[kiltsareitchy07]

Bush has been called out many times by most conservatives.

But for what though? A militarist foreign policy? For botching the Katrina relief? What about the criticism from conservative Christians? Aside from abortion and gay marriage, has the conservative, evangelical wing of the Republican party lambasted his administration as vociferously for failing to live up to other teachings of Christ?

[4everfsu]

Why should we blast Bush for his shortcomings as you call it? We have you to do that

[kiltsareitchy07]

But I also condemn aggressive foreign policies and billions upon billions of dollars spent for new and more ways to kill our neighbors, whom we're commanded to love as ourselves.

The idea that poverty can be eliminated is pure fantasy, primarily because the level of poverty in a society is defined by its affluence. There are obviously those who struggle in this country but what passes for poor in America would be considered, at worst, upper middle class in certain areas of the world.

So because we can't totally eliminate poverty, we're called to just say, "Oh well. I guess we can't fix it. Might as well just sit around." ? No. Christ called us to work for his kingdom, trusting that he will grant the final victory. We're to labor in the vineyards regardless. Abortion can't be totally stopped, but wouldn't you consider it a good thing if its frequency was reduced? Poverty is the same way.

In addition, I doubt it would be of any comfort or help to the homeless people that live around me here in Tallahassee to tell them, "Cheer up. In Afghanistan, you'd be middle class!" No. They'd still be homeless and still be hungry.

But this is getting off the thread's main topic, I think. To sum it all up, LU can deny anyone official sanction it wants if it feels their beliefs go against the University's mission statement. It's LU's right. I'm just trying to ascertain why the Democratic Party is singled out for supporting anti-Christian practices and yet the Republican party gets the official OK when, clearly, both parties sin in the true sense of the word αμαρτια: missing the mark.

[Libertine]

Bush has been called out many times by most conservatives.

But for what though? A militarist foreign policy? For botching the Katrina relief? What about the criticism from conservative Christians? Aside from abortion and gay marriage, has the conservative, evangelical wing of the Republican party lambasted his administration as vociferously for failing to live up to other teachings of Christ?

Do you keep changing your typographical emphasis on "other" or is it me?

In any event, the militarist foreign policy was a welcome change from the appeasement policy of the Clinton administration. Ultimately, neither was successful in the long-term but that has nothing to do with this discussion since foreign policy is a function of the state and not a function of the church. The peacemakers may be blessed but, every once in a while, the peacemakers still get a couple airliners flown into their buildings. As for failing to live up to the "other" teachings of Christ (and I assume that you're referring to alleviating poverty here), helping the poor was a command that Christ gave to the church, not to the state. I'm fully convinced that if American Christians had been doing their job for the last century or so, there would be no need for a welfare system in this country.

In this case, the Dems get the boot because their official party platform directly contradicts the values of our university. I don't know how many times that can be said before it sinks in. If the Republicans ever did something so contrary to the core and tradition of this school, I'm sure they'd be out as well.

[phoenix]

Kilts, what was the foreign policy ordained by God in Joshua? What about David's foreign policy? I'm not equating the US with ancient Israel, but to say that we have to condemn all aggressive, preemptive war is to ignore a rather large chunk of the Bible, and to ignore the social and political context of Christ's remarks. Christ's teaching (as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread) was directed to the Church, not to the government. The government has no Biblical role in feeding the hungry or sheltering the homeless. That is the role of the Church -- the people who are supposed to love the world as Christ loved the world.

And I guess the reason you never heard Doc condemn poverty is that you weren't listening -- in my 3 1/2 years in Lynchburg I heard it on numerous occasions. He always said the ultimate need people have is the Gospel, but he also said that people hear the gospel better when they had full bellies and decent clothes to wear. But he didn't believe that the government was responsible for doing that -- it's the Church. Always has been, and always should be.

Interesting note about the poor, from Jesus:

Matthew 26:6-13
Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”

Obviously, He isn't saying to ignore the poor. What He is saying is that there are more important things to fight than poverty. This is the thing that the mainline denoms forgot with their 'social gospel' back in the 30s and 40s -- we must do good works, we must take care of the poor and homeless, but we also have to minister to them spiritually as we minister to them physically. Fundamentalists forgot the social/physical side of the equation, while moderates and liberals tend to forget the spiritual side.

[kiltsareitchy07]

Kilts, what was the foreign policy ordained by God in Joshua? What about David's foreign policy? I'm not equating the US with ancient Israel, but to say that we have to condemn all aggressive, preemptive war is to ignore a rather large chunk of the Bible, and to ignore the social and political context of Christ's remarks. Christ's teaching (as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread) was directed to the Church, not to the government. The government has no Biblical role in feeding the hungry or sheltering the homeless. That is the role of the Church -- the people who are supposed to love the world as Christ loved the world.

