The Lesser Of Two Evils

Posted Friday, August 28, 2009, at 9:17 PM

The time has come for the Republican Party to stop trying to be merely the lesser of two evils. In case you don't know, the lesser of two evils...is still evil.

I call it the Bob Dole style of Republicanism. What is Bob Dole Republican politics?

Example: If Bill Clinton had come out and announced a program in which fans of Rush Limbaugh were to be thrown off a two hundred foot cliff into a pit containing a hundred lions, Bob Dole would run to the nearest Reporter and say, "NO! It should only be a fifty foot cliff and fifty lions. We call it the 50-50 plan."

That type of Republican politics has got to end.

Republicans get real conservative at election time. When they are out talking to the folks, they are talking the conservative talk, but back in Washington, something happens to them. They get infected by Bob Dole thinking.

Now with this radical bunch that has seized power and threatened our very Republic, we do not need Republicans like John McCain coming along to offer us Fascism light.

I did not vote for John McCain, I certainly did not vote for Hopey Change, but I get tired of getting put into a box by Republicans. That box is this...the Republicans say, "hey, we are not as nasty as Democrats. We're nasty, but not as nasty as them."

That has got to stop. I will not support, I will not vote for, and I will not donate to any Republican that wants to give America diluted Hopey Change.

Republicans have got to stop listening to the State controlled propaganda media at NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, AP and MSLSD. They need to start listening to the voters.

By the way, I think it is funny when people call me a racist because I supported the only real black guy in the election last year. I supported Alan Keyes.

John McCain was the Republican candidate chosen by Democrat voters in crossover primaries. Why should I support who the Democrat Party selects as the Republican candidate?

I will note vote for the lesser of two evils.

Republicans in office, I tell you this, grow a pair, stand against Obama's radical takeover of this country.

Stand on true Republican principles. What are those principles?

Glad you asked.

They are simple: Respect for Life, much lower taxes, much smaller government, strong military defense, drill for our own oil, build nuclear power plants, serious tort reform, serious cuts in government spending, standing for states rights, gun ownership respected, this is a Christian nation, no Steve marrying Steve, and damn well SECURE OUR FRIGGIN BORDERS, just to name a few.

You Republicans in office that want to have a little Fascism, a little totalitarianism, a little government takeover here, a little government takeover there, or any part of Obama/Kennedy care, and you come to me and ask for support...well, you can just kiss my mule.

Is that plain enough for you?

You Republicans that go along with this insane spending and wasting money, just join the Democrat Party and be done with it.

Time for you Republicans to start influencing Washington, not the other way around.

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

So many of these robotic liberals think they have really done something because they voted for Obama. It is a major breakthrough for them, they voted for a black guy. They are so proud.

I just get tired of this constant bull crap that if you are against Obama's nightmare plan of Fascism for America, that somehow you're a racist.

It would have been nice if the "first black President" wasn't a flaming radical nutcase. It would be nice if the first black President wasn't a liar and a thief.

Getting back to these Republicans. EVERY TIME REPUBLICANS RUN STRONG ON CONSERVATISM, THEY WIN. It's only when they try and moderate that they stink.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Fri, Aug 28, 2009, at 10:55 PM

All politics aside Sam, you really need to pick a narration style and stick with it. Bouncing around being first and second person is a pain to read.

G.I.,

You're not alone. Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin had similar feelings (at least towards Christians).

-- Posted by billyjb on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, at 12:39 PM

g.i. forgive me, but i thought in an earlier post you indicated that lumping everyone into one category or another was lazy and ignorant. but then, perhaps, i mis-read

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, at 5:23 PM

What exactly would be wrong with a Christian believing nation?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, at 6:39 PM

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

-Thomas Jefferson

-- Posted by billyjb on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, at 7:06 PM

Yes Billy, a fine post. And lets look at nations that have removed God from their governments and people, they failed. I too admired TJ, back when I was a party animal libertarian. Then I got married, had kids, and accepted the gift of Christ. Now the scribblings of TJ reflects his ignorance.

Again, what would be wrong with a Christian believing nation?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, at 9:22 PM

So you know more about theology than the author of the Declaration of Independence because you're married?

-- Posted by billyjb on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, at 9:31 PM

I didn't say anything about theology, just asked a question.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, at 9:38 PM

Well I assumed that by calling him ignorant, you had some contention with his theology.

Aren't we already a Christian believing nation for the most part? Most of the country identifies themselves as Christian. A majority of our representatives in office are Christian. God is printed on our money. The members of Congress hold a prayer before they convene. What more to you need?

I think that any public declaration that we are a Christian nation by a public official compromises the integrity of the first amendment, if not violating it completely.

It's like posting a sign in your house that says "Dad loves all his kids equally", then at dinner telling your oldest son he's the favorite.

-- Posted by billyjb on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, at 10:03 PM

Seized power? I'm reminding of the question recently posed to a town hall participant, "What world do you spend most of your time on"

Do you know what seize even means? It certainly doesn't mean to be democratically elected, which is exactly how Barack Obama got into office. There was no seizing. People felt he was the better candidate. He got more votes than Clinton did or Bush did. He won by almost 200 electoral votes, over 8 million votes, and by seven per cent. That's not even remotely close to seizing.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, at 11:42 PM

I love your theme of constitutional reset sceptre, but tell me exactly what rights have been taken away under Obama that requires a reset?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, at 11:45 PM

Actually it has been proven on a national stage (ie presidential election) that those most conservative or liberal do not get elected. The standard bearer of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, was certainly conservative in some areas but not in all areas.

