Is "Christian-Democrat" an oxymoron? ~ Video

[dwight92070]

Just a note that I believe is important:

The sacredness of the innocent, unborn life in the womb of a mother does not change because of rape or incest.

[Homer]

Morbo wrote:

The Republican platform is no less evil. Certainly not the war crimes advocated by the Republican congressmen and W.

I don't need to get in a pissing match about it. Abortion is really important to evangelical and Catholic Christians. Justifiably so. But it often leads to seeing candidates through a monacle. Instead of in stereo. And thus the representation of one platform as less Christian than the other.

While I do not dispute that the parties are both evil in some respects I will be for the lesser evil in my mind. As for as war goes I can not tell which candidate would be more likely to bring about many deaths and destruction. I am pretty certain, however, that Hillary would appoint activist liberal judges to the supreme court. The supreme court's decisions, in my mind, have been a major cause of the division in our country. They have, in effect, legislated abortion and gay marriage, with which a great many of our citizens can never be reconciled. We would have been much better off if it had been left to each state to decide, if not the national legislature. So Trump, for now, appears to be the lesser of two evils. But I need to vote for neither; living in Oregon it will not make a difference.

I can not understand the evangelicals who supported Trump in the primaries. What fruit in his life demonstrated compatibility with their views when there were other choices who appeared more compatible with Christianity? Too me it is a disgrace for our country that we have the choice we have, but I suppose they both reflect our country, which is not Christian, despite having been generally founded on Judeo/Christian principles.

So here I will leave you folks with something to ponder:

From the Epistle to Diognetus:

CHAPTER V -- THE MANNERS OF THE CHRISTIANS.

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they are in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonour are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are reviled, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honour; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

From Justin Martyr:

chap. xvii.—christ taught civil obedience. And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Cæsar; and He answered, “Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?” And they said, “Cæsar’s.” And again He answered them, “Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment. (Justinmartyr 1.17)

[Paidion]

It is not. "Christian" and "Democrat" are not contradictory terms. They would be contradictory terms only if "Democratic" means "non-Christian" or if "Christian" means "non-Democrat."

Dwight: This last sentence by Paidon is really quite silly. Obviously. the platform of beliefs of the Democratic party does not agree with the teachings of the Bible that a Christian espouses.

There's nothing silly about it. As dictionaries affirm, an oxymoron is a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction. The terms, in this case, are "Christian" and "Democrat." If it is possible for a person to be both a Christian and a Democrat, then "Christian-Democrat" is NOT an oxymoron. "Wet" and "dry" are contradictory terms; thus it is not possible for an object to be both entirely wet and entirely dry. Thus a "wet-dry shirt" would be an oxymoron.

Again, the meaning of "oxymoron" has to do with two contradictory TERMS, and the terms in this case are "Christian" and "Democrat." They are not contradictory terms; if they were contradictory terms then it would not be possible to be both a Christian and also a Democrat.

The question whether or not the term "Christian-Democrat" is an oxymoron, has absolutely nothing to do with the platform of the Democratic Party or the beliefs of most Democrats as opposed to teachings found in the Bible.

[dwight92070]

Here's an interesting quote: "Liberals carry a perpetual chip on their shoulder." They are always angry about something or someone. Often their anger is at the point of rage.

I find this to be true. Do you remember the bumper stickers "Hate is not a family value" or "Focus on your own family" etc.? It's telling that these types of messages express the very hatred that they condemn. How about when President Reagan was shot? The liberals cheered and celebrated!

How about this? Put a "Trump for President" sticker on your car and what happens? Very few want to do it because chances are high that your car will be vandalized. How about this message that was seen in north Denver, I believe on a wall: "Anyone who votes for Trump should be shot!"

By way of contrast, no one worries about their car being vandalized if they have a "Hillary for President" sticker on it. Generally, conservatives are not an angry bunch, i.e. to the point of vandalism or wishing that someone would get shot.

I think Obama and Hillary have that rage in them, even though they publicly hide it.

[Paidion]

WHY ARE REPUBLICANS SO ANGRY?

THE TANGIBLE ANGER OF THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION

REPUBLICAN HATRED OF OBAMA

[dwight92070]

So you don't want to comment on the bumper sticker issue? Apparently you know it is true and therefore you ignore it?