And I guess the reason you never heard Doc condemn poverty is that you weren't listening -- in my 3 1/2 years in Lynchburg I heard it on numerous occasions. He always said the ultimate need people have is the Gospel, but he also said that people hear the gospel better when they had full bellies and decent clothes to wear. But he didn't believe that the government was responsible for doing that -- it's the Church. Always has been, and always should be.

Interesting note about the poor, from Jesus:

Matthew 26:6-13
Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”

Obviously, He isn't saying to ignore the poor. What He is saying is that there are more important things to fight than poverty. This is the thing that the mainline denoms forgot with their 'social gospel' back in the 30s and 40s -- we must do good works, we must take care of the poor and homeless, but we also have to minister to them spiritually as we minister to them physically. Fundamentalists forgot the social/physical side of the equation, while moderates and liberals tend to forget the spiritual side.

I think, although unintended, you are equating the US with ancient Israel. That foreign policy was for God's chosen people. America doesn't enjoy favored nation status with God. I will agree with you that the Church has a special mission, but if the government, especially headed by a Christian president [Bush II and Obama] can sponsor efforts at meaningful poverty relief, then why can't Christian citizens get behind it?

Anyway, no one's answered my question yet. Why single out the Democrats?

[kiltsareitchy07]

Kilts, what was the foreign policy ordained by God in Joshua? What about David's foreign policy? I'm not equating the US with ancient Israel, but to say that we have to condemn all aggressive, preemptive war is to ignore a rather large chunk of the Bible, and to ignore the social and political context of Christ's remarks. Christ's teaching (as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread) was directed to the Church, not to the government. The government has no Biblical role in feeding the hungry or sheltering the homeless. That is the role of the Church -- the people who are supposed to love the world as Christ loved the world.

And I guess the reason you never heard Doc condemn poverty is that you weren't listening -- in my 3 1/2 years in Lynchburg I heard it on numerous occasions. He always said the ultimate need people have is the Gospel, but he also said that people hear the gospel better when they had full bellies and decent clothes to wear. But he didn't believe that the government was responsible for doing that -- it's the Church. Always has been, and always should be.

Interesting note about the poor, from Jesus:

Matthew 26:6-13
Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”

Obviously, He isn't saying to ignore the poor. What He is saying is that there are more important things to fight than poverty. This is the thing that the mainline denoms forgot with their 'social gospel' back in the 30s and 40s -- we must do good works, we must take care of the poor and homeless, but we also have to minister to them spiritually as we minister to them physically. Fundamentalists forgot the social/physical side of the equation, while moderates and liberals tend to forget the spiritual side.

I think what Jesus meant was that caring the poor will always be the prerogative of the Church. See above post, though, about the state/Church.

[4everfsu]

Well democratic platform is for pro choice. A fancy word for abortion. Last I checked the repub platform is pro life

[vabills]

Bush has been called out many times by most conservatives.

But for what though? A militarist foreign policy? For botching the Katrina relief? What about the criticism from conservative Christians? Aside from abortion and gay marriage, has the conservative, evangelical wing of the Republican party lambasted his administration as vociferously for failing to live up to other teachings of Christ?

If you didn't work at HUD or DHS, then you don't know what you're talking about on Katrina. I did and there were a lot of things that were political where those on the left who were Clinton left overs in both agencies stymied certain efforts in order to make the admin look bad. Do a little research you'll see some effort put forth to get everyone into assisted housing around the country in 7 days that was sqaushed or misrepresented to the media in order to prevent it.

As far as military might goes, one of my favorite quotes:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -- John Stuart Mill



There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven—
A time to give birth and a time to die;
A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.
A time to kill and a time to heal;
A time to tear down and a time to build up.
A time to weep and a time to laugh;
A time to mourn and a time to dance.
A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.
A time to search and a time to give up as lost;
A time to keep and a time to throw away.
A time to tear apart and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent and a time to speak.
A time to love and a time to hate;
A time for war and a time for peace.

[jinxy]

Everyone is too easily offended and hurt. That is the problem with America today. JF made a reasonable counter offer if you people dont like it feel free to move on to another school or job. This reminds me of unions who constantly want to gripe about the conditions, go get another job, nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you work the job or go to this school. I dont know why everyone feels like they have to force an issue on their employer and school. Part of a power position is making tough choices like these. I dont blame the school for doing it one bit. As far as what Hine allegedly said, I really dont care about that either. It's not accurate to say that but I understand a bit of where he was coming from. Repubs and Dems are both just a tool in the bureacratic scheme that use the average blind person for their own power advancement. We need term limits and a thorough house cleaning of congress. This would take years to do but new blood is badly needed in the congress.

[RagingTireFire]

This is the thing that the mainline denoms forgot with their 'social gospel' back in the 30s and 40s -- we must do good works, we must take care of the poor and homeless, but we also have to minister to them spiritually as we minister to them physically. Fundamentalists forgot the social/physical side of the equation, while moderates and liberals tend to forget the spiritual side.

Quoted for truth. The Dickensian social gospel is well-intended but misses the vital points of what Christ taught which is to know Him first. Too often, ministers of the social gospel forget why they are ministering in the first place.

Now, back to the partisan squabbling.

[phoenix]

I think, although unintended, you are equating the US with ancient Israel. That foreign policy was for God's chosen people. America doesn't enjoy favored nation status with God. I will agree with you that the Church has a special mission, but if the government, especially headed by a Christian president [Bush II and Obama] can sponsor efforts at meaningful poverty relief, then why can't Christian citizens get behind it?

Anyway, no one's answered my question yet. Why single out the Democrats?

Not equating the US with Israel at all. Your assertion seems to be that preemptive war is unBiblical. The Biblical record shows otherwise; it shows that there are circumstances where preemptive war is necessary. For example, a preemptive war in 1939 against Germany would have been morally justified. Preemptive war is not always right, but it is sometimes necessary. (And I never thought I'd hear a Presbyterian sounding like a dispensationalist;) )

I don't know many people who single out the Democrats. I certainly don't; in fact, I'm usually harder on the GOP, since I view them as using Christians without really caring about our concerns in between elections. I think that if the CRs at Liberty were supporting a pro-choice candidate, they'd be treated similarly. That's the focus of this decision -- the support by the College Democrats at Liberty of a political candidate that is pro-choice, which is contrary not only to the agreement that the CDems made with the university, but also it's own charter.

And, finally, the reason I don't support any President sponsoring meaningful poverty relief is that it's not the role of government to do that, especially when the means they use is taking money away from people who have worked to earn it and giving it to people who have not earned it, many of whom can't be bothered to earn it when they are able (and I say that as someone who is related to people who are in that situation, who don't have jobs and are living off the government dole, who have no intention of actually going to work as long as they're getting their government check every month.)

[Baldspot]

I'm editing your post for being a total jerk. - El Scorcho

P.S.

If you don't like it, complain to the owner.

I can appreciate your position and support your decision to edit my post. I did find it interesting, however, and my post was in direct reponse to, the decision to allow posts on this thread, even to this day, which refer to a certain administrator at LU as an "idiot" and quotes attributed to that person, if true, puts the person's mental capacity on the moronic stratosphere.

To their credit, the school has gone to great lengths to protect the 18 year old student leader and staff advisor. Kudos to them. Due to the bent this thread had taken at the moderator's discretion, I decided to pull information previously offerred on this web site by the very person in question - who recently opened herself up to nat'l media and I would add, nat'l scrutiny, to give a glimpse of the other side of the story.

The other side of the story isn't pretty, I understand. Perhaps in the future, everyone - moderators, posters and me alike, could be a little more sensitive in this area.

[LUconn]

wow. I don't really understand but I know that wow is the correct reaction to that.

[ALUmnus]

Yeah, that gets to the level of jerk-ness that isn't reached too often here. The submit button was clicked a little too hastily there. Quick, there's still the edit button!

[El Scorcho]

Just in case it isn't crystal clear based on my edit above: You, sir, have made me more angry than I've ever been at something on FlameFans. I don't really care one way or the other what happens to this club or what has previously been said in this post. That's why I haven't replied to it. However, what you said crossed a line that I don't think I've ever seen crossed here.

If you hadn't been here for so long with a previously clean track record you would be gone.

I really can't believe you said that. I'm only posting this in the thread and not a PM so that everyone who had already read it understands it's not acceptable here.

Ugh.

[matshark]

Hmm...makes me wish i'd seen what he posted.

[Hold My Own]

I am not going to lie, I wouldnt mind seeing LU getting rid of all political clubs and force the students to start supporting candidates based on their beliefs and voting past...nothing makes me more upset then hearing someone is a straight ticket voter, that is so lazy.


Anytime election time comes around we (as a school) look at all those running and put our full support behind them. At that time, if a group of students and faculty chooses to "endorse" someone that is not being endorsed by the school they too can create a group as long as their person's beliefs abide by that which Liberty stands for.


Looks to me like this could be a pretty good answer and force everyone to look deeper than Republicans and Democrats

[matshark]

I am not going to lie, I wouldnt mind seeing LU getting rid of all political clubs and force the students to start supporting candidates based on their beliefs and voting past...nothing makes me more upset then hearing someone is a straight ticket voter, that is so lazy.