Many consider Bill Clinton to be the standard bearer for liberalism, but he doesn't even come close. He was a moderate Democrat at the most.

Those that are most liberal and most conservative typically fall by the wayside in primaries and rarely make it to the general election.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Aug 29, 2009, at 11:53 PM

I'm still tickled over this notion that this country has absolutely no socialism in the government. How do you explain:

Medicare/Medicaid

Social Security

The Postal Service

Colleges and Universities

Interstate Highway System

Veterans Administration

National Parks

Those are just few. The idea that the government take over only has occurred in the seven months since Obama took office is laughable at best, ignorant at worst.

This country has had a mix of most of the major ideologies in government since the inception of this country. To say otherwise is to turn a blind eye to the history of this country.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 12:03 AM

billyjb,

Why the focus on just government officials? How about everyone? There's no violation of the 1st Amendment. It was really a simple question, you don't have to go on the attack.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 7:36 AM

That was an attack? How so?

-- Posted by billyjb on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 10:01 AM

The attack;

"So you know more about theology than the author of the Declaration of Independence because you're married?"

What does theology, or the study of God, have to do with the my original question?

If you can't or won't answer the question, just leave it.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 2:11 PM

I was asking for a clarification. It's pretty bold to call Jefferson ignorant.

I thought I tried to answer your question. We are a Christian believing nation for the most part.

What hasn't been answered?

-- Posted by billyjb on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 2:58 PM

How can we possibly be a Christian believing nation. Look at the cause of all the problems surrounding this country right now. Violations of all 10 commandments. If Godly men and women were put in office, would we be having problems in the governance of our country? of course not. If all people who call themselves Christians lived their lives according the the Bible, would they be having any problems, of course not. But then again we are human and are doomed to fail. I guess I was looking for an answer as to what would this nation be like if we all lived our lives to a Biblical standard.

As for calling Jefferson ignorant, let's not forget he is a human being and should be subject to scrutiny, if he believed governance and Godliness should be separate, then yes he is an ignorant fool. Everything else he did may have been great.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 3:48 PM

As a non-believer, I find it difficult to agree with any of that.

I respect your beliefs and everything, but we'd be having problems whether or not we all subscribed to the biblical standard.

Jefferson did have his flaws, but I have more respect for the man because he saw the need for a separation of church and state.

-- Posted by billyjb on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 4:41 PM

I must say I am saddened, but we all must go through life.

I guess back to the subject at hand, it is my opinion that the traditional Republican vs Democrat battle lines have become blurred. It is now Conservative vs liberal. The 2006 election brought in many Democratic representatives with conservative leanings. Some may have lied about them to get elected, but the voters are holding their feet to the fire, which explains why PBHO is having no progress with his health care initiatives. The so call "moderate" (read: liberal) Republicans have been swept out, as their records tends to show, they would have supported nationalized health care.

There is a greater chasm occurring, rural vs urban.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 5:19 PM

I am saddened as well.

Haha, with all the Brett Favre news dying down, I thought we'd be able to escape the "chasm" word for awhile.

While I don't think my liberal beliefs make my any less rural, I do agree with the liberal/conservative lines.

-- Posted by billyjb on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 7:02 PM

Who talked about banning Christians?

-- Posted by billyjb on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 9:50 PM

billy and Iggy,

Are you guy's suggesting Thomas Jefferson has more wisdom than God?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 10:21 PM

No apostrophe needed.

I wasn't suggesting that. However I will answer your remarkably pointed question with a definitive yes, Thomas Jefferson had more wisdom than God (because Thomas Jefferson actually existed).

-- Posted by billyjb on Sun, Aug 30, 2009, at 10:28 PM

I find it interesting how two separate conversations on this thread have merged about Thomas Jefferson.

Chunky and billy:

Your argument is most entertaining, you two appear to me, to be once again exhibiting the hypocracy that is rampant in most of these discussions. You both try to cherry pick and only present one side to bolster your claims without any regard to a more complete picture. That you two take any of the founders and try to boil them down to a petty argument about religion is so myopic that I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

The other intersection of Jefferson and this thread concerns the powers of the federal government. I can't speak for the man but I believe he wouldn't be thrilled about any of the examples provided above of the work of the "socialism" in government.

It's funny how Jefferson is praised by Liberals for his religious views who then completely ignore his political views. I don't see too many Conservatives promoting his political views either, they seem too busy attacking his religious ones instead.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 10:05 AM

Thanks for the lecture SW. We hypocrites would be a lost bunch without your even-handed judgements keeping us in line.

I just have a couple questions:

What part of Jefferson's stance on the church & state issue was left out?

When were Jefferson's religious beliefs brought up by Chunky or myself?

-- Posted by billyjb on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 10:56 AM

I apologize billy, I'm not sure if you specifically discussed what you believe his religious beliefs to be and I don't want to scroll back up to cherry pick from what people say. I was referring to the general tenor of your discussion and my impression from it. I must beg your forgiveness for any intemperate judgements I may have made.

In answer to your questions, I'd imagine a great deal of Jefferson's stance on church and state issues were left out because I'm sure there have been volumes published that solely discuss them. I was referring to your reliance on some of his statements regarding a theocratic society. I'm not sure whether those would qualify as a religious or political statement, or both and so, see the apology above.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 11:24 AM

While i feel that all americans are inclined to believe what they want and respect there opions such as TJ being smarter than God (because he was flesh and bone).... i agree that if we had elected honest truthful christians that obeyed the commandments they "hold so dear"... we would not have government seats for sale (blagojovich or however you spell it) or congressman/senators cheating on wives etc... so these ideals are flawed on both sides..

-- Posted by S&DC on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 3:52 PM

Guillermo:

I believe there is a difference between desiring social justice and seeing the federal government as being the driving force behind it. Often debates about centralized power are oversimplified where each side sees themselves as the "good guys" and the opposition as an evil that must be eliminated.

Those who oppose "socialism" do not oppose it because they don't want people to be healty, wealthy and wise. Rather they have a different view of how to reach those goals. I am tired of the partisanism and rhetoric that forces people to choose sides then try to yell louder. I'm glad you are so well read and like to cite obscure theoreticians to make you feel superior and show that we who don't agree with you must be uneducated at best or as you sometimes call us mentally deficient.

Do you not feel there is a "general welfare" within the United States?

Is our society in shambles, and on the verge of collapse?

"General welfare" in my opinion is for the common good, not the welfare of every person guaranteed by the goverment.

Your example of Jefferson and Franklin listening to Frech philosophizers reminds me of a conversation you had previously here. I can't help but point out that although Obama was a member of Wright's church for several years doesn't prove he holds the same beliefs.

In summation: I think Jefferson holds all the personal beliefs that any other caring person would have and would want society to be just, I don't think you can make the argument that he would be in favor of the tremendous increase in governmental power that is necessary for and increases because of the "socialism" that I alluded to. Nor do I believe he would have seen the government as the force to create a just society. From where do you get the impression that he would be in favor of a large centralized government that would regulate the individual welfare of its citizens? I could be wrong but I still see that as a better example of a Jeffersonian nightmare rather than dream.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 4:12 PM

S&DC,

"so these ideals are flawed on both sides.."

I don't think the ideals are flawed as much as the people who proclaim they hold those ideals.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 4:13 PM

SW,

Point taken and I believe you are correct more so then me at that point...

GI,

I was using the TJ over God thing as a point to say I am a tolerant person of all ideals and beliefs... My honest truthful christians comment was made in that exact content... that they all say they are affiliated in one way or another with some kind of church or christian belief but don't show it in their actions... For once I would like to see a politician say "I don't go to church.." or just come right out and admit that they aren't some upstanding figure in church you know??

-- Posted by S&DC on Mon, Aug 31, 2009, at 5:17 PM

Guillermo,

How can you have socialism without a large centralized government? The great hallmarks of American style socialism Medicare and Social Security require a level of governmental control that I think Jefferson would have found appalling. Do you think he would embrace them?

As for the obscurity of your citations, lets do a poll: Who can tell me who Leroux, Owens, and Marx are and give me a brief description of thier theories off the top of thier heads.

Theories are wonderful things, and I'm glad you know the hearts and minds of Socialist and Communist theoreticians, unfortunately the reality is far different than the theory.

You seem to be wanting to make an argument about Social theories I only made a point about Jefferson's fear of centralized power, I'm sorry but you haven't conviced me I'm wrong.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 9:57 AM

Guillermo,

Do you mean to sound condescending or is it just part of your nature to be so?

I thought I clarified, but obviously I failed to do so, that I was NOT speaking of ideals and theories but rather of practical real life world experience. How many states have successufully transitioned from the need of a strong central government into the socialistic ideal?

I was unaware of the economic controls in place in Spain. So in Spain the central government is very weak while control is wielded by the local authorities without intereference and heavy oversight by the central government?

"And so, once again, I say that I am certain (because I have read several Jefferson biographies) that he would not have wanted a large and powerful centralized government"

I'm sorry I must have missed where you said this previously because that is the only point I was trying to make, it seems we didn't need to have this exchange at all if you already agreed with my premise. I may not have stated my point clearly enough perhaps I should have put some pointless quotes and citations for no one to follow up on.

Another thought has occured to me: for someone who opposes "socialism" you sure do spend an awful lot of time defending it even when it isn't under attack in my opinion.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 4:08 PM

Thank you SWNebr Transplant,

You completely hit the nail on the head, liberalism\socialism\communism\collectivism fails every time it is tried because it lack the main ingredient, HUMAN NATURE. China is the only exception, it has a billion man army poised not against an invasion, but rebellion. Liberalism\socialism\communism\collectivism works great in theory and in college text books, but the people living under it hate it.

Conservatism\capitalism works because HUMAN NATURE is the primary ingredient. Conservatism\capitalism also works with Christian ideals, as you make more, you GIVE back more. Under liberalism\socialism\communism\collectivism, you can't give when all is TAKEN. Conservatism\capitalism would work best with Christian beliefs applied by all.

I'll let you guys pick this apart.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 4:48 PM

Chunky,

I believe you are continuing to make a mistake by equating Conservatism with capitalism and Liberalism with Socialism. I find your correlation between the two inaccurate, but with all things it is a matter of semantics and language issues. You and I, or anyone else and I, come into any conversation with our own notions of what languange means what. A large portion of the time in these forums is arguing over the minutae while we grope around trying to understand what each other means.

Here a point of contention is what it means to be a Christian or hold Christian beliefs. Does one mean to follow the teachings and ideals of Jesus or to follow the teachings and ideals of any particular Christian church? A strong argument could be made that Jesus espouses a communistic life style, where does that leave HUMAN NATURE? By seeking to emulate Jesus does one have to violate human nature? However the protestantism that the United States is founded by argues strongly for capitalism. If I wanted to be like some posters I would here point you to Weber or some such 8-)

Personally I believe Marxist Communism is a wonderful ideal once we reach it. Realistically I don't think human nature would allow it.

I also don't think it matters particularly where you get moral grounding so long as it is compatible with society. If the only way to God is through Christ then all those who don't believe will take up thier complaints to a higher power than me. I try to avoid making judgement calls on anyone's religious beliefs in the end we'll find out on our own.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 5:13 PM

There seems to be a duplication of convenient memories around Sam's blog.

ITEM -- Last time I checked, there is something in the Bill of Rights mandating absolute separation between ANY CHURCH and the political state.

A number of people insist the U.S.of A. must be a Christian nation.

But -which form of Christianity - Russian Orthodox as found in some northern Plains States, Canada's Prairie Provinces and even Alaska?

Greek Orthodox as is found along both coasts, and in several major cities.

Roman Catholic --

Missouri Synod Lutheran or one of the other Lutheran denominations.

Baptist-- Have no hope of listing even a small percentage of the different Baptist churches.

Unitarian -- Definitely Christian, definitely not Orthodox, definitely not conservative in anything.

Then there is the huge problem of totally rejecting the Jewish faith -- with three principle branches, sharing many details with Islam, while providing the foundation of Judeo-Christian faith.

For those Christian Conservatives who insist their religious and political believes are the only acceptable truths,consider carefully:

Our Founding Fathers absolutely:

Protected ownership of other humans -- Slavery.

Limited the vote to White Property Owners.

Placed women in the same property class as mules, goats, sheep, geese and slaves.

Regarded Native Americans as "lice."

Regarded King George as their Divinely Endowed Sovereign even after Valley Forge.

Is there any question in anyone's mind that at the very least, a sizable percentage of the members of all the Continental Congresses and the first United States Congress had found themselves equipped with one Modern Naval Task Force including a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier and transport for one fully equipped Airborne Division of 2009 and one Marine Combat Group -- they would have proceeded to conquer the known world

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 5:30 PM

Guillermo,

So NOW you INTEND to be condescending but previously you did so by accident of your nature? Is that what you mean to say for that is how I understand it.

I must beg forgiveness that I think in simple terms on a shallow level and exhibit the height of stupidity.

As for your argument about not wanting to argue the practical realities of modern socialism and Jeffersonian ideals... I may be wrong, because apparently I am mentally deficient in some way; but I thought we had this discussion a few months back about projecting labels backwards onto things that had not been described as such but existed in fact. Do you recall?

Do you interpret that quote you posted about private control of banks to be endorsing a federal bank?

What was point did the cute little quote by Einstein have to do with our discussion...or was it "pointless"?

You already agreed with the only point I was trying to make, I don't see any further need for petty nit-picking. As I said a couple of times I do not speak of Socialism in the textbook, idealized definitions it appears to me you are referring.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 5:35 PM

HerndonHank,

How about straight out of the Bible Christianity, without the filters the various denominations have put on it. Would that have changed how our founding fathers wrote the Constitution?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 7:02 PM

You are right SWNebr, the 2 are not related. I knew that and lumped them together anyway.

Thank you for pointing that out.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 7:44 PM

"a BALANCE of socialism and free-market theory...capitalism has grown our economy huge, and socialism has regulated it to make humane. Think regulated workweek, minimum wage, child labor laws, and really any law/regulation that protects the worker over the business." Guillermo Inglaterra.

CRAP, I agree.

Think I'll go boil myself in lye.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Sep 1, 2009, at 7:49 PM

As someone who has also been referred to as having "heightened stupidity", I have come up with some pointless quotes that can be used in the future:

"The spear of the pen shall not be used by those with heightened stupidity."

Or:

"Condescending behavior is not considered condescending unless the condescendor is acting intentionally"

Although gi has been my inspiration, please be sure to credit the great philosopher and conservative thereoist...Husker23.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 9:40 AM

The Spanish words for condescending a$$ were taken.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 11:56 AM

Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.

-Sun Tzu

-- Posted by McCook1 on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 12:45 PM

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

-Charles Caleb Colton 1820

-- Posted by Husker23 on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 1:48 PM

Everyone needs to lighten up and get over themselves

--Me

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 2:06 PM

Thank you Bill, I'm glad you agree. 8-)

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 3:31 PM

I haven't even gotten a chance to come to this site in awhile, life gets crazy busy sometimes, but I stopped by and could not resist this:

"How about straight out of the Bible Christianity, without the filters the various denominations have put on it?"

-CPB

So my parents can sell my daughter into slavery? Finally!

Exodus 21:7

I can't work on weekends without being killed for the infraction? Nice.

Exodus 35:2

No more football or bacon? Acceptable losses, right?

Lev. 11:7

But lets look at some of the offenses punishible by DEATH in our new "straight from the Bible" utopia:

-Disrespecting your parents

-Cheating on your husband/wife

-Sleeping with your mother (you are killed(

-Sleeping with your daughter (you AND your daughter are killed)

-Homosexuality

-Bestiality

(Leviticus 20)

But at least there is a harsh punishment for things like rape, right?

