|
Jesus speaks through Republicans?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Interesting little tidbit:
| quote: | Jesus speaks through the Republicans
I hope the election of George W. Bush is seen as a wake-up call to all the liberal Democrats who oppose God's will.
It is His doing that George W. Bush is still our president. Millions of born-again Christians helped win this election through our prayers and votes. Jesus speaks through the Republicans.
The Democrats will not be able to win elections until they renounce their sinful ways and stop encouraging abortions, gayness, and trying to take away our guns.
Earl Balboa
Washington Township
http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/l...nionletters-hed |
I didn't realize Jesus was for guns?
Just when I think I've learned all I need to know about Jesus.....
Okay, on a more serious note, I think this brings up a relevant issue on the message of Jesus and politics. I've alluded this topic in other threads, and I would like to discuss what some here on both sides tend to view as the most relevant aspects of Jesus' teachings on society and politics in general. As I've stated previously, I believe some of his most pertinent teachings about feeding the poor, helping the needy, and so forth have been overtaken by some of the more secondary teachings within the Bible, and one in particular, homosexuality, wasn't even mentioned by Jesus in the 4 Gospels. His message to Simon in John 21:15-19 couldn't be more clear - if you love me, feed and take care of my sheep. How often did he miraculously turn a scant amount of food into enough to feed the thousands of his followers? How else could you interpret his pacifist approach of turning the other cheek?
Do I believe that these are all answers to our current worldly affairs - yes and no. Yes we have a humanitarian and dare I say, Christian obligation to help and assist the needy; no we shouldn't sit idly by and allow our enemies to trample on us - we do in fact have an obligation to defend ourselves. However, I have yet to understand how any follower of Jesus can push aside such powerful societal messages that He was trying to pass down to everyone, for the desire of establishing anti-gay relationship laws, pro-life laws, and gun rights. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
As long as Democrats continue to label those who believe in traditional values,.... the need for no more taxes or that happen to go to a more conservative church on Sunday as some kind of de-evolved version of the species they will never win another national election.....
The country was at a crossroads, the country chose its direction. Now the Democrats as a political party are faced with a similar set of circumstances........ One path leads to political success,... the other to eventual oblivion and irrelevance.
I only hope if they choose the wrong direction that something more in line with the Libertarians comes up in their place. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
As long as Democrats continue to label those who believe in traditional values,.... the need for no more taxes or that happen to go to a more conservative church on Sunday as some kind of de-evolved version of the species they will never win another national election.....
The country was at a crossroads, the country chose its direction. Now the Democrats as a political party are faced with a similar set of circumstances........ One path leads to political success,... the other to eventual oblivion and irrelevance.
I only hope if they choose the wrong direction that something more in line with the Libertarians comes up in their place. |
By responding I am assuming you are engaging in this conversation. You did not, however, really address any of the points I mentioned about Jesus' teachings. You have referred to "traditional values", and that the Democrats have not addressed them. What are these "traditional values", and how do they line up to Jesus' teachings? How is the Democratic philosophy not in line with certain "traditional values" that I had depicted above, but yet the Republicans are? |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
By responding I am assuming you are engaging in this conversation. You did not, however, really address any of the points I mentioned about Jesus' teachings. You have referred to "traditional values", and that the Democrats have not addressed them. What are these "traditional values", and how do they line up to Jesus' teachings? How is the Democratic philosophy not in line with certain "traditional values" that I had depicted above, but yet the Republicans are? |
I really dont understand why you are trying to label Jesus Christ's beliefs with traditional values. Believing in traditional values don't necessarily mean people are religious zealots..... No one said they align with Jesus teachings exactly.
You forget that Bush,..... while victorious was probably the weakest incumbent President to ever get re-elected.... The people that voted for him overlooked his mistakes for a reason. ....The did not vote for him out of some glazed-eye religous motiviation .... They did it because they recognized Kerry's associations and support on many different levels with the the Hollywood elite,--- (Michael Moron, Move-On (Soros/Lewis) and America Coming Together(Soros/Lewis)---) as a direct attack on the traditional American way of life. All the Democrats needed was to show that they were not the extreme left party of Ted Kennedy, Michael MORON, George Soros/Peter Lewis etc. They need to promote candidates for national office more like Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack. Bayh would have trounced Bush like a Bichon Frise in the ring with a Pit Bull...So I'd say believing in traditional values doesn't equate to believing in the story of turning a crumb of bread into a feast. Maybe the overall broader issue...of being a moderate who believe in moral values that Democrats are afraid to take their stance on.. .....
