Christian = Republican?

[Jacob(smooth)]

Honestly i don't think He would have been either. For in his day He was neither for Rome nor for the theocratic rule of the Jewish state.

This is the ONLY sentence there I agree with in your post.

[Ryantology]

Jesus never once tasked the goverment to feed or cloth anyone. It is our task to carry that burden on us as indivisuals.

If Christians did for the poor as Jesus commanded, we wouldn't require the government to do those things, at least in "Christian nations" like America. Given the reality of his followers, would Jesus just shrug and go "welp, guess they've got to starve and freeze, then"?

[Jacob(smooth)]

Look. Its perfectly simple. When it comes to ten commandments in courthouses, prayer in schools, abortion, gay marriage and such, its a CHRISTIAN nation and the government should pass laws based on the morality and directives given to us in the bible. When the bible says abortion or homosexuality are sins we should pass laws to discourage people from committing them.

However, when it comes to looking after the poor and sick its a free country and Christians have no business mandating that people follow the biblical concept of charity and care for the poor. When the bible talks of the sin of sodom (being rich and bloated and uncaring about the poor) the government should totally NOT pass laws to discourage people from committing them.

Whats not to understand?

[Drich]

OK but what's your point? That link is just showing early bibles printed in America. I'm not doubting that happened, what I have a problem with is the idea that the Founding Fathers specifically set aside money to have bibles printed to be distributed in our schools. It's simple history revisionism.

i have 6 points of reference (including the title page of one of those bibles, and from the libary of coongress itself) that all indicate the congress Not only supported this priniting but authorized it for use in public/offical use. That is the point. Hiding behind a huffington post artical/blog will not help you escape that truth.

Even if it weren't, the Supreme Court has upheld time and time again the wall of separation of church and state.

Which only prooves that the supreme court has changed the fundemental meaning of that term. Because the men who coined that term, where the same men who had these bibles printed. In their version of that term, this seperation meant that the state did not have a say in how or where religious freedoms were practiced. whether it be in school, in war, or serving the people of this nation in office. The fact that Congress voted and and accepted this bible prooves that fact like it or not. Which underscores the current bastardatition of the Law and it's intended meaning.

We know that our country works better keeping religion and government separate. Let's face it, forcing kids to pray in school is one battle that fundamentalists have lost, and it's never going to happen again.

what are you talking about it happens all the time. The law simply states there are to be no teacher lead prayer.

[ronedee]

I do find it odd that Christians seem to cling to the Republican party. I don't think Jesus would have been in favor of Assault Weapons and cutting spending on programs that feed and shelter the poor. But modern Christian/Republicans seem to be nuts for such ideas.

I wonder if Jesus would have been a democrat?

He would probably be considered a Libertarian? At least by political standards.

Catholics are very democrat, politically. Especially in the Northeast. But, many have gone Independent.... following the "cafeteria" mentality most are stricken with.

Yeah, I'm Catholic, but more orthodox Christian in my ways of thinking.

The Republicans are morphing in an attempt to save their hides. But, I believe a new political party will emerge...whether Libertarian, or Constitutionalist.... or whatever. IMO peeps in general are "fed" up w/ big government infringements.

[Drich]

Look. Its perfectly simple. When it comes to ten commandments in courthouses, prayer in schools, abortion, gay marriage and such, its a CHRISTIAN nation and the government should pass laws based on the morality and directives given to us in the bible. When the bible says abortion or homosexuality are sins we should pass laws to discourage people from committing them.

However, when it comes to looking after the poor and sick its a free country and Christians have no business mandating that people follow the biblical concept of charity and care for the poor. When the bible talks of the sin of sodom (being rich and bloated and uncaring about the poor) the government should totally NOT pass laws to discourage people from committing them.

Whats not to understand?

Who said anything about discourging goverment for caring for the poor?

I simply stated that Christ did not task the goverment to care for the poor. That task was placed on the church.

Which in the context of the orginal statement I was responding to (That Jesus would not like the fact that the republicans cut goverment funding to give away programs.) Would indeed indicate that Jesus would have not care what the goverment did. He gave the goverment/rome a wide birth on matters that He charged the church with.

[Tonus]

I wonder if Jesus would have been a democrat?

Jesus would have been a Yahwehcrat.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Look. Its perfectly simple. When it comes to ten commandments in courthouses, prayer in schools, abortion, gay marriage and such, its a CHRISTIAN nation and the government should pass laws based on the morality and directives given to us in the bible. When the bible says abortion or homosexuality are sins we should pass laws to discourage people from committing them.

However, when it comes to looking after the poor and sick its a free country and Christians have no business mandating that people follow the biblical concept of charity and care for the poor. When the bible talks of the sin of sodom (being rich and bloated and uncaring about the poor) the government should totally NOT pass laws to discourage people from committing them.

Whats not to understand?

Who said anything about discourging goverment for caring for the poor?

I simply stated that Christ did not task the goverment to care for the poor. That task was placed on the church.

Which in the context of the orginal statement I was responding to (That Jesus would not like the fact that the republicans cut goverment funding to give away programs.) Would indeed indicate that Jesus would have not care what the goverment did. He gave the goverment/rome a wide birth on matters that He charged the church with.

t
He also did not task the government to control adultery, or slavery, or homosexuality. That does not prevent most republicans from supporting legislation on those things based on religious morality.

Either position works... But not both.

[Ryantology]

IMO peeps in general are "fed" up w/ big government infringements.

I think, excepting honest libertarians, people are quite selective about what 'infringements' they don't like. So many people who want 'small government' want a government big enough to force people to live according to their ancient superstitions, to say nothing of projecting American military power all over the world for no good reason.

Ironically, those of us who want the government to focus primarily on helping its own people would probably favor a smaller government, overall, compared to those who want to spend trillions on 'defense' and 'morality' crusades.

[ThomM]

I do find it odd that Christians seem to cling to the Republican party. I don't think Jesus would have been in favor of Assault Weapons and cutting spending on programs that feed and shelter the poor. But modern Christian/Republicans seem to be nuts for such ideas.

I wonder if Jesus would have been a democrat?

Actually - the claim that christians are republicans does not hold water

IF the Kennedy family is a representation of Democrats - they are catholics.

In fact - for the first two hundred years of our country - the majority of politicians of ALL parties were Xtians - and still are today.

And I note that the two Presidents who were the most openly not religious were Abraham Lincoln - who did not belong to a religion even if he attended the one of his wife occasionally - and Ronald Reagan - who did belong to a religion but rarely worshipped.

I suggest that a person who would say that to follow him - one would have to give his worldly possessions to charity - is NOT a republican. However - since the christ is not proven to be more than a MYTH - one should not care what a fictional character would be.