers that were much less qualified than some of the white males. How do I know? The test scores on the standard tests for qualification they had to provide for the union jobs. The company had to have a "pass" figure for the tests, and what several black technicians told me was they were given the test 3 times, with the results after the first two, in order to get them to pass. I also know a white worker that was passed over for the same position, even though he passed the first time through. You cannot "make up" for wrongs done in the past by committing wrongs against others now. As I said, two wrongs do not make a right no matter what the surrounding facts are.

If you look at what the main complain I had against Johnson, it was the war. Prior to the Democrats, the U.S. involvement in the war was non-combatant advisers. Kennedy put a few combat troops in, but Johnson pushed that over the top. If you want to say something about war, you cannot lay war at the feet of conservatives any more than liberals. While I think Nixon was a crook, I do have to give him that he was the one responsible for getting us out of V.N.

On to other things....

There has been a lot of discussion on the table as to laws of the O.T. and what is valid today. I'd say there are three types of laws in the Bible. The moral law, the judicial/civil law of Israel as a nation, and the ceremonial law. The summary of the moral law would be the ten commandments and is binding on all mankind for all time. The judicial laws of Israel were the laws of that nation and ceased with that nation and are not binding upon any other, except as the general equity would require. The ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ and is now no longer binding on any.

That said, it does not mean that we ignore any part of the laws, in as much as we see in them at least something of the nature of God. The ceremonial law is completed, and therefore should not be followed. We no longer make sacrifices for sin, and to do so would be sinful in that Christ's sacrifice paid fully the penalty of the sin -- to make a sacrifice for sin would be to impugn Christ's sacrifice as insufficient. While the judicial laws of Israel died with that nation, they teach us something of the mind of God. All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training in Godliness.

The moral law however is binding on all men everywhere for all time. While those in Christ are not under the judgment of the law (they have already passed from death to life) they are still bound to follow it as grateful servants/sons.

Now, the real issue is from where does a person start if they are going to discuss scripture. I start from the position that all of the Bible is the inerrant, and even more, infallible word of God. If you start with the idea that the Bible is true, consistent, and authoritative, then debating what it says makes sense. If on the other hand, you reject that it is true, consistent and authoritative, you are not in rebellion against the God of the universe, and your interpretation will reflect that rebellion. How can you look to tell what God has said, when you reject what he has said? It is not the Bible on trial by us to judge it, we are on trail and it is the judge. We have no authority over the Bible; the Bible has ultimate authority over us.

Now, as to gun control (I have no idea how that got in here!) I'd say people were honest about the topic if they believed that cars ought to be even more strictly controlled. Cars would be the low hanging fruit -- they are the third leading cause of death (behind heart attacks and cancer) for all people. And it would be even less of a hypocritical stance if those that wanted gun control also wanted to never have a drink served in a bar. I personally know 3 people that have been killed by drunk drivers, and I have a cousin that was maimed for life by drunk drivers that were drinking at a bar. I do not know *anyone* who was killed or maimed by a gun (outside of the military and war). I do know people that very likely have been saved by their owning and knowing how to use a gun.

While the media won't report those instances when having a gun stops a violent crime or saves a person from becoming a victim, those instances do happen. There is a reason people go to places they know everyone is unarmed to commit crimes. D.C. has about the highest crime rate in the country -- nobody is allowed the means to defend themselves against a bully.

I may be big (a little over 6 foot) but if someone bigger, stronger, and perhaps has a bat, with what would I defend myself? The idea of a 6'8" man attacking a 5'6" 150 pound weakling sounds absurd if the "weakling" is carrying a pistol. In fact, the small man would present a smaller target. If two or three people started to attack my home (a home invasion) calling the police would not save anyone in the house; shooting the first one that breaks down the door could. You want to wait 15 minutes for the police to arrive? Go ahead.

Oh, by the way, "if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him also the left" (I'm sure it will be asked) means what? How does one get struck on the right check? It happens when someone hits you with the back of their right hand. It isn't an attack that Christ is talking about, it is an insult (which you ignore).

Now what I try to avoid, but because it seems that it is being pushed so much. The Bible states that homosexual activity is sin. It also says heterosexual activity outside marriage is sin. All sin gets you a lake of burning sulfur seat for all eternity (even "little" sins). Why? It isn't that we are sinners because we sin, it is we sin because we are sinners. That stated, does it matter a whole lot about what the particulars are of which particular sins we have done? Not in the sense of eternal destiny. It isn't a competition where the top 40% get to heaven and everyone else goes to hell. Only those that are perfectly pure can get to heaven, and guess what folks, that means nobody on their own gets to heaven. It takes someone else to pay the penalty for the sin, and supply the righteousness to make the person not just sinless, but a positive good. None of it can be from self. Sorry -- the only person that qualifies is Jesus Christ himself -- and anyone he cleans from their sin and credits to them his righteousness.

And after that I still want to comment on another thing. Zimzo, God has no interest in "winning people over" to his side by trying to persuade them. He does not have to. He is the only game in town, and he commands people to obey. He has no need for us. We need him.

"It comes with the mindset that the gov'mint needs to provide forms in 30 languages. It comes with the nanny state. Instead of thinking and doing for themselves, seeking opportunity people have been taught that the government will take care of them."

Totally off topic, Jacob, but ok.