Another example to look at.....ummm
The Senate race between Ken Salazar and Pete Coors in Colorado illustrates this perfectly. Salazar is by many measures the more conservative candidate. Coors opposes the Death Penalty and a woman's right to choose. Salazar is pro-choice and pro-death penalty. Some would say that a more conservative candidate won in Colorado.....
Since the big money behing national DNC candidates is put up by extreme-left groups, I have little hope for more moderate Democrats. My fear is that the DNC of Nancy Pelosi and Terry McAuliffe will continue to nose-dive into a marginal political role over the next few election cycles. Now their is talk that Howard Dean may take McAuliffe's place. IMHO a disasterous move for Democrats and dream come true for the GOP.
As far as feeding the poor well, Government run subsidization of the poor rarely does little to actually help people. Privately run charities (as well as individual acts of kindness) are far more effective at actually helping people.... So I don't support paying bureaucrats to run a system that's rife with corruption. ..I do support groups that help the poor.......
But my choice to help the poor is just that..... My choice. If someone wants to be a selfish bastard who keeps all his money and doesn't want to help the poor, I shouldn't be able to force his money from him. Nor should anyone force me to support any particular charity over any other or even prevent me from donating what I want to any given charity....
The President and other GOP landslides are not 100% the result of the votes of "religous zealots".... As long as liberals keep thinking that, they will keep right on losing elections to votes cast by average Americans that want our way of life to continue to include things like the 2nd Amendment (just one example). THe belief in moral/traditional values doesn't exactly stem from Jesus Christ linearly.No need to try to correlate his exact actions with todays. Its his broader message that should be looked at. This election shouldnt be blamed on the bible huggers if thats what you are trying to say. Traditional American values don't need to have anything to do with religion |
|
|
| Cal |
My rebuttal to whatever the hell speedracer is trying to push:
*cue banjo music*
(read in southern drawl)
Havin' guns is God's Will! |
|
|
| LiquidX |
Im religious, and Im just shocked and scared how religion can relate to Bush. I'd probably say that evangelicals are the ones that went out, though.. I've talked to many church members, and they just can't seem to relate to Bush either.
First of all, what's preached and such, is the whole contrary to what Bush stands for.. church goers are environmentalist, peace keepers, into the human rights, and the Help each other theme.. non racists and so and so and so on.. ofcourse, myself, like probably any other religious person, are against abortion, against the Marriage of gays and such.. BUT, this does not mean I support a government imposing this laws.. the only law I would support would b the one against gay marriages, but to make a separete ammendment about it is abusrd, as it allready is in there.. there's no need to reform it. As for abortion, you never know the reasons of the abortion, I would just leave that up to god, not the US government.
Really, the war in iraq was a huge shake up in the religious community, most were against it, though I have to mention those freak close minded religious people.. whom, say to be good soul, and end up been the most evil of all.. been close minded is never good, and that's what leads them into taking and thinking absurd stuff ( such as the war in Iraq been the way for Christians to preach christianity in the middle east .. and therefore pave the way for the second coming.. I mean come on!! ) .. Bush is trashing and making religious peeps look bad. Im yet to understand why so many religious voted for him, the only reason I could think about is.. some took the Abortion and Gay marriage more seriously then the Economy and the War in Iraq. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
What I find ironic is that some people who are quick to jump all over a logical fallacy, buy into this one hook line and sinker. YAY I CAUGHT onE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Its Pokadot :)
The guy quoted in the opening post is no where near consideration as an authority for all Christians or Republicans. Hell, he's probably not even speaking for as many as 10% of them......??????
Yet his words are used to categorize the entire religion and the entire party... :(
Are people so blinded by hate for Christianity and Republicans that they can't see the overwhelming violation of the second clause of argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to Authority)...... That clause being that the "experts" don't agree.
Btw that guy quoted is the spokesman for the National Republican Christian Association for Takeover of the United States
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
I really dont understand why you are trying to label Jesus Christ's beliefs with traditional values. Believing in traditional values don't necessarily mean people are religious zealots..... No one said they align with Jesus teachings exactly. |
But why shouldn't they? Wouldn't the Christian Right be best served by doing exactly what they profess - being Christians?
