QuakerOats;638474 wrote:Is Seattle as liberal as it appears from the outside .......... becoming a mini-SanFran?

It's hilarious how much you hate California or at least think it's some despotic hell hole filled with communist scum and gays.

On the other hand of the "so ridiculously one sided in their political views that I'm convinced they're a troll" spectrum we have FairwoodKing who made this thread which basically says "are Tea Partiers secretly Nazis?". The answer is of course no. I disagree with the Tea Party a lot but they're certainly not Nazis nor are they anywhere even in the ballpark of what I'd say could be compared to Nazis in really anyway. Not even the same city as the ballpark actually. I've said this several times on this forum Nazis=Nazis. Unless someone is actually a Nazi can we stop calling people Nazis?

I don't hate California; I do find it intriguing how quickly it shifted from a state that elected Ronald Reagan its governor and supported him in his presidential election, then two decades later has become a bastion of radical liberalism and, accordingly, a fiscal disaster. California is a beautiful and resource-rich state, it is too bad its present day 'stewards' are inept radicals.

More of that ........ change we can believe in .......

Well there ARE areas (I'm talking areas, not just a few people) that are extremely left about anything and everything. Those of us who have spent real time in the Bay area are familiar with it. That includes very socialistic and/or communistic trains of thought.

Now I don't hate California, in fact I miss it and often think about moving back there when the time comes. But there's no possible way for me to snow over the fact that the state, beauty and opportunity aside, is a hot mess.
Berkley for instance: you cannot drive or walk through that area without seeing at least one protest, confrontation, or whatever. Those people are about as bad as the WBC without the religion part. I'm being very serious here.

The majority of California not so much. But like the old saying goes, a few bad apples tend to spoil the bunch. And that is the political view alot of people take of Ca. because of whole area's like Berkley, Santa Rosa, Point Reyes, Mendocino, and Sebastapool and other whole areas/cities.
And those are just the areas I'm most familiar with.

QuakerOats;638898 wrote:I don't hate California; I do find it intriguing how quickly it shifted from a state that elected Ronald Reagan its governor and supported him in his presidential election, then two decades later has become a bastion of radical liberalism and, accordingly, a fiscal disaster. California is a beautiful and resource-rich state, it is too bad its present day 'stewards' are inept radicals.

More of that ........ change we can believe in .......

It was both conservative and liberal then, and it's both now.

queencitybuckeye;638923 wrote:It was both conservative and liberal then, and it's both now.

Politically, Cali is clearly and unequivocally in the hands of the statists and socialists and have been for quite some time. Please don't say Ah-nold is a conservative...he's one of the "moderates" so dearly loved by the Left. He's married to a Shriver for gosh sakes. They have created a huge debt hole and they continue to excavate their hole with the energy and enthusiasm of a dog chasing his tail. Then they elect a governor that was one of their greatest diggers of all time. They deserve what they vote for.

I've also heard that if they declare bankruptcy, then they could cancel all state employee-union contracts and essentially destroy the public unions in their state. Kind of what would have happened to GM, if Barry hadn't bailed them out. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Actually, the groundwork for debt was set longgggg before Ca.'s current governor. Things were already crumbling at an alarming rate with Grey Davis (sp - I can't remember), and he wasn't the problem either; although he did add to it.

CenterBHSFan;639166 wrote:Actually, the groundwork for debt was set longgggg before Ca.'s current governor. Things were already crumbling at an alarming rate with Grey Davis (sp - I can't remember), and he wasn't the problem either; although he did add to it.

Yep....Grey Davis. Marx would have loved that guy. Between him and governor Moonbeam, Cali was set to spiral into debt never before seen. And now, Moonbeam is back at the helm to direct the Titanic into more icebergs as it sinks to the ocean's floor. Actually, I was somewhat shocked by the census that declared their portion of the population is the same as it was 10 years ago...I was expecting a decline.

Roll Red Roll

Gardens35;641237 wrote:Roll Red Roll

Porque?

queencitybuckeye;638923 wrote:It was both conservative and liberal then, and it's both now.

Like about 20% / 80%. I wouldn't set up shop there under any circumstances.

FairwoodKing;637439 wrote:Over the past five centuries, we gays have been persecuted by Christians (burning at the stake; more recently imprisonment), Muslims (executions), Nazis (concentration camps), communists (the gulag), and just about every other recognizable group. Is it any wonder that we are paranoid? It has only been a few short decades since gays and lesbians had to register with the police in the United States. I think we've grown to the point where we don't trust anybody.

And around 600 BC the Jews were enslaved by the Babylonians, only several hundred years after being enslaved by the Egyptians...all of which has NOTHING to do with what happens NOW.

Stop with the history lesson, we all understand homosexuals were persecuted wrongly in the past, lets talk about right now for once in your diatribes.

QuakerOats;641273 wrote:Like about 20% / 80%. I wouldn't set up shop there under any circumstances.

Not at all.

Outside of Oakland, Hollywood, Berkley, LA, and a few other pockets, California is a pretty conservative state.

Hell, Sacramento could be viewed as the GOP capital of the US.

jmog;641277 wrote:And around 600 BC the Jews were enslaved by the Babylonians, only several hundred years after being enslaved by the Egyptians...all of which has NOTHING to do with what happens NOW.

Stop with the history lesson, we all understand homosexuals were persecuted wrongly in the past, lets talk about right now for once in your diatribes.

I smell reperation demands ...

O-Trap;637605 wrote:Quite plainly, I think that homosexual ACTIONS are wrong, but that there is nothing "sinful" about having feelings for people of the same sex. Moreover, I don't think such actions are any worse than any other. To be quite honest, it's one of the few that doesn't harm others, and just like with any other, I think that people who are gay are just as able to be Christians as any other.

To be perfectly honest, I am EXPONENTIALLY more outraged at people who are hurtful to someone because they are gay. The church was never put on this earth to judge people. To judge whether or not ACTIONS are wrong, according to the Bible? Sure. Never people, though.

It's no wonder that when God sent prophets in the Old Testament, it was because his OWN people were screwing up.

I'm as conservative as they come, and attend a Baptist church to boot, and I couldn't agree more.

This is exactly, in my mind, what the Bible says about homosexuality.

The actions are sinful, but the person is still a person who needs God's love and salvation.

The sin of homosexuality, according to the Bible, is no different than the sin of lying, cheating, adultery, etc.

O-Trap;641283 wrote:Not at all.

Outside of Oakland, Hollywood, Berkley, LA, and a few other pockets, California is a pretty conservative state.

Hell, Sacramento could be viewed as the GOP capital of the US.

I'd also say Orange County and the San Diego area is pretty conservative.

ptown_trojans_1;641292 wrote:I'd also say Orange County and the San Diego area is pretty conservative.

Agreed. I gave Sacramento the nod because they just really seem to love their guns and faith in a way that would remind you of a West Virginia chapter of the Rush Limbaugh fan club.

FairwoodKing;638509 wrote:Seattle may be the most liberal city in the United States. We have no tolerance for bigotry of any kind.

Some of your statements about conservatives and Christians reeks of bigotry, kind of an interesting statement.

jmog;641285 wrote:I'm as conservative as they come, and attend a Baptist church to boot, and I couldn't agree more.

This is exactly, in my mind, what the Bible says about homosexuality.

The actions are sinful, but the person is still a person who needs God's love and salvation.

The sin of homosexuality, according to the Bible, is no different than the sin of lying, cheating, adultery, etc.

The "homosexuality" itself (the feelings, emotions, desires, etc.) isn't even the issue. I'd put it right on par with any single person having ANY desires, feelings, and emotions that are related to their sexuality. A gay person is no more in the wrong than I was, pre-nuptially. I get particularly defensive when people depict the problem as someone's homosexual desires, because the desires aren't the moral issue, and I'm upset when people act like it is.

I have several dear friends of both genders who are homosexual and/or transgendered, and they often show qualities that make me admire them, and I tend to be pretty protective of the people I care about, so I sometimes sound like I have no problem with the homosexual lifestyle (people on the Huddle/OC have said as much). That's not the case. It just means that, because of those I love who belong to the community, I have given it a lot of thought, and I'm currently pretty resolute on PRECISELY where I stand.

O-Trap;641306 wrote:The "homosexuality" itself (the feelings, emotions, desires, etc.) isn't even the issue. I'd put it right on par with any single person having ANY desires, feelings, and emotions that are related to their sexuality. A gay person is no more in the wrong than I was, pre-nuptially. I get particularly defensive when people depict the problem as someone's homosexual desires, because the desires aren't the moral issue, and I'm upset when people act like it is.

I have several dear friends of both genders who are homosexual and/or transgendered, and they often show qualities that make me admire them, and I tend to be pretty protective of the people I care about, so I sometimes sound like I have no problem with the homosexual lifestyle (people on the Huddle/OC have said as much). That's not the case. It just means that, because of those I love who belong to the community, I have given it a lot of thought, and I'm currently pretty resolute on PRECISELY where I stand.

