Religious Left Making Strides

[amadeus]

No. There was no Supply Side Jesus. Jesus commanded us to help the poor.

I don't know about that; a tithe is only 10%.

Did Jesus ever threaten to throw anyone who didn't follow him in jail? My Bible must have omitted that part.

 

[The Yankee]

If Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are your best examples, then its 4th down and time to punt (i.e. really rethink your position). Neither was John Paul II an advocate of much of what the Democrat party is in favor of. Do you not remember that there was talk of the Catholic Church not allowing Kerry to take communion because of his stance on abortion? My, how quickly people forget.

I agree. They would need to punt and find better leaders if they want to really capture religious liberals and/or moderates on the grander stage.

And yep, the Vatican's positions would not align with the Democrats. But it wouldn't align with the Republicans either.

I don't argue there was a large spat between Kerry and the Church and it was an issue that dragged on for a decent amount of time in 2004. Dragged on longer than disagreements between many religious leader (JPII being one) and some of Bush's positions, for instance.

 

[amadeus]

I don't think so... What did Peronism have to do with religion, except that all great leaders use religion to their advantage?

I think I'd argue with you that Juan Peron was a great leader, but...

It just reminds me a great deal of the old kind of populists that pander to whatever groups will support them next. Caracas and La Paz have goons like that.

 

[downtown]

I don't know about that; a tithe is only 10%.

Did Jesus ever threaten to throw anyone who didn't follow him in jail? My Bible must have omitted that part.

Did I mention that? I think I'm a little confused about what we're talking about here...are you talking about taxes, or what?

 

[amadeus]

Did I mention that? I think I'm a little confused about what we're talking about here...are you talking about taxes, or what?

You had to have been talking about that, what else can you gather from "there was no Supply Side Jesus?"

 

[Gingerbread Man]

rmsharp - So, are you equating tithing to tax?

Or am I missing something?

 

[CaptainF]

How on earth did you make that leap of logic? Evil Knieval couldnt make that leap.

I equate Christian Leftists as "feel good" christians. No one is bad, no such thing as sin, its all love - type of thing. They prefer turning a blind eye to sin, even if its right in front of them.......basically anything goes.

Me, I cant understand not having standards in your life. To me, Christ set a standard and it is up to us to meet that standard as closely as we can. I dont see how Christian leftists can say they are Christian when they dont seem to have any standards.

I personally equate Christian Leftists as those who recognize sin as such, yet are humble to where they feel no need to bear down on people or try to forcibly convert people from their sinful ways. They have standards, they just believe that God will handle it, not them.

Either that, or they just have a very "introverted" approach to their faith, wherein they keep it to themselves, avoid prosletyzation and such. Their religion is a very private/personal aspect of their lives.

 

[amadeus]

rmsharp - So, are you equating tithing to tax?

Or am I missing something?

Well, I'm no religious buff, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't demand that you hand over 50% of your income to his poorer followers.

 

[GEChallenger]

I've always felt that religion and the left were a much better match than the reverse.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Well, I'm no religious buff, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't demand that you hand over 50% of your income to his poorer followers.

Topical index: Communism.

See the associated commentary:

They [the apostles] were dead to this world. This was a great evidence of the grace of God in them. They did not take away others' property, but they were indifferent to it. They did not call it their own; because they had, in affection, forsaken all for Christ, and were expecting to be stripped of all for cleaving to him. No marvel that they were of one heart and soul, when they sat so loose to the wealth of this world. In effect, they had all things common; for there was not any among them who lacked, care was taken for their supply. The money was laid at the apostles' feet. Great care ought to be taken in the distribution of public charity, that it be given to such as have need, such as are not able to procure a maintenance for themselves; those who are reduced to want for well-doing, and for the testimony of a good conscience, ought to be provided for.

50% is a random number. The real responsibility is to give enough of your income away that everyone is provided for. If you can boost them into a job, so much the better.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Well, I'm no religious buff, but I'm pretty sure that Jesus wouldn't demand that you hand over 50% of your income to his poorer followers.

I'd think he would. In fact, he often commanded people to sell or give away everything they had to follow him. Plus all of those parables about not storing up possessions on earth, good samaritans, rich man like a camel through the eye of a needle, money being the root of all evil, the poor woman giving everything she had as an example to rich people, plus Paul's 'give to ceasars what is ceasars', etc etc...

I think he would be asking richer folk to give at least 90% of their wealth to others, if that is what was necessary.

Plus, the other great flaw of your logic is that donations to the church/your neighbour/fellow human beings can not be comparable to giving taxes to the government, which is a requirement of the land, and of which Paul quite clearly said to pay, no matter how disagreeable.

Maybe you should have thought through what you were saying...

 

[classical_hero]

It's really quite perplexing the way religion has such an effect on politics in the US. In Australia, there is no such thing as a "religious right" or "religious left" (with the exception of the new Families First Party). There are religious members in both major parties. Religion really isn't an indicator of how people vote.

Don't forget about the Christian Democratic Party.

 

[MobBoss]

I really dont agree with your assessment at all of liberal christians, although there are churches like that.

What a lot of very religious people are upset about is seeing Christian morality, as far as policy is concerned, being boiled down into ONLY two issues: Abortion and Gay Marriage. Thats it. Republicans, and the Religious Right leaders seldom, if ever, talk about God or anything else, outside of those issues.

Then you are not paying enough attention I think. Take GWBs faith based initiatives for instance meant to empower churchs in how they aid the homeless and those in need. Also, do you not agree, that such stances are very fine line to begin with - more than that tends to really get the "church and state separation" crowd going.

Surely a scriptorian like you Mobboss knows that the gospel of Christ is much...MUCH more than that. Sermon on the mount anyone?

And as a "scriptorian" thats why as a christian I side with the republicans. Believe me, if the democrats catered to more real christian ideals I would be voting democrat.

Christianity, if it is to be applied to politics, to me anyways, is more than that. There is nothing Moral, or Christlike, about destroying God's greatest creation, the earth, nor is there is anything christlike about abandoning the needs of our children AFTER they are born, by screwing their educational prospects, as well as their economic prospects by borrowing against them. Jesus in his mortal ministry went out of his way to bless the children, our goverment spits on them.

I disagree with you wholeheartedly on this. No Child Left Behind is in fact a mandate that directly indicates otherwise. It is much more than anything the Democrats have ever attempted to do for kids.

There is nothing moral, or Christlike about forgetting the poor. Did Jesus, or his followers say unto the begger "Thou art Lazy, and if thou hast faith in the free market system, thou shalt be saved?"

Once again, faith based initiatives. Not a democrat idea.

No. There was no Supply Side Jesus. Jesus commanded us to help the poor.

Does it say we have to keep corrupt and inefficient programs to help the poor? Also, I tend to disagree that such programs as welfare truly "help" the poor in the long run as opposed to creating a higher dependency upon the government.

Remember Jesus command the crippled man to rise and walk - he didnt just drop money into his bucket. Thats how I see the differences in the Republican way and the Democrat way. The Republicans tell people to rise and walk - the Democrats just toss more money at them (or needles or condoms as the case may be).

 

[MobBoss]

Yep, if JC was a political party here would be the platform:

*pro-life, meaning no abortion (but, they wouldn't protest clinics, they'd actually help escort those getting the abortions), no death penalty,

I agree.

*pacifist, meaning no Iraq War or even a legit war (like Afghanistan)

I wouldnt be to sure about that. When he returns it will be in charge of heavens armies. He isnt called the Lion of the Tribe of Judah for nothing. Jesus isnt the total pacifist you make him out to be.

*high tax on the rich

Nope, not in the least. He would be a flat tax supporter....i.e. 10%.

EDIT: After reading a few more of the posts above, let me say that Jesus would most likely recommend that the rich indeed give up a large majority of their wealth, but I dont think he would make them do it, it would be voluntary.

*food stamps for the poor

Nope. Who needs food stamps when you can feed 5000 with a few fish and pieces of bread.

*a job for everyone

Yes, but everyones job would be spreading the gospel and the pay would really suck.

*medical insurance for everyone

Nope. Remember, we heal the sick via faith.

*tougher environmental laws

Maybe.

 

[.Shane.]

Nope. Remember, we heal the sick via faith.

So, you don't go to the doctor or take medicine?

One of my mantras is "there are no atheists in a fox hole and no believers in a doctors office"

 

[MobBoss]

So, you don't go to the doctor or take medicine?

One of my mantras is "there are no atheists in a fox hole and no believers in a doctors office"

Oh, I do all the time. However, there isnt a lot of biblical proof that Jesus ever did. Remember, its JCs political party you were thinking about. If we were all christians of his caliber wouldnt we all just heal the sick?

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Oh, I do all the time. However, there isnt a lot of biblical proof that Jesus ever did. Remember, its JCs political party you were thinking about. If we were all christians of his caliber wouldnt we all just heal the sick?

Err, no, because:
1) We are not Jesus
2) We have no power even comparable to Jesus

Hence why we cannot heal sick people. Unless you are Jesus.

Sorry Benny Hinn, you're just a lunatic and tax fraud.

EDIT: Also, would the faith in Jesus be that he provides a situation where we can be healed? Why not work on behalf of God to fulfill his commands and promises, and be that provider, by giving healthcare to those who can't afford it, and other socialist aims?

Or are you just expecting God to run your life and keep you alive via mircale, while you sit back and enjoy the idleness and greed?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Err, no, because:
1) We are not Jesus
2) We have no power even comparable to Jesus

Hence why we cannot heal sick people. Unless you are Jesus.

I disagree with the second point. John 14:12, "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."

Sorry Benny Hinn, you're just a lunatic and tax fraud.

EDIT: Also, would the faith in Jesus be that he provides a situation where we can be healed? Why not work on behalf of God to fulfill his commands and promises, and be that provider, by giving healthcare to those who can't afford it, and other socialist aims?

Or are you just expecting God to run your life and keep you alive via mircale, while you sit back and enjoy the idleness and greed?

Miracles don't exist to keep our lives running.

We are living in a time when the blind see and the lame walk. There are some groups who advocate abstention from modern medicine, but I believe that we should use it as God's tool to heal the sick to whatever extent we can.

 

[MobBoss]

Err, no, because:
1) We are not Jesus
2) We have no power even comparable to Jesus

Incorrect: That which is in he, is in us as well. He said as much, often, in scripture. Just a couple of examples:

Matthew 20 He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

And also:

Luke 9
Jesus Sends Out the Twelve
1When Jesus had called the Twelve together, he gave them power and authority to drive out all demons and to cure diseases, 2and he sent them out to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick. 3He told them: "Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.
Hence why we cannot heal sick people. Unless you are Jesus.

 

[blackheart]

Well, Jesus IS kind of a leftist...