Anytime election time comes around we (as a school) look at all those running and put our full support behind them. At that time, if a group of students and faculty chooses to "endorse" someone that is not being endorsed by the school they too can create a group as long as their person's beliefs abide by that which Liberty stands for.


Looks to me like this could be a pretty good answer and force everyone to look deeper than Republicans and Democrats

AMEN!

[Covert Hawk]

I am not going to lie, I wouldnt mind seeing LU getting rid of all political clubs and force the students to start supporting candidates based on their beliefs and voting past...nothing makes me more upset then hearing someone is a straight ticket voter, that is so lazy.


Anytime election time comes around we (as a school) look at all those running and put our full support behind them. At that time, if a group of students and faculty chooses to "endorse" someone that is not being endorsed by the school they too can create a group as long as their person's beliefs abide by that which Liberty stands for.


Looks to me like this could be a pretty good answer and force everyone to look deeper than Republicans and Democrats

AMEN!

I'll agree to this!

[ToTheLeft]

I am not going to lie, I wouldnt mind seeing LU getting rid of all political clubs and force the students to start supporting candidates based on their beliefs and voting past...nothing makes me more upset then hearing someone is a straight ticket voter, that is so lazy.


Anytime election time comes around we (as a school) look at all those running and put our full support behind them. At that time, if a group of students and faculty chooses to "endorse" someone that is not being endorsed by the school they too can create a group as long as their person's beliefs abide by that which Liberty stands for.


Looks to me like this could be a pretty good answer and force everyone to look deeper than Republicans and Democrats

It would also help us look better in the IRS's eyes if we dropped College Repub's, so we would then be balanced since we dont support or endorse either party. And then start/encourage a "Christian Politics" or "Christian Voters" club, which would probably be mostly the College Repub's, and allow that to be the club for political discussion and activism.

[BrysOn_G]

if not already posted, JJ will be live on 105.9 (local to the burg) in about 10 mins.

[Realist]

Well democratic platform is for pro choice. A fancy word for abortion. Last I checked the repub platform is pro life

No, pro choice is what it means, it means you have a right to choose an abortion if you want to. It isn't another word for abortion. While my beliefs tend to line up with conservatives, I always find this element of the platform very hypocritical. Many of the same people who claim we should the smallest government possible also rail to make criminal the choice of having an abortion.

This thread has certainly been eye opening. Huge mistake by your school.

[GoUNCA]

Kilts, what was the foreign policy ordained by God in Joshua? What about David's foreign policy? I'm not equating the US with ancient Israel, but to say that we have to condemn all aggressive, preemptive war is to ignore a rather large chunk of the Bible, and to ignore the social and political context of Christ's remarks. Christ's teaching (as has been mentioned numerous times in this thread) was directed to the Church, not to the government. The government has no Biblical role in feeding the hungry or sheltering the homeless. That is the role of the Church -- the people who are supposed to love the world as Christ loved the world.

And I guess the reason you never heard Doc condemn poverty is that you weren't listening -- in my 3 1/2 years in Lynchburg I heard it on numerous occasions. He always said the ultimate need people have is the Gospel, but he also said that people hear the gospel better when they had full bellies and decent clothes to wear. But he didn't believe that the government was responsible for doing that -- it's the Church. Always has been, and always should be.

Interesting note about the poor, from Jesus:

Matthew 26:6-13
Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste? For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial. Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.”

Obviously, He isn't saying to ignore the poor. What He is saying is that there are more important things to fight than poverty. This is the thing that the mainline denoms forgot with their 'social gospel' back in the 30s and 40s -- we must do good works, we must take care of the poor and homeless, but we also have to minister to them spiritually as we minister to them physically. Fundamentalists forgot the social/physical side of the equation, while moderates and liberals tend to forget the spiritual side.

I think using the quote from Matthew is pretty weak. You are leaving out the situation and focusing on what he said about the poor. It is probably better shown in Mark 14:3-9 when he says "You will always have poor people with you and you can help them anytime you want. (14:7)" If you notice, the story is a rebuke on Judas for being a hypocrite which he then leads into telling of his impending death, not a good verse for any overarching theory on the poor. If anything it rebukes Judas for not always helping the poor on his time and dime.

[LUconn]

No, pro choice is what it means, it means you have a right to choose an abortion if you want to. It isn't another word for abortion. While my beliefs tend to line up with conservatives, I always find this element of the platform very hypocritical. Many of the same people who claim we should the smallest government possible also rail to make criminal the choice of having an abortion.

Come on. This isn't wart removal. I at least understand where pro-choicers are coming from. Are you really that obtuse that you don't know we see this as ending a life? Are we just trying to control women? Don't be silly.