As far as the Republican Convention goes - yes, there was anger there and probably rightfully so. A group of them were complaining about the chairman's decision concerning a voice vote. He heard the crowd verbally shout out their "in favor of" or "opposed to" votes and, even though it sounded to me like a tie, he arbitrarily decided in favor of the side he wanted to win. You probably would have been mad too. I know I would be because it was unfair. The chairman made a huge mistake in a critical convention. That should not happen, so they had something to be angry about. So did they say, "The chairman should be shot!"? Or did they find his car and vandalize it? No and no. No matter how angry they got, there would be no justification for doing that. That would be over-the-top rage.

But a liberal who sees a bumper sticker of a person who is not doing anything unfair or harming anyone, but has decided to vote for Trump has no qualms about vandalizing that person's car. Over-the-top rage and no justifiable reason for it. You mistakenly equate unjustifiable rage with justifiable anger and if you want to be honest, you would admit that.

Hating Obama? I have said that I think Obama is an evil man and I still do. His decisions have caused the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands of people, including unborn children. Do I hate him? I probably have and maybe I still do, and maybe I am wrong to feel that way. But I have never said that he should be shot, nor have I ever wished that, nor would I vandalize his car if he parked it in front of my house. My hatred of Obama, if that is what it is, may not be justified, but my anger toward him is definitely justified. He continually lies and has done many illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral things. But I am not in a rage.
You seem to be quite heated in your post, with your using all caps and the fact that you falsely equate justifiable anger with unjustifiable rage.

[dwight92070]

P.S. I noticed your red lettering too. You must be red-hot angry.

[Candlepower]

Again, the meaning of "oxymoron" has to do with two contradictory TERMS, and the terms in this case are "Christian" and "Democrat." They are not contradictory terms; if they were contradictory terms then it would not be possible to be both a Christian and also a Democrat.

The question whether or not the term "Christian-Democrat" is an oxymoron, has absolutely nothing to do with the platform of the Democratic Party or the beliefs of most Democrats as opposed to teachings found in the Bible.

Paidion, everyone knows that the words "Democrat" and "Christian" are not automatically contradictory. So you haven't educated anyone here by simply stating the obvious. But what you have done is miss the point of this discussion by not getting below its surface.

Your responses to the question, Is Christian-Democrat an Oxymoron?, have been superficial and one-dimensional. You plucked those words out of the title of the call and ignored how they were used in the context of the call. Because you missed the point of the discussion, you gave the irrelevant response, "Christian-Democrat is not an oxymoron."

If you listen to the caller's question, and to Steve's response, you will soon realize the context in which they were using the words "Christian" and "Democrat." You dealt with the words superficially; they did not. You tinkered on the surface and missed the deeper point. By Christian, Steve clearly meant one who aligns himself with Jesus Christ and follows His teachings. By Democrat he clearly meant one who aligns himself with the Democrat Party and agrees with its currently held principles, as expressed in its Platform. I'm certain that the caller was using those words in the same way.

As we know, an oxymoron is a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction. I hope you understand that there are profound contradictions between the Christian Scriptures and the Democrat Party Platform. Do you? I certainly do. Therefore, I contend that simultaneously following Jesus and supporting the Democrat Platform are mutually exclusive pursuits. In reality, both cannot be done. They are, by definition, oxymoronic. That's the point the caller made, that's the point Steve made, and that's the point you're missing.

By the way, other than your disagreement with the title of the call, do you have any thoughts concerning its content? Were you able to get past the title?

[dwight92070]

Candlepower,

Spot on. That's exactly why I called Paidon's statement silly. But you have expressed it much more eloquently than I did. I believe Paidon knew all along what was being referred to here, but he deflected that under-the-surface truth with a surface lesson on the meaning of the word "oxymoron".

Hillary did the same thing when she was asked if she had wiped her server clean. Her response: "You mean with a cloth?"

Dwight

[morbo3000]

Dwight: I don't know a single liberal or progressive who would vandalize a car over Trump. Do you have any source material? Can you please quantify with some research and source materials your claim that liberals are more angry than conservatives?

Claiming a moral high ground for conservatives as not being an angry sort is so completely, objectively false, it makes me wonder: Are you completely unaware of your bias? I know I am biased. I know I have a tendency to view people who have different opinions than me as inferior. But it's my awareness of it that helps me try to be objective. There is such an innocent naïveté to your bias... Such a complete unawareness of it, it makes me wonder if you are completely unaware that you color your interpretation of reality. I don't mean that as an insult. And I don't think you are inferior because of your opinions. It just surprises me from time to time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk