Intolerant Liberals

DeletedUser

I agree. As much as I enjoy a good argument, I usually try to avoid the mud-slinging.
 

DeletedUser

gizmo501 said:
so then are you calling missionaries immoral. and remember Cival rights was the republicans.

democrats wanted to keep black people as slaves
Click to expand...
Hi gizmo, just caught this comment.

Actually gizmo, this is not accurate. Many democrats joined the newly formed Republican Party in opposition to certain aspects of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Regardless, the Republican and Democratic parties of the 1800's are not the parties we know today. Or, more aptly, are unlike the present-day versions of both parties.

While both parties changed gradually, the most dramatic changes occurred due to (but not immediately after) Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal." In the ensuing years, liberalism and conservatism were given clear parameters, which could otherwise be viewed as for and against (respectively) the New Deal. Opposition to the New Deal, i.e., convervatives, joined the Republican Party.

The clear and present state of liberalism, and of the Democratic Party, occurred during Lyndon B. Johnson's Presidency, in which he built from the "New Deal" policies of Roosevelt a set of domestic reform programs now referred to as the Great Society. It is in these reformations we find the bulk of our present-day understandings of social equality and it is in these and the New Deal we find the bulk of present-day Democratic Party policies.

In contrast, the Republican Party adopted the conservative stance, in opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal. Many conservative southern Democrats also joined in opposition, creating the Conservative coalition (a coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats). Around 1994, positions previously held by conservative democrats were won by conservative Republicans, thus ending the coalition and birthing today's version of the Republican Party.

So, in many respects Gizmo, what was once the Republican Party, and once the Democratic Party, are now in dramatically different positions. A sort of role-reversal.
 

DeletedUser

Virginia said:
The Bible says there is only one way to get to heaven. L3 claims it's by works, JM claims it's by faith. Only one of them can be right.

I have nothing more to say.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, sister Virginia..don't get me wrong. I also say its with faith, however, I say that one's faith must also show through one's works. Now I know where your side is at this point. But again, I'm also a man of faith. However, faith, when followed blindly is no longer faith as it should be; but already being a fanatic.

It is said that a man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds.
Now, how can you profess faith without works?

So if you would, Id like to correct you on that one, I say faith and works..not faith alone. It is sometimes through works where one may show how genuine one's faith is. Just airing my side of the coin..I'm into debating no one here.:indian:
 

DeletedUser

I take my earlier comment back. There are rational Christians. Thank you for those words of wisdom L3 and your good works of posting them. :D
 

DeletedUser

come on Denisero you know there are are rational christians . just look at me ...oh wait never mind
 

DeletedUser

Oh, I'd put you in the rational majority, Lorgos. Even though I know some things I say offend you sometimes. :)
 

DeletedUser

The problem with Christians is that the irrational followers are also the loudest followers.

Most Christians (especially people like MLK) are perfectly agreeable human beings.
 

DeletedUser8950

I'll live. Just'll have to cry myself to sleep tonight first:nowink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top