I'm with you on most of that, I have some very close people to me over the years that have been homosexuals. I would get very defensive if anyone says anything about them as well.

Unfortunately too many Christians don't follow the mantra of hate the sin, love the sinner.

jmog;641338 wrote:I'm with you on most of that, I have some very close people to me over the years that have been homosexuals. I would get very defensive if anyone says anything about them as well.

Unfortunately too many Christians don't follow the mantra of hate the sin, love the sinner.

Or "speak the truth in love." Or "in as much as it is up to you, be at peace with all men." Or a slew of others.

One can hate the sin and love the sinner but should be very cautious about enabling the sinner to continue to sin.

Con_Alma;641357 wrote:One can hate the sin and love the sinner but should be very cautious about enabling the sinner to continue to sin.

If it's not a believer, why not?

I mean, I certainly wouldn't recommend ENCOURAGING something wrong, but if a person is not a believer, what does he/she gain by changing his/her actions?

O-Trap;641390 wrote:... I certainly wouldn't recommend ENCOURAGING something wrong, ...

Why wouldn't you?

My answer to your question is whether they believe or not when you believe you know that sin further separates one from God. It's almost knee buckling to a person of faith to enable anyone to move further away.

Con_Alma;641402 wrote:Why wouldn't you?

Because that would attest to me not actually believing it to be wrong ... and if I'm hypocritical in that conviction, it reflects poorly on my conviction to following God.

Con_Alma;641402 wrote:My answer to your question is whether they believe or not when you believe you know that sin further separates one from God. It's almost knee buckling to a person of faith to enable anyone to move further away.

Where does it say, scripturally, that each individual sin seperates us FURTHER from God?

An unredeemed sinner is seperated. A redeemed one is not. I believe THIS truth is what ought to motivate our actions toward others. Before someone is redeemed, no matter their lifestyle, it doesn't change the endgame. Why not, then, strive to change the endgame FIRST?

An unredeemed person living a morally upstanding life has the same address later on as an unredeemed person living as a moral slob. So, as long as the word "unredeemed" is there, the end result doesn't change.

Inasmuch as that is the case, I want people to be as happy as possible. If they have no happiness to look forward to post-mortem, I hope they enjoy as much of their life here as possible, whatever they think that is.

Sin itself means missing the mark. Even believers are incapable alone of doing anything more than missing the mark.

Believers are to admonish sinners as opposed to enable them. We should admonish each other. When there is true love of mankind, a wish of their greatest good exists as opposed to second best or at least happiness while alive. When admonishing sinners it is to be done in a way that purifies their thought and action. When enabling sin a believer moves them not closer but farther from a purified hope of thought and action.

The Hidden Power of Kindness eloquently focuses on the issue from a biblical perspective.

I remember the Catholic Church having works of mercy to admonish sinners. A quick search revealed they are

1. Counsel the doubtful.
2. Instruct the ignorant.
3. Admonish sinners.
4. Comfort the afflicted.
5. Forgive offenses.
6. Bear wrongs patiently.
7. Pray for the living and the dead.

So, although it's not a direct further separation from God it is a further separation for the desire to seek purified thought and deed in an attempt to be closer to God. Whether the sinner is or is not a believer doesn't change the action other believers are to carry out as disciples.

Con_Alma;641475 wrote:Sin itself means missing the mark. Even believers are incapable alone of doing anything more than missing the mark.

Believers are to admonish sinners as opposed to enable them. We should admonish each other. When there is true love of mankind, a wish of their greatest good exists as opposed to second best or at least happiness while alive. When admonishing sinners it is to be done in a way that purifies their thought and action. When enabling sin a believer moves them not closer but farther from a purified hope of thought and action.

The Hidden Power of Kindness eloquently focuses on the issue from a biblical perspective.

I remember the Catholic Church having works of mercy to admonish sinners. A quick search revealed they are

1. Counsel the doubtful.
2. Instruct the ignorant.
3. Admonish sinners.
4. Comfort the afflicted.
5. Forgive offenses.
6. Bear wrongs patiently.
7. Pray for the living and the dead.

So, although it's not a direct further separation from God it is a further separation for the desire to seek purified thought and deed in an attempt to be closer to God. Whether the sinner is or is not a believer doesn't change the action other believers are to carry out as disciples.

Sorry, no offense to Catholics or any denomination for that matter, but I'd rather see some scripture that says all this than what one church or another says on it.