I guess you think if you write enough words, Brian, people will think you know what you're talking about. But in all your blather you never answered the question why do right-wing Christians believe that abortion and gay marriage are the most important issues in this country when the Bible never mentions abortion and only very rarely mentions homosexuality? And furthermore where does the Constitution say that the laws of the United States must conform to your very particular view of Christian doctrine?

To get back to your original post, you said at least two extremely offensive things, which is probably why there are so many comments:

1) "There is a real problem of people not having a basis for what is right and wrong." The implication from your statement is that you do. But your "basis" is not the Bible or God's word but your own very skewed and idiosyncratic opinion of what you believe the Bible says. It really is the height of hubris, which I believe is a sin. And the idea that someone who is not a Christian has no "basis for right and wrong" is just ridiculous. Do you honestly believe, for example, that this is true of, say, the Dalai Lama or Mahatma Ghandi?

2) "If the church is lost, the country is without the preserving influence of the church." If the health of our country depends on the likes of Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard and you, then we are in a lot more trouble than I thought.

Joe,

I see large portions of the church not talking about sin any more. I know of a church leader that asked aloud if it would be better to give to a crisis pregnancy center anonymously rather than let it be known that the church was supporting a pro-life stand because it would drive some people away. It wasn't that the person had any question that the Bible was definitively pro-life, but the guy worried that the appearance of being pro-life would have a negative impact on attendance. Many of the churches are more concerned with not offending people than they are with the gospel.

I know of a church that believes in what they call the regulative principle of worship ... that the only things allowed in worship are the things commanded in the Bible for worship. Yet in practice, the church allows anything under the guise of "teaching" that you could imagine.

There are plenty of churches that have given up on saying divorce is wrong, that cheating on your spouse is wrong, that if you don't repent of your sin you will wind up in hell.

I remember going to a pastor of a church and stated that I thought it was inappropriate for the choir director to have changed some words in a musical performance from a direct quote of scripture. The quote highlighted that Jesus was God, and the choir director changed it to say that Jesus was God's son. He asked why I thought it was inappropriate, to which I responded that the quote was directly from scripture. His response was to ask "What makes you think the scripture is true." (This was years ago, and I left that church right afterward.)

I have seen churches that are wonderful. I've seen churches that are true to the faith handed down to them. I have seen churches that take the Bible seriously. I've also seen churches that are more concerned about numbers than truth.

Ultimately, a church that becomes "man centered" is one that has left behind the teaching of Jesus.

In all of what you've said, you have not stated anything that leads me to believe that abortion and gay marriage are the most important things for "right-wing" (whatever that means) Christians. While I believe those are important issues I don't know as they are the most important.

I can state reasonable arguments why I believe abortion is just plain wrong -- we give a convicted criminal the benefit of reasonable doubt before we allow them to be executed, but we don't an innocent baby -- but while it may be important, important enough that I would not vote for someone who is pro-abortion -- is it the only thing? No.

The same is true for homosexual unions. It may be that I can point to reasons why such behavior should not be sanctioned, but I certainly don't think it is the single most important issue facing this country. So, asking me to defend a straw argument to which I do not subscribe is so far beyond what seems reasonable. I would not think it worth answering (other than you pointing your question directly to me ... in which case I can say I have no idea why you would think those are the two most important issues to Christians, when I, a conservative Christian, don't believe they are the most important issues.

It is almost like asking "have you stopped beating your wife" when there is no evidence the person has ever beat his wife. Answering the question is nonsensical.

A lot of people have no basis for right and wrong. While those of other religions will, that is very much in the minority in this country. A basis for right and wrong has to be something that does not change (do you *really* want something you do today and be right, to be wrong tomorrow?)

And yes, I do have a basis for right and wrong. Regardless of how well I know it, or even if I have parts of it wrong, the Bible is my basis. That does not mean that I am infallible in my interpretation. But do I have an infallible basis? Yes. Is that basis what I think the Bible says? No, but it is what the Bible really says. Can I be wrong? Yes, but the Bible cannot be wrong.

Now do I believe that someone that has a different basis can be right? No, if that were possible, then the Bible would be wrong. Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father but by me." Jesus claims exclusivity ... his claim is mutually exclusive with all other religions. Therefore, if Jesus is a way to God, then he is the only way to God. But remember, it is not me that said that, it was Christ. If you want to say his statement was hubris, fine, but it is Jesus that you argue with on that one, not me.

On the health of the country depending on the health of the church, I fully believe it does in the long run. My railing against the church is for problems like those of Haggard, and more to the point Jimmy Swaggart, though the Assemblies of God did what is right -- they defrocked him. While that is true, he is *still* on the air and unrepentant. You might be right about Robertson ... I don't know, and I've not heard anything either positive or negative in recent years. I've not heard of him being caught in any scandalous sin, so I would rather not worry about him. I am not perfect either -- and yet I hope that I am repentant. I know there is nothing good in me, and the thing I would do, I do not do, but the thing I don't want to do, that I keep on doing. My only hope in this life or the age to come is Jesus Christ.

Kevin,
OK. Jack asked the following three questions about folks at a shelter ...
1. why not use a push mower
2. why not drive their own vans
3. why not provide their own babysitting

to which you basically replied 'Good question, I don't know.'

My answer is in brief 'because they have been trained from birth to wait to the guv'mint to do it for them.'

Hardly off topic Kevin, you going zimzo on me?.

zimzo,
" ... in all your blather you never answered the question why do right-wing Christians believe tha