God is not a republican or a democrat

[bobfrgsn]

Sign the petition to take back our faith.

[Guest]

BF: Sign the petition to take back our faith.

<b>One wonders if God might not embrace the Republican philosophy, at least with regard to societal and defense matters, rather than that of the Democrats. It may be that <u>II Thessalonians 3:6-15</u> is instructive in that Paul, hopefully speaking with some degree of inspiration, insisted that <I>if a man will not work, he shall not eat</I>. This is a fairly good argument against the "welfare state" concept, in which the workers support the lazy/indolent, and which, if carried too far and thus into socialism, is the danger connected with the Democrats. Notably, some of the current highest profilers – Kennedy, Kerry, Corzine, Edwards, Soros, Moore – are independently wealthy and therefore consider themselves potentially immune from hardship, even if much of their gain, ill-gotten and otherwise, should be confiscated in the form of taxes. In this, of course, they are terribly wrong, and there are plenty of international examples to speak to their idiocy.

In matters of defense, Jesus made it plain that his followers should arm themselves, not in aggression, but in defensive measures. He instructed them at the Last Supper to arm themselves, but warned a bit later that those who live by the sword (aggression) will die by the sword. Presumably, the best time to use a sword was before being stabbed or run-through by someone else, ergo, in a preemptive manner rather than a reactive one. Preemptive warfare is a Republican philosophy these days, so it would seem that Jesus might hold with the Republican view.

Since God is God, it is improbable that He can be either captured or freed by either party, whether petitions are signed or not.</b>

[Norm]

BF: Sign the petition to take back our faith.

[Jim:] One wonders if God might not embrace the Republican philosophy, at least with regard to societal and defense matters, rather than that of the Democrats. It may be that <u>II Thessalonians 3:6-15</u> is instructive in that Paul, hopefully speaking with some degree of inspiration, insisted that <I>if a man will not work, he shall not eat</I>. This is a fairly good argument against the "welfare state" concept [...]

Norm: And one might suggest Matthew 25 is a fairly good argument for the "welfare state" concept.

[...] in which the workers support the lazy/indolent, and which, if carried too far and thus into socialism, is the danger connected with the Democrats.

And you are suggesting Democrats are advocating being lazy/indolent or that said people are not concerned that such may be the case with some?

If Democrats taken to the extreme are in danger of being socialists, would then Republicans taken to their extreme (which, of course no mention was made) be in danger of being facists/totalitarian? Is one preferred over the other for most Americans?

[...] Notably, some of the current highest profilers – Kennedy, Kerry, Corzine, Edwards, Soros, Moore – are independently wealthy [...]

Are there any independently wealthy Republicans in congress or positions of influence?

[...] therefore consider themselves potentially immune from hardship [...]

You are suggesting that they have had no hardships in their lives or that they could expect to be immune from such for the remainder of their lives? Does your "therefore consider" mean you know their internal thoughts?

[...] if much of their gain, ill-gotten and otherwise, should be confiscated in the form of taxes.

You have evidence that their wealth, or some of their wealth, is ill-gotten? If so, would such be different from the missing Republicans in your post?

[...] In this, of course, they are terribly wrong, and there are plenty of international examples to speak to their idiocy [...]

But there are no examples to speak to idiocy of Republicans?

[...] In matters of defense, Jesus made it plain that his followers should arm themselves, not in aggression, but in defensive measures. He instructed them at the Last Supper to arm themselves, but warned a bit later that those who live by the sword (aggression) will die by the sword. Presumably, the best time to use a sword was before being stabbed or run-through by someone else, ergo, in a preemptive manner rather than a reactive one. Preemptive warfare is a Republican philosophy these days, so it would seem that Jesus might hold with the Republican view [...]

Should not pre-emptive war be based on reliable evidence? Is pre-emptive war not also subject to just-war considerations?

[...] Since God is God, it is improbable that He can be either captured or freed by either party, whether petitions are signed or not.

If God is God, why improbable? Is the finite capable of subjecting at will that which is beyond it?

[fox]

Tinder, the author of the Political Meanings of Christianity.
We could all show each other how ignorant we are in these matters. I'm just gonna say I don't see how the CBF can endorse the statement they did earlier this year and not vote for John Kerry, the ecumenical statement on Justice and regard for the Poor
I admire SoJo and their good intentions. But in their idealism they may overlook the harsh look that needs to be taken at the SBC Underbelly of Bush America especially a look at the politics of Ronnie Floyd, Tyson Food and Vision America and their oil and gas tax break sponsor.
I'm not sure how to satisfy the Riddle of Economics in the Kingdom of God.
I do think especially in Bama Bailey Thompson was on to something and Will Willimon is gonna pick up the ball now that Bailey untimely deceased on us.
CBF in Bama is doing a great job with Sewing Seeds of Hope.
James Evans is ready to go on tour discussing Yoder and his book The Politics of Jesus. That is where the debate is best I can make of it.
Both my Grandfathers were Republicans, But Lincoln GOPpers , not Reagan Criswell Republicans and there is all the difference in the World.

And Jim, Read my Lips See the Movie Dogville and lets take it up here, an analysis of the Movie....sfox

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[Guest]

And Jim, Read my Lips See the Movie Dogville and lets take it up here, an analysis of the Movie....sfox

<b>I'll have to settle for reading your chips (computer, that is), and admit that I have never heard of "Dogville." I rarely see a movie, only one this year, <I>Master and Commander</I>, (I love sea stories) but maybe I'll find this one or rent it. I hope it's as good as <I>O Brother, Where Art Thou</I>. In the meantime, beware of Linda Ronstadt and Robert Reich…they'll lead you astray.</b>

KE: a helper to the poor
a helper to the sick
set the captives free
set the oppressed free
fought the religious establishment
fought commerce in the temple
peacemaking
led by example/teaching
looked at the weightier matters of the law
gave Himself up (non-retaliatory)

<b>In other words, Jesus would be a Republican activist, especially setting the captives and oppressed free (Republican Lincