• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who cannot be a Christian?

Who cannot be a Christian?

  • A Liberal cannot be a Christian

    Votes: 1 2.5%

  • A Conservative cannot be a Christian

    Votes: 1 2.5%

  • A Libertarianl cannot be a Christian

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • A Socialist cannot be a Christian

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • A Fascist cannot be a Christian

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • A Communist cannot be a Christian

    Votes: 6 15.0%

  • A Centrist or Moderatel cannot be a Christian

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • A Monarchist cannot be a Christian

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • A Despotist cannot be a Christian

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • All believers in these ideologies can be Christian

    Votes: 33 82.5%
  • Total voters
    40
Lokiate said:
No. Contractors willingly enter that line of work, they get paid, and they can come and go as they please. Their also exempt from beatings, and being treated as personal property to be inherited. Slavery was never morally acceptable, because it strips a man of every last human right possible. It's disgusting, and inexcusable. From the Bible itself:


These are just three examples. They weren't treated like contractors, they were treated like farm animals to be beaten, bought, and sold.
Click to expand...

I like how you skip all the regulations on paying slaves, of treating them with dignity and respect, of bans against abuse, and how one can only be a slave for more than 7 years if they volunteer for it. Try your lies on someone who will actually buy into your bull****.
 
Juiposa said:
Yeah but were not just talking about a Classless stateless society, were talking about Communism, a specific form of this that does require no religion.
Click to expand...

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate.
Click to expand...

That's it, that's all communism is. As much as I disagree with this system, it's not inherently anti-religious. Google search Friedrich Engels, who supported, and worked with Karl Marx. His religious views were influenced by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and would now be labeled as Pantheism.
 
Jerry said:
I like how you skip all the regulations on paying slaves, of treating them with dignity and respect, of bans against abuse, and how one can only be a slave for more than 7 years if they volunteer for it. Try your lies on someone who will actually buy into your bull****.
Click to expand...
Those are rules pertaining to the ownership of Hebrew slaves, and those who sell themselves into slavery to settle a debt. Foreign born slaves can be beaten, humiliated, and worked to death, by their owners if it is the owners will to do so, and their wives and daughters can be forced into sexual slavery. The foreign born slave is not viewed as human, (s)he is viewed as property.
 
Last edited:
Juiposa said:
Yeah but were not just talking about a Classless stateless society, were talking about Communism, a specific form of this that does require no religion.
Click to expand...

Communism is a very diverse ideology that predates Marx by a long-ass time. He is not the only communist theorist, just the most famous. Marx may have called religion the "opiate of the masses," but many groups have used Christianity as a basis for communism.

Christian communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Jerry said:
I like how you skip all the regulations on paying slaves, of treating them with dignity and respect, of bans against abuse, and how one can only be a slave for more than 7 years if they volunteer for it. Try your lies on someone who will actually buy into your bull****.
Click to expand...

From what I remember, that only applies to Hebrew slaves.

Ah, I see someone else clarified that above me :)
 
Goshin said:
There are things that are fundamental to Christianity: specifically a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior, and in his resurrection.

Then there are grey areas where sincere people can have honest disagreement.... how to keep the Sabbath, and which day; abortion could be considered somewhat debateable as there is not a clear commandment; What Political Jersey Would Jesus Wear is certainly a silly thing to use as a yardstick, IMO.
Click to expand...

I know that's a popular definition, but I don't see a belief in his resurrection as a requirement. Even Jesus said that all that was necesarry to enter the Kingdom of Heaven was to love God and to love ones' neighbors

on edit: I do think a belief in Christ as the Son of God and Savior is needed though. Without those, the love of God and neighbor are just generic morality.
 
Last edited:
Lokiate said:
Those are rules pertaining to the ownership of Hebrew slaves, and those who sell themselves into slavery to settle a debt. Foreign born slaves can be beaten, humiliated, and worked to death, by their owners if it is the owners will to do so, and their wives and daughters can be forced into sexual slavery. The foreign born slave is not viewed as human, (s)he is viewed as property.
Click to expand...

Your post 44 paints all slaves with the same broad brush. you made no distinction and now that you've been caught lying you try to move the goal posts. You still ignored all those regulations, there's no point is equivocating further.

The Left has don more to destroy the lives of minorities then biblical slavery ever could, having themselves creating a sophisticated form of slavery keeping the public dependent of the government instead of supporting independence. Social programs from welfare to the New deal and the upcoming ObamaCare (aka the Democrat Incumbent Forever Act). Not that the GOP is much better with it's big corporate abuses.

Only when the government has been reduced to the bear necessities of printing money and defending boarders can complaints about slavery be valid.

There's no point in bitching about biblical slavery since we are today doing much more despicable and inhumane things to ourselves. Replacing most of our social programs with biblical slavery could only be a drastic improvement in our society.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Your post 44 paints all slaves with the same broad brush. you made no distinction and now that you've been caught lying you try to move the goal posts. You still ignored all those regulations, there's no point is equivocating further.
Click to expand...
I stated that slavery is morally reprehensible, which is an undeniable fact, and presented verses from the Bible that supported the claim. If we're going to go by your definition of lying, you purposefully omitted what happens to non-Hebrew slaves, to paint Judeo-Christian slavery as little more than paid contractor work. It's not my problem if you don't like your religions history. The rest of your post is a text-book red-herring, and not even worth addressing.

It's not my problem if you don't like parts of your religious texts. You could accept that such despicable acts were a part of your religious heritage, and be so thankful for the centuries of reform that have advanced the Christian faith into the mostly peaceful, and empathetic ideology it is today, that you continue the advancement towards peaceful coexistence. You could also continue to deny the past in order to fruitlessly defend the indefensible with word games, and blatant fallacies. You can do a lot of things, really, but tossing feeble distractions around to change a subject you clearly aren't willing to face doesn't help anything, nor does it change anything. Don't like slavery? Then learn from the past to make sure it never happens again. It's that simple.
 
Jerry said:
Your post 44 paints all slaves with the same broad brush. you made no distinction and now that you've been caught lying you try to move the goal posts. You still ignored all those regulations, there's no point is equivocating further.

The Left has don more to destroy the lives of minorities then biblical slavery ever could, having themselves creating a sophisticated form of slavery keeping the public dependent of the government instead of supporting independence. Social programs from welfare to the New deal and the upcoming ObamaCare (aka the Democrat Incumbent Forever Act). Not that the GOP is much better with it's big corporate abuses.

Only when the government has been reduced to the bear necessities of printing money and defending boarders can complaints about slavery be valid.

There's no point in bitching about biblical slavery since we are today doing much more despicable and inhumane things to ourselves. Replacing most of our social programs with biblical slavery could only be a drastic improvement in our society.
Click to expand...

Of course there's a point bitching about biblical slavery when someone like yourself chooses to misrepresent what it was.
 
The Christian way of life prescribed in the New Testament is very circumscribed. Pretty much all political ideologies except Christian anarchism are inconsistent with it.
 
Juiposa said:
Not communism because part of being a communist is the rejection of religion and the adoption of atheism. So technically no they can't.
Click to expand...

That applies to Socialism too....Communism and Socialism are as the same.
 
Lokiate said:
I stated that slavery is morally reprehensible, which is an undeniable fact...
Click to expand...

It most certainly is not. In some cases it is, and yet in others it is not.

The dominant culture always subjugates the lesser. This exists throughout nature, which we are a part of, not immune from.

What determines ethicacy is not the existence of slaves, but how they are treated.

Lokiate said:
It's that simple.
Click to expand...

You're free to stop lying about me at any time.
 
Lokiate said:
I stated that slavery is morally reprehensible, which is an undeniable fact, and presented verses from the Bible that supported the claim. If we're going to go by your definition of lying, you purposefully omitted what happens to non-Hebrew slaves, to paint Judeo-Christian slavery as little more than paid contractor work. It's not my problem if you don't like your religions history. The rest of your post is a text-book red-herring, and not even worth addressing.

