How can a Christian also be a Republican?

Post Reply New Topic

And what authority did Jesus have to evict them?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The wife of the Levite also happened to be a daughter to her mother and father, yes. And you're still spinning, using the terms "slave girl", "concubine", and even "daughter" now. Yes, back in about 1,250 BC, she was a concubine and that term has become pejorative over the years, perhaps even understandably so, and that is the reason for your selection of terminology I am certain. It's the same event. The only other time similar circumstances were recorded was at Sodom and Gomorrah in which God himself destroyed with fire the five cities of that kingdom after allowing Lot and his family to leave at Abraham's request. The similar event in Judges lead to a war between the tribes of Israel against their sub-tribe of Benjamin. And now for your reply with yet more journalistic spin.

Correct. But which is more eternally important, a morally neutral issue of economics or the issue of morality itself?

God being His Father.

Interesting reasoning.

I seem to remember the actual reason given in the bible for Jesus violently clearing out the temple is that they had turned the house of his father into a marketplace instead of a place of worship.

The Temple was owned by a person or organisation that wasn't Jesus and the marketplace existed with the permission of the owners.

What Jesus did was very unlibertarian like, to destroy another person's place of business because you don't personally agree with it and for which you have no property rights?

Ayn Rand would never approve.

Ayn does not approve of Jesus in any way shape or form.

###FIRST, AN ASIDE#######################################

Recently, people might be asking why, as an atheist, I bring up Catholicism so much and "defend" it. It seems strange when you think about it. This is because 1.) I based a previous argument on notes describing historical accuracy which just happens to be their Bible (even though this could be another HerrGrimm incident and realize I may have said something previously I did not cover here), and 2.) Religious intolerance is unacceptable under all cases; I am against that completely.

The most important part of the "defense" is that it is coincidental. Think about it, how many times have theists complained about atheists just ruining it for everyone and being intolerant and hateful towards "Christians"? The very use of the word "Christian" is dishonest in its own right. Numerous times, Catholicism would not be part of the "Christians" atheists should include, because they do not deserve it. When someone says "Christian," a majority of times they really mean their branch and not anyone else. In the Catholic Catechism is basically states Catholics are the only "Christians," and definitely not Mormons or JW's. When some Protestants say "Christian," they do not mean Catholicism. The "defense" is really more of an exposure of hypocrisy. Of course you can point to disturbing connections to the Utasa regime in Yugoslavia and Catholicism, or the blatant and atrocious cover-up of child rape (not molestation, not sexual abuse, RAPE) to try to maintain power and reputation to the Church. They just did not come up, and I do not go looking or fishing for them.

Of course many people would note the tensions concerning Catholicism, but a more subtle form of intolerance is the difference between "Christian social liberals" and "Christian social conservatives." This example includes Catholicism. Catholicism is known for this, since the hierarchy caters more to social conservatives to keep them in the Church and not cause trouble. The most infamous example of this would be the lifting of the excommunications of the uber-conservative SSPX bishops, which reconciliation seemed to be more necessary than having them denounce having The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in their library or having one bishop rescind his Holocaust denial. There is an unequal weighting to "social liberals" and "social conservatives" in Christian branches, and like the intolerance towards Catholicism, this divide once again lends to the myth of Christian tolerance and how they want atheists to "respect their religion," when obviously numerous people cannot even tolerate different general interpretations in their own branch. The quote above shows there is some truth to this.

Of course there will be some people who deserve the talking to about snapping and conducting themselves better. This is specifically going to people who are hypocritical enough to believe they are more pious and know more than people in their own religion, and have the log in their eye looking at the splinter in someone else's.

#########END ASIDE###########################################

I have a hypothesis:

What are the Republicans generally for? They are for the Death Penalty, against contraception and abortion, and cutting "social welfare"; I will use those three things as a small sample. You have to ask yourself how some policies they make actually DIRECTLY AFFECT them as individuals. They do not at all, actually. When you look at abortion or the death penalty, it is historically true that such policies affect the poor more than the rich. As an example, Draco's laws were disproportionally cruel to the lower class and not equal all around. This is nothing more than a classic struggle that has been going on for thousands of years, even back in ancient Greece. It just so happens that Christianity is being used as a tool to make the policies more palatable. This is not about being Christian, this is about being in the upper class, using religion as a tool to get things done.

Unfortunately, I did not answer the real question the OP asked about how they get away with it. Because I do not know.

It goes to show that Democrats apparently love to take scripture out of context.

1. Being charitable and helping the poor is a personal decision that the individual makes. Government forcibly taking money from one person to give to a favored constituent in an attempt to buy votes, is not what Jesus advocated, it is not in the Old Testament either.

2. Being against abortion is a Christian stance, you shouldn't have sex unless you can live with the possibility you may end up having a kid as a result.

3. Contraception is an attempt at saying oh people can have sex without worrying about the possible consequences which is total garbage.

4. Living within one's means and not drowning yourself in debt is basic common sense.

If you would like me to make a bashing attack towards people of religion on the left, sorry but I've got better things to do with my time.

Possibly, but this thread is about the Republican party.


Democracy is not described in the Bible. "Buying votes" was never an issue for Jesus nor any of the Biblical personages. If the Government (or any entity) wishes to take money (or any other property) from a Christian, the Christian is obliged by the teachings of Jesus to give more than the thief is seeking to take. Moreover, being charitable and helping the poor is much more than "a personal decision that the individual makes"--if the individual is truly Christian, then this is a requirement.


Tell that to Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.


Tell that to Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.


Common sense, yes. But, we are discussing Christianity.


A true Christian would never engage in "bashing attacks" towards anyone, regardless of other time commitments.

My argument is Christianity is being used as a tool by the upper class to make policies detrimental to the lower class. The first part of 2.) is correct, but it is convenient. 3.) and 4.) have nothing to do with Christianity; 3.) is your opinion, and 4.) you do not need to be Christian to believe (it is basic common sense).

1.) I did not address because I was not talking about buying votes.

Inuyasha, you said you were Methodist, right? Does that mean United Methodist Church, or another branch?

I am still waiting for you to explain why Hitler was a Satanist and not an Atheist on that one thread

EDIT: Oh, that was not towards me? Usually when someone says people are taking Scripture out of context they mean me...natural reaction I guess...

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 15 Nov 2011, 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not going to sit idly by and let you smear Republicans and not call you out on this.



Jesus never advocated people force the rich people to give up their money.



Assuming the accusations towards Herman Cain are true, which is doubtful.

Also Gingrich has never claimed to be perfect, and if you had watched that video I posted in another thread you would know that.







It is a theme in Christianity and Jewish Faith to live within your means.


Then why are you doing bashing attacks?

Really?


it is not my text what does it mean?

It means the guy never gave away his stuff.

ruveyn

Moi? Smear Republicans? Heavens no!




Being rich is incompatible with being truly Christian. To the extent that the Republican party favours the rich over the poor, the Republican party is simply hypocritical by claiming itself to be Christian. Jesus did say that Christians should "give to Caesar what is Caesar's", i.e., people should pay taxes and "give up their money."


He has, however, claimed to be "Christian," and demonstrated himself to be an utter hypocrite, unworthy of the title "Christian." His presence in the Republican party makes the entire Republican party reek with hypocrisy and foulness.


I never claimed to be a "true Christian," and am not bound by the command of Jesus to "turn the other cheek", which all "true Christians" must obey.
Moreover, I am not "doing bashing attacks." I am merely discussing the teachings of Christianity, the expectations of Christians, and the American Republican Party. I am seeking and speaking the truth, and if you think it is "bashing," then maybe you don't want to confront the truth.