I never stated that religious zealotry is equivalent to traditional values, and if you think I implied it then you misunderstood me. What I am trying to understand is what exactly are these traditional values that the Democrats are seemingly missing from their "values" textbook, but are so prevalent among Conservative Christians.
| quote: | | As long as Democrats continue to label those who believe in traditional values,.... the need for no more taxes or that happen to go to a more conservative church on Sunday as some kind of de-evolved version of the species they will never win another national election..... |
That is wholly irrelevant to my question at hand. We can expand further on the political implications later down the road when we get there, but right now I think it's more pertinent to examine these "traditional values" a little closer, and who exactly lines up with them better in terms of Christianity.
| quote: | | You forget that Bush,..... while victorious was probably the weakest incumbent President to ever get re-elected.... The people that voted for him overlooked his mistakes for a reason. ....The did not vote for him out of some glazed-eye religous motiviation .... |
Hmmm, so the high voter evangelical turnout for Bush, the exit polls which clearly demonstrated that the highest issue on the voting block agenda was "moral values", was not because of religious motivation?
Please try not to blow too much smoke up my ass.
| quote: | | They did it because they recognized Kerry's associations and support on many different levels with the the Hollywood elite,--- (Michael Moron, Move-On (Soros/Lewis) and America Coming Together(Soros/Lewis)---) as a direct attack on the traditional American way of life. |
More unsupported bull rhetoric, and again is entirely irrelevant to my question and points. While it's undeniable that the effective labelling by the Conservatives on Kerry had some kind of effect on voters, there is no means possible to see this as a measurable effect, nor would it be prudent to make such sweeping generalizations as a result. Can you please dispense with the talking points rhetoric just for once?
| quote: | | All the Democrats needed was to show that they were not the extreme left party of Ted Kennedy, Michael MORON, George Soros/Peter Lewis etc. They need to promote candidates for national office more like Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack. Bayh would have trounced Bush like a Bichon Frise in the ring with a Pit Bull...So I'd say believing in traditional values doesn't equate to believing in the story of turning a crumb of bread into a feast. Maybe the overall broader issue...of being a moderate who believe in moral values that Democrats are afraid to take their stance on.. ..... |
Irrelevant to the discussion of Jesus and traditional values. You are dodging the question.
| quote: | Another example to look at.....ummm
The Senate race between Ken Salazar and Pete Coors in Colorado illustrates this perfectly. Salazar is by many measures the more conservative candidate. Coors opposes the Death Penalty and a woman's right to choose. Salazar is pro-choice and pro-death penalty. Some would say that a more conservative candidate won in Colorado..... |
Others would say that Colorado is moving quite swiftly into the Blue column, and there's plenty of evidence to support that.
Again, irrelevant and sidestepping, but I'm curious, how is Salazar being pro-choice considered more conservative?
| quote: | | Since the big money behing national DNC candidates is put up by extreme-left groups, I have little hope for more moderate Democrats. My fear is that the DNC of Nancy Pelosi and Terry McAuliffe will continue to nose-dive into a marginal political role over the next few election cycles. Now their is talk that Howard Dean may take McAuliffe's place. IMHO a disasterous move for Democrats and dream come true for the GOP. |
Need I say it again? You mind keeping this discussion more centered towards the topic at hand?
| quote: | | As far as feeding the poor well, Government run subsidization of the poor rarely does little to actually help people. Privately run charities (as well as individual acts of kindness) are far more effective at actually helping people.... So I don't support paying bureaucrats to run a system that's rife with corruption. ..I do support groups that help the poor....... |
Christ, FINALLY! How freakin' long did it take you to finally discuss the issue here, Speed? Man, you could have easily dispensed with everything above and cut right to the chase here. My God, are you running for office or something? Geez.
Okay, first, what is your evidence to support the assertion that privately run charities are more effective than government run programs?
Second, and this is just the basis of rationale, my central argument stems from the fact that we have a President who wants to appoint pro-life judges, and wants to create a federal law banning gay marriage, which is exactly what the Christian Right wants. Yet we hear so very little from the Christian Right about government involvement with other Christian values such as feeding and helping the poor, getting people out of poverty, engagement in foreign countries involved with genocide such as Darfur and the Congo, and so forth.