It's not my problem if you don't like parts of your religious texts. You could accept that such despicable acts were a part of your religious heritage, and be so thankful for the centuries of reform that have advanced the Christian faith into the mostly peaceful, and empathetic ideology it is today, that you continue the advancement towards peaceful coexistence. You could also continue to deny the past in order to fruitlessly defend the indefensible with word games, and blatant fallacies. You can do a lot of things, really, but tossing feeble distractions around to change a subject you clearly aren't willing to face doesn't help anything, nor does it change anything. Don't like slavery? Then learn from the past to make sure it never happens again. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

I would also add that what Christ taught is not always the same as what is approved in the Bible. Christs teachings are in contradiction with some parts of the Old Testament
 
Jerry said:
It most certainly is not. In some cases it is, and yet in others it is not.

The dominant culture always subjugates the lesser. This exists throughout nature, which we are a part of, not immune from.

What determines ethicacy is not the existence of slaves, but how they are treated.
Click to expand...
That's a load of bull****, and you know it. Slavery is the forcible denigration of a human being that strips them of their personal rights and freedoms. There is nothing morally acceptable about that, under any circumstance.


You're free to stop lying about me at any time.
Click to expand...
I'm basing an inference on what you've stated here. Obviously, I've struck a nerve.
 
Last edited:
Lokiate said:
That's a load of bull****, and you know it.
Click to expand...

What I said is factually accuret with world history.

Lokiate said:
Slavery is the forcible denigration of a human being that strips them of their personal rights and freedoms.
Click to expand...

Slaves can have rights. Not just privileges, but rights. They do time and again in history. What makes one a slave is endentured servitude, not a total lack of any rights.

Lokiate said:
There is nothing morally acceptable about that, under any circumstance.
Click to expand...

Under many circumstances, in fact. Generaly, when a dominant culture wars for land and resources, but genocide is uncalled for, subjugating the native culture, as opposed to eradicating them, is both moral and economically sound.

Lokiate said:
I'm basing an inference on what you've stated here. Obviously, I've struck a nerve.
Click to expand...

Either that or I just took a step in our mutual escalation. Your turn.
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
I would also add that what Christ taught is not always the same as what is approved in the Bible. Christs teachings are in contradiction with some parts of the Old Testament
Click to expand...

Do you have an example of such.... as Christ says otherwise..... The Bible is a consistent story from Old to New Testament...

Matthew 5...

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
 
upsideguy said:
Do you have an example of such.... as Christ says otherwise..... The Bible is a consistent story from Old to New Testament...

Matthew 5...

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Click to expand...

Your biblical quote refers to "The Law" not to "The Old Testament"
 
sangha said:
Your biblical quote refers to "The Law" not to "The Old Testament"[/QUO

The Law is the Torah, which are the first 5 books of the old testament. The Prophets deal with the back 1/2 of the old testament. This leaves the middle of the old testament, which is largely historic telling of the love story between God and his people, particularly featuring Samuel, David and Solomon. This "love story" explains why Christ was sent.

Christ basically affirmed the scriptures. That said, there was a New Covenant put in place with the delivery of Christ as Savior, but even this new covenant was introduced in the old testament.
Click to expand...
 
upsideguy said:
sangha said:
Your biblical quote refers to "The Law" not to "The Old Testament"[/QUO

The Law is the Torah, which are the first 5 books of the old testament. The Prophets deal with the back 1/2 of the old testament. This leaves the middle of the old testament, which is largely historic telling of the love story between God and his people, particularly featuring Samuel, David and Solomon. This "love story" explains why Christ was sent.

Christ basically affirmed the scriptures. That said, there was a New Covenant put in place with the delivery of Christ as Savior, but even this new covenant was introduced in the old testament.
Click to expand...

No, Jesus is clearly referring to Gods Law, not the Torah. Jesus clearly said that Torah does not need to be followed. For example, kosher laws do not need to be followed
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom