Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Yes, but the thrust of your perspective seems to be that having a strong opinion against an organization of people is equivalent to rebellion against God. 

I never said anyone was rebelling against God.  However, I do not appreciate the liberal attacks on Christian organizations in the last decade or so.  I am offended by people who no longer even want to identify themselves as "Christians".

In the 90's there was a movement that tried to identify Christianity with being Republican.  It focused primarily on being pro-life, anti-homosexuality, and pro-politics in general.  Now in the 2000's there is a movement that tries to identify Christianity with liberalism.  It focuses primarily on environmentalism, eliminating poverty, and avoiding politics in general.

The conservative swing of Christianity in the 90's attacked Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and Democrats.  The liberal swing of Christianity now attacks the Church.

Both of these extremes have problems.  I just want to make sure that those on the forum of the liberal persuasion see it.

In the 90's there was a movement that tried to identify Christianity with being Republican.  It focused primarily on being pro-life, anti-homosexuality, and pro-politics in general.  Now in the 2000's there is a movement that tries to identify Christianity with liberalism.  It focuses primarily on environmentalism, eliminating poverty, and avoiding politics in general.

FWIW, I agree with Schaef that you seem to be very defensive about your current position in this thread. I, for instance, "avoid politics in general" so I fear that you would lump me into the latter category of liberalism. Meeting one criteria of your preceived list does not make me a card-carrying member of the group, but that is the generalization that you appear to be making. For the record, I have been able to legally vote since 1986, but I have never once voted in any election. This is a choice I made long before any "movements" that you are citing. Ironically, I was strongly considering voting this year because of the importance of school-related legislation that significantly impacts my career. But, after being bombarded with the mudslinging hate mail, commercials, and phone calls from the candidates (liberal and conservative), I have reaffirmed my committment to not vote for the "lesser of two evils." If there is ever a candidate that I can honestly say I want to represent me, then I will end my abstinance from politics. Until then, I hope you will not treat me as a "liberal who is afraid to call himself a Christian."

Quote

a conservative political even when it conflicts with the gospel.

Proof or it didn't happen. No tenant of conservative theory contradicts the Bible.

I wont debate that here because this will lead to tangets and the topic is about the movie..or more so now the interpretation fo the movie and its appropriateness for Christians and or children and the organizations that provide information for us to make those choices.  If you want to start another thread for this I am game.

I just happen not to think that anyone who has a problem with Focus on the Family - or even more narrowly, their form of film criticism - is by default a). ideologically liberal, b). intent upon watching anything produced by Hollywood with no discernment, or c). intent upon exhibiting purely secular behavior.

Having professed each of these three opinions at one point or another, I stand by my observation about what your statements seem to be saying.

I agree with this 1000%
\

I also say that the "Liberal" view is not simply attacking the church, but it is attacking close minded, dogmatic/Pharisitical interpretations of right and wrong within the church.  They dont really have a problem with the church per se (some imight but that would be a minority) they have a problem with the "I said it, so go and do it" laws that men create surrounding scripture.  There are hard and fast rules in scripture..but there are far less than most people try to make out of scripture.

FWIW, you can still vote on local issues without having to submit yourself to Sophie's Choice.  In fact, my dyed-in-the-wool-10th-Amendment-states-rights-conservatism depends on your involvement on a local level. 

Unfortunately the locals in my area are loco. 

Current Florida Governor Charlie Crist is a good example of why I am hesitant to give my vote to someone I don't trust. The local election propaganda is making me ill.

*****IRONY**** I just got a call from the Lake County, Florida Republican Party with another mudslinging ad just as I was typing this! 

Anyway, my current dilemma is that the political organizations for teachers are primarily liberal, and the government programs like WIC that are strongly supported by Democrats are the only thing keeping food in my refrigerator. I certainly do not support most of the platforms of the local Democrats, but I would have to decide whether to vote on conservative morals, or on my family's immediate needs. That is not a choice I am comfortable making at this time.

And before anyone confuses "conservative morals" with "Christian morals," I have not generally found Republicans to be more Godly people than Democrats. God looks at the heart, not the campaign pin.

a). you can vote on issues and not politicians.  e.g. there is a library levy on our local ballot this year of some import.

b). keep in mind that conservative ideology is for minimal, required, effective federal governance with decentralized power in state and local controls.  Near-zero federal control is the purview of the libertarians, and I doubt any R's will be voting to defund the WIC program any time soon.  It's there for people who need it, though prone to exploitation and abuse.  I have gotten by with no assistance from unemployment or WIC thus far in my adult life, because I think those funds should be for those who need it to get by.  If you need it, by all means, take it with dignity intact.

Glenn Beck just had a show stating to vote for people of integraty, no matter what party they are from (and mentioned how sick he is of people saying you are throwing away your vote if you go with a third party).

I also mainly focus on the props (especially since I'm a conservative in Cali, my votes are mostly meaningless (except next week where we might finally win back Cali)).  I see the props as the best way to have our voices heard (well...unless the losers whine and drag it out in court forever).

I also mainly focus on the props (especially since I'm a conservative in Cali, my votes are mostly meaningless (except next week where we might finally win back Cali)).  I see the props as the best way to have our voices heard (well...unless the losers whine and drag it out in court forever).

And what would you be winning California back from?

Governor/senate/house.

I'm beginning to wonder if it's even possible for you to post on a serious topic without tearing down other people's motives in the process.

Fact: Prop 8 had nothing to do with liberty or justice.
Fact: The zero-gravity fight was epic.

Yes it does,
and yes the fight was very epic, I preferred the ski battle but that was a close second

I know I'm hoping for a Republican victory and they take the majority. And when it happens, I hope my boi BHO doesn't want to negotiate the budget, so one isn't passed. That'd be epicly interesting.

That would be nice.  I think the only way fo rthe government to not overspend is to get them to not pass a budget to begin with.

Personally I believe a balanced budget ammentment should be passed with a war time only emergency exception.

They cant spend anything until they pass a budget.  What usually happens though is that they pass a "continuing resolution" that funds the government off of the previous years budget, sometimes at a % decrease

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on October 27, 2010, 08:15:53 PM

I know I'm hoping for a Republican victory and they take the majority. And when it happens, I hope my boi BHO doesn't want to negotiate the budget, so one isn't passed. That'd be epicly interesting.

That would be nice.  I think the only way for the government to not overspend is to get them to not pass a budget to begin with.

Personally I believe a balanced budget amendment should be passed with a war time only emergency exception.

Your logic confuses me, the only way to limit spending is not to limit it hmm....
Well we are at war and in the middle of an economic emergency