Actually, in our new Christian utopia, if I rape a girl, I have to pay her father 50 silver, and then marry her.

Deuteronomy 22:28

Understandable. Because God has his people to rape/pillage a few times in the Bible.

-Judges 21:10

-Numbers 31:7

-Deut. 20:10

But if everyone lives strictly by the 10 commandments, life would be so much better, right?

1. Have no other gods.

2. No graven images

3. Don't take the lords name in vain.

4. Remember my sabbath and keep it holy.

Wow, four commandments just for respecting God's omnipotence. Couldn't that have been just 1? "Respect the lord your god". Did it have to take up over 1/3 of our list of commandments?

5. Honor your father and mother.

This is generally good. Unless your parents are evil or something.

6. You shall not murder.

Again, generally good. But what about self defense? Acts of war? The death penalty? A little clarification would be nice.

7. You shall not commit adultery.

Another generally good thing. I wouldn't give it that much importance, putting it on the list of the 10 most forbidden things, but I'm not god.

8. You shall not steal.

Good one. Again, not alot of room for compromising (stealing to feed your family, stealing to survive, etc).

9. You shall not bear false witness.

OK good one. No lying. That's generally pretty beneficial.

10. No coveting your neighbors possessions.

hmmmm. Morally this one is sound. But our capitalist economy functions on our desire to purchase goods and services. Will we not need capitalism in our new Christian utopia? Will we be communists?

11... No commandment condemning rape? Slavery? (Non-lethal) violence?

No commandments to help the helpless? Shelter the homeless? Feed the hungry? Heal the sick? I know the bible says these things elsewhere, but they don't get a place on the big list of the 10 most important rules?

-- Posted by jhat on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 4:10 PM

Hey Goober Peas (Peanut Butter Man)

Simple Bible Based Christianity -- the answer.

Which Bible -- Which branch of Christianity?

Non-Denominational Bible-Based Church.

Fundamentalist Baptist Faith Bible Based Church.

Bible Based, using only the original Aramaic text, or the First Greek Text, or the commonly used KING JAMES version, specifically edited and rewritten to justify King James setting up his own church which would allow him to steal, abuse human rights, whore indiscriminately, murder at will, imprison without formal charges or trial -- That is a true Bible believing administration.

There are several Bible Based Fundamentalist churches which use poisonous snakes in their worship services in Appalachia.

Maybe those are the Christians you follow.

Here in the U.S. of A., there are only several thousand separate Bible Based Protestant Churches.

There are no Bible Based Protestant Churches which can document direct connections to the earliest Christian groups in the Middle East, Greece and Rome.

Before you ask these ignorant country boys to follow a specific Bible Based faith -- You are going to have to define exactly which version you advocate.

By the time you accomplish that -- there will probably be a split among that church's membership, with another Bible Based Christian church arising because of a disagreement concerning the correct color of the Pastor's tie.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 7:30 PM

jhat,

I noticed you steered clear of the New Testament. Why?

The Old Testament was originally written for Gods chosen people the Israelites. These were the rules they were to live by to remain the chosen. This was their Covenant.

The New Testament was written for the New Covenant, Jesus' Covenant. A time of salvation for the rest of the world. He healed the sick, fed and sheltered the poor. Just as He did these things, so are we.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 9:52 PM

HerndonHank,

Did you choose to ignore my comment to put aside church denominations? Why?

In addition to Aramaic and Greek, the Bible was also written in Hebrew.

The King James Version was written to satisfy king james, not to justify his actions. The Truths are still there.

I personally don't know any "snake handlers". Can't find that act in the Bible.

Your cynicism is noted.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Sep 2, 2009, at 10:15 PM

Chunky,

About a month ago, I asked you where in the Bible Jesus preached that homosexuality was a sin.

You responded that in in Leviticus, "The Lord Jesus, the Creator" named homosexuality as a sin.

I assumed that to mean that you believed that the entire Bible reflected Jesus's opinions, and not just the New Testament.

If I was correct in my assumption, please explain why it's not valid to quote the old testament when talking about "straight out of the Bible" Christianity.

And if I was incorrect in my assumption, and you believe Jesus's new covenant made leviticus null and void, I will ask again: "where in the Bible does Jesus teach that homosexuality is a sin."

Now, if you're saying that our new "bible literal" Christian utopia will ignore the Old Testament completely, maybe I can get on board with that. (although, I wouldn't quite call that "bible literal" then.)

But I do have a few questions then.

In our New Testament utopia, do I have to be enemies with my family? (as Jesus says I will be in Matthew 10:35)

And how can I be beset against my family when I have to "honor my father and mother"? For which the penalty is still death (Matthew 15:4)

At least homosexuals will still be put to DEATH (along with adulterers)

Romans 1:31

And how can we ignore the Old Testament laws, when Jesus himself said:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

Matthew 5:17

-- Posted by jhat on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 9:27 AM

Before people think I'm sounding a bit too harsh...

I do think that many of Jesus' moral teachings were fantastic. And I do think that the country (world) would be alot better if people treated other people as they wished to be treated, if everyone loved their neighbors, and if we actually did sacrifice everything to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and heal the sick.