So why does the Christian Right deem it necessary to have government engagement in one set of Christian values, but not the other? How can allowing the government to do nothing about the 4 million people in poverty over the last 4 years be considered Christian? What's worse, I heard on NPR this morning about some of the subjects on the Christian Right's agenda for Bush in the next 4 years - among them was permanent tax cuts.
How does tax cuts play in the teachings of Jesus? In fact, doesn't Jesus say something to the effect of the opposite? And what's more, we have seen how these tax cuts have put the burden on the middle class, as evidenced by the GAO report last July - how is this considered Christian?
| quote: | | But my choice to help the poor is just that..... My choice. If someone wants to be a selfish bastard who keeps all his money and doesn't want to help the poor, I shouldn't be able to force his money from him. Nor should anyone force me to support any particular charity over any other or even prevent me from donating what I want to any given charity.... |
Well I don't believe anyone here, including yourself, ever claimed you to be a dutiful Christian. These are the people I am addressing, and everything you just stated here is most certainly not in line with Jesus' teachings, is it?
| quote: | | The President and other GOP landslides are not 100% the result of the votes of "religous zealots".... As long as liberals keep thinking that, they will keep right on losing elections to votes cast by average Americans that want our way of life to continue to include things like the 2nd Amendment (just one example). THe belief in moral/traditional values doesn't exactly stem from Jesus Christ linearly.No need to try to correlate his exact actions with todays. Its his broader message that should be looked at. This election shouldnt be blamed on the bible huggers if thats what you are trying to say. Traditional American values don't need to have anything to do with religion |
Off the soapbox with you, Speed. If you cannot answer these questions as a Christian or in a Christian perspective, and feel compelled to drone on and on about the doom of the Democrats and so forth, you are really adding nothing at all to this thread. I am interested from a Christian perspective, not a generalized conservative perspective as you are doing. I hope you can understand better what I am asking now. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
first and foremost, we need to draw the line between christians and evangical christians. moral values pertaining to your average christian can be determined by the individual case scenerio (the diminishing popular "what would jesus do?"). the evangicals, on the other hand, are more into spreading a particular message, rather then concerning themselves with the details ie. gays bad, abortion bad, guns good. This is not to say that logic cannot be employed to solidify said messages, but the logic is usually only used as a means to justify the message rather than a method to creating the message.
the christian obligation is lost in evangicalism, as is the principles for an individual's sense of morality. These shephards have no use for black sheep in their flock. evangicals have somehow made the arguement that God, the all-powerful, can be challenged by an equally powerful opponent. if you ask an evangical follower on how john kerry doesn't follow traditional values, you can easily get a response like "reverand robertson says he wants to destroy God" or "he made tammy fae cry".
with regards to "traditional values" (correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't most scripted from exodus?), there is a bad case of selective reasoning pertaining to the contextual importance of God's word. you're not supposed to eat pork, but when the last time anyone's come down with a case of trichinosis? men aren't supposed to sleep together, but when's the last time we wondered in the desert for forty years and needed to propogate in order insure the survival of our tribe? the former is preachable, but the latter isn't?
before i start chasing myself in circles, i would like to ask if anyone can state what about bush makes him more morally acceptable than anyone else. if there's a site out there that lists what traditional values we risk losing please post a link.
and sorry opus, i just don't think that jesus has a place in the thinking of the "moral majority". you can't think of jesus as the example of mankind and at the same time justify the evangical perspective of the need to preserve tradition.
[/soapbox] |
|
|
| smokeape |
Well, here's my normal simple minded hillbilly logic.
If they're on a homo platform, they must be liberal because it generally can't hurdle the conservative fence and majority vote.
God fearing men are fighting in Iraq for God's will and Muhammed's as well. We believe God's will is on the U.S. side down here and that the country is behind the effort. God and country....two words which motivate our Armed Forces.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| ierxium |
| Religion and politics: a laughing matter. |
|
|
| TuanAnh213 |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
Well, here's my normal simple minded hillbilly logic.
If they're on a homo platform, they must be liberal because it generally can't hurdle the conservative fence and majority vote.
God fearing men are fighting in Iraq for God's will and Muhammed's as well. We believe God's will is on the U.S. side down here and that the country is behind the effort. God and country....two words which motivate our Armed Forces.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
inbreeding and NASCAR...two things that motivate the south |
|
|
|
|