But my point is that a "bible literal" world is not one in which I would wish to live. If we want to pick out the positive moral teachings/laws from the bible, and live by them. That's fine and good. But it's hardly a "bible literal" world then.

Also, the aforementioned positive morals (loving your neighbor, golden rule, etc) are hardly exclusive to Christianity. Many world religions (and secular philosophies) espouse similar moral/ethical systems.

-- Posted by jhat on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 10:33 AM

Guillermo,

That is most certainly true. Both of these major religions have been responsible for their share of bloodshed. And I cringe when I think of anyone committing those atrocities because they've been told it's "God's will".

But I do not think it's fair to lay a large measure of that blame at the feet of moderate Christians/Muslims. They were not the ones responsible for those acts.

It is however important that today's moderate Christians and Muslims REMEMBER these atrocities, and that they recall they were committed by men who believed as ardently (or more ardently) than they do in their God. It's important that they recognize the dangers of what can be done in the name of their religion, particularly when their beliefs are twisted by those who would take advantage of their faith.

-- Posted by jhat on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 11:14 AM

G.I,

I was not trying to assert that you were blaming contemporary Christians/Muslims for the transgressions of their predecessors. Just wanted to share my thoughts on that matter.

I prefer to stick to more secular philosophies myself. I prefer the humanistic views on morality/ethics over the divine.

-- Posted by jhat on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 11:15 AM

"Except most religions and secular philosophies do not have as much blood on their hands as Christians and Muslims."

Well yeah, that has been the majority of the population in areas of the world we generally tend to care about. Stands to reason they would be responsible for most of the bloodshed.

This strikes me as a statement only designed to rile people up rather than contribute to any legitimate conversation.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 11:44 AM

Steffanie,

Amen. Jihad is horrible. I'm glad there aren't any verses in the Bible that advocate the death penalty for nonbelievers.

(except for Deuteronomy 17. we can ignore that, right?)

-- Posted by jhat on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 12:02 PM

Guillermo,

Well I do seem to remember something about some Asian nomads who did a lot of killing. I also believe I recall Egyptians and Hittites warring. Oh yeah Communist and supposedly atheistic Soviet Union and China never harmed a fly either. My point is that violence appears to me to be an aspect of human nature.

I never denied a history of violence I merely believe your comment is drivel meant to stir resentment and is a shallower thought than you usually provide. It's incredibly difficult to point at people who have commited atrocities in the name of thier religion, bravo to you for having the moral compass necessary to take that stand.

I also included the caveat that "we generally tend to care about" by which I tried to indicate the history that the general American populace pays much attention to.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 12:42 PM

"I am blaming the ideologies that compel rational and decent people to act irrationally and without morality."

Here is a perfect example in a difference between our ways of thinking.

I don't blame ideology, politics, religion, economic systems, etc. for ANYTHING. Instead I blame the individuals who act irrationally and without morality. I believe those people who are immoral would act in a similar manner anyway but that by cloaking it within a particular ideology they feel they can deflect personal criticism. You appear complicit when you blame Christians or Christianity for the atrocities committed by someone who claims to be a Christrian, where I would blame the offender.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 12:56 PM

I'm glad we can agree to disagree, that is if I read you correctly. I hold a view in which individuals are responsible for thier own beliefs and actions that are counter to thier cultures' rules and you apparently, if I read correctly, blame thier cultures for their actions.

If you are going to include all of a person's culture when discussing thier motives for violence, not just religion, I fully agree that we are all products of our lives and times. However, from your previous statement I think you meant that religion, specifically Christianity and Islam to be the driving force for violence? With which I cannot agree. I speak of those people who commit violence that goes against the norms of thier overall society, for example the man who shot Dr. Tiller. Although he claimed to be a Christian I don't believe he speaks for all or even a majority of American Christians.

A different example: to attempt to either blame or separate the contemporaneous religious beliefs of Middle Age Christians or Muslims from the overall culture and seek to blame religion for the wars seems a narrow and weak argument. If this is not what you intend then disregard.

I get it that you are such a supremely intelligent and advanced individual that you have evolved beyond the need for any "superstition" and that appear to hold those who do in contempt. I didn't say nor have I ever said that one needs a religion to have a good moral grounding. However I also don't attack those who do. Was your comment about bloodshed anything other than an attempt to harass Christians or Muslims in an attempt to create an argument? For that is all it appeared to be to me.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 2:31 PM

Your previous exchange with SWNT suggests that you believe that outside forces tend to influence ones way of thinking. Wouldn't you have to agree that those same Christian abortions would have been influenced by other outside "driving forces" (such as liberal politicians proclaiming pro-choice over pro-life)?

You can't have it both ways...unless you think that Christians are only influenced by the church.

I believe Steffanie's point wasn't that only atheists have abortions, but rather that they (and their left wing goons) have contributed to the social acceptance of abortions.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 3:44 PM

GI & SWN,

Interesting discussion about where to place blame, on the individual or on his/her acculteration.

My own opinion is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. There is individual responsibility, but there is also a cultural responsibility.

To make an extreme example:

Let's say a sociopath were to have a child, and he raised that child in his basement, with no other human interaction. The sociopath teaches the child horrible things about the "outside world", and instills in that child a deep seated hatred and mistrust of outsiders, going as far as to teach the child that he should kill all outsiders, indiscriminately.

This is all the child is taught, for his whole upbringing, until he becomes a man. At which time, he is sent from the basement with a knife, and sent to kill as many 'outsiders' as possible. Which he does.

Now in this scenario, as horrible as it is to imagine, I would not place the fault on the child who grew into a grown murderer. I would place most of the blame on the acculturation he experienced while developing his view of the world.

Perhaps a more contemporary and prescient example: Violent Muslim extremists. Men who execute innocents in the street, along with themselves. I would never claim that these men have no individual responsibility. They absolutely do.

But, understand that many of them have been taught since birth to be a 'martyr' for god. That they've grown up being told the highest honor you can achieve is to sacrifice yourself in an act of violence. They've been taught that westerners are evil, and that they wish to exterminate Islam from the face of the earth. That they wholeheartedly believe they will be awarded with paradise for their sacrifice in this struggle. They absolutely believe all of this.

Certainly SOME blame must rest on the culture. Much of it lies at the feet of 'radical Islam', and some small measure of it must be placed on Islam in general.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions. But the culture an individual is exposed to is responsible, in at least some way, for shaping the actions of the individual. We must recognize the blame falls on both if we are to take any action to rectify the situation. Individuals can be incarcerated, isolated from society. But we must recognize the influence of the culture the individual grew up in. We must because it's in our society's best interest to take collective action to rectify the culture.

-- Posted by jhat on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM

You will have to show me where I stated that abortions didn't exist until liberal politicians...I must have missed that.

You arrogant twit, I said they have contributed to the social acceptance. If you deny that, then you are ignorant. The ease with which abortions are performed today, on a whim after a regretful one night stand, are available to the extent they are is because of the liberals and the pro-choice movement. The morning after pill...social acceptance...get it?

"People are, quite clearly, who they are because of a process of interactions with different cultures and sub-cultures taught them how to behave" - Outside forces influencing behavior...my, how did I misinterpret that?

-- Posted by Husker23 on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 4:13 PM

jhat,

Jesus' opinions? Please explain.

I don't recall in my post saying the Old Testament was void, nor do I recall Jesus saying the Old Testament was void.

The 10 Commandments are that, commandments which we are all to live by.

I see also you are taking specific verses from the Bible and taking them out of context. Anyone looking up jhat's verses are well advised to read 2 or 3 verses ahead and 2 to 3 verses after to get Jesus' full context.

It boils down to this, if you want to believe, then believe. If not, don't. But we will be there for you if you change your mind.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 5:57 PM

"I prefer the humanistic views on morality/ethics over the divine." jhat.

Some exapmles please.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 6:21 PM

Talk about an unscientific research, this was more of a poll. Did the teenagers merely say they are Christians or were they practicing Christians. There is a difference.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 6:52 PM

"Are somebodies panties getting bunched?"

Point one: So 3rd grade, do you have arm-pit hair yet?

Point two: After all your articulate and self proclaimed superior writing...it comes down to this? Your true colors emerge.

Point three: That's the 2nd time you've attempted to attack me with a sexist/homophobic remark. A Freudian slip perhaps? I think someone has another closet that they would like to come out of.

Yes, my narrow minded teletubby groupie, abortions have existed for thousands of years...yes they will continue...The point I am making is that in today's world, it is more socially accepted, more readily available, and easier to get than in the days of your not-too-distant neanderthal cousins and other chromosome missing ancestors. (How is it that you type so well without opposable thumbs?) Can you deny that abortions are more prevalent today than ever before? Even on a percentage of population basis.

One example of why it is that way today is in no doubt because of the liberals and the pro-choice groups. Your denial of that simple fact destroys what little credibility you think you have.

So enlighten me please oh superior one...which is it? Individuals make their own decisions of their own free will...or are they influenced by their cultural surroundings? Maybe I'll get a different answer tomorrow.

On second thought, nevermind...I think at this point I'm more interested in the molecular structure of mold than your mindless drivel.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 9:59 PM

CPB,

What I'm saying is, that I had previously asked for a bible quotation where Jesus says homosexuality is wrong.

In response, you cited Leviticius, stating that it was a quote from "Jesus, the Creator". Are you reversing your position? Is that not Jesus now? If so, could you point me towards where Jesus ACTUALLY says homosexuality is a sin.

As far as what moral/ethical systems I subscribe to... I don't subscribe to any ONE. I take aspects from any and all moral systems that I find positive, and combine them into my own.

A more "humanistic" view would be a view of morality that focuses on human society instead of divine law. Instead of having morals handed down from on high, I believe they can be derived from non-supernatural means. I unfortunately have a plane to catch now, so I can't go into this further. Another time perhaps.

"It boils down to this, if you want to believe, then believe. If not, don't."

And I was not arguing against belief here. I have no problem with what anyone believes. I was arguing that a society that follows biblical law literally, is not necessarily a place I want to live. Or that I would suspect many people, would want to live.

"The 10 Commandments are that, commandments which we are all to live by."

I'm not saying that they're not commandments that Christians live by. I'm just saying that if was the omnipotent deity of the universe, I would include anti-slavery/anti-violence/anti-rape commandments, perhaps instead of having the first 4 simply appeal to my vanity.

-- Posted by jhat on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 5:12 AM

jhat,

I think your examples of a sociopath and the Muslim extremists are somewhat valid. I agree that how one is raise has a great deal to do with how they act. However, when I was discussing with Guillermo I was referring to the overall society and dominant culture. A sociopath, by definition does not associate themselves with the dominant culture and therefore skews any cultural prediction of behavior. Likewise with extremists. They are extreme because they are a sub-set or sub-culture and not representative of society as a whole.

Guillermo:

I guess my main point if it were to be boiled down is: I think violence is perfectly able to exist without religion. Religion is merely an excuse those who would be violent sometimes use.

I don't believe I hold any one in contempt regardless of what I might believe about thier beliefs. That you do makes me think less of you. (not that you probably care what I think)

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 10:22 AM

For all LITERAL BELIEVERS!!

Consider every Biblical text -- Old Testament, New Testament [For which there are no known Hebrew texts}, only portions of Aramaic texts and nearly complete Greek Texts.

A totally unknown book has been discovered within the ancient Ethopian Church, isolated from all other Christian faiths for nearly the entire life of Christianity. Authored by a WOMAN.

Now consider every author of every book -- divinely inspired or not -- ABSOLUTELY BELIEVED THE EARTH IS A FLAT PLATE AT THE CENTER OF A VERY LIMITED UNIVERSE.

Then consider modern man's expansion of knowledge concerning this universe since the Hubbel Telescope first went into orbit.

Consider the Articles of Faith viewed as absolute religious dogma by the vast majority of Christians until after 1800.

Slavery is moral.

Correcting the little woman with a club or bullwhip is moral.

Executing a black slave for any perceived insult or disobedience is the master's God Given Right and Duty.

If a woman is barren, she should be cast aside in order for her husband, lord and master to take another wife capable of bearing children.

If the husband is divinely selected as a monarch, he may just "lop off her head" to permit a quicky marriage to some younger "tight body."

The only criteria for selecting a royal wife, political advantage, that "tight body" and masculine lust -- as ordered by God.

What the BIBLE CENTERED theologians on this blog are actually saying -- All the rest of you people should start believing and living by

"MY BIBLE" --the BIBLE I prefer and I want to decide all interpretation.

Sorry folks, I have no problem with what you want to believe -- The moon is green cheese, Your mother and your wife should never have been allowed to vote, Your Horse, Cow and Dog excrete your concept of "holy water."

If you want to believe it -- be my guest.

But your right to religious freedom ends at the tip of my nose and the shell of my ear.

Just as my right to religious freedom is mine and does not restrict your freedom.

Just shelve the nonsense that your version of religion is capable of remaking our government.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 2:38 PM

Hank, is there something you would like to talk about?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 3:19 PM

Of course I would like to have a more civilized discussion...been there, tried that. My first post about abortions was a sincere and honest question posed to you about the influence of the outside world (including liberal pro-choice people). Your reply (in my view) was to rearrange my question in an attempt to talk down to me as though I must be a buffoon to believe that abortions didn't exist before liberals. Which was, needless to say, completely off target.

Shouting matches don't help, and I take responsibility for my part.

It is obvious that you are well-versed about the topics that you discuss. However, your lack of honesty about your political position gives the impression that you are an advocate for the political center, while at the same time referring to Nixon and Reagan as criminals and calling their deaths something to "celebrate". Calling for the prosecution of Bush and his associates to be tried for criminal offenses.

It just appears to me that you are the same stereotypical liberal left-wing biased blogger, dressing up your comments in a more appeasing and articulate manner.

I have not referred to, nor personally attacked, any Liberal leader in such a negative light as you have current and former Conservative leaders. I would suspect that no matter what decision a public official makes, he/she is setting themselves up for a lot of negative scrutiny and personal attacks. Are there dishonest, conniving and corrupt political leaders? Absolutely, but given the credibility of all media today, much of that reporting is nothing more than speculation bordering on political propaganda.

Who in their right minds would accept a job in which every single decision made is going to be dissected? Right down to what dog you choose, or what color of tie you are wearing? Would you put yourself in the line of political fire as they have?

Bush would have been criticized by one group had he not gone to the extent he did to protect this country. He continues to be raked over the coals by the libs for going to that same extent. Yet here we are, coming up on 8 years later, without an attack on U.S. soil. What do you suppose they would be saying about him if he didn't take the stance that he did, and we had been attacked again? They would have ostracized him for failing to protect. I remember quite clearly the day that he took that bullhorn and proclaimed to the world, "I can here you! I can here you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people -- and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" No teleprompters needed...I was never more proud to be an American than at that very moment.

I cannot speak for Steffanie and Sceptre, but I can certainly understand their frustrations in communicating with the other side. At some point it becomes easier to jab, than it is to continue to try and get our points across. Which, agreeably, can be counter-productive.

A good friend introduced me to this quote years ago: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Friedrich Nietzsche). I believe in that quote...and I believe we all have well intentioned thoughts and opinions that deserve to be debated.

Want a civilized debate? Yes...just leave the "looooooong" patronizing poking to the extremists and I will do the same.

-- Posted by Husker23 on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 4:59 PM

I'm so glad husker23 and Guillermo Inglaterra (Iggy) kissed and made up. I for one am so glad Iggy proves his superior intellect.(PUKE)

Now HerndonHank, show me where in the Holy Bible, does Jesus Christ approve of the things you said. PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 7:12 PM

Thank you Iggy, I feel your love.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 9:36 PM

The midwest awaits Guillermo Inglaterra, and his Google search. Good luck Iggy.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Sep 5, 2009, at 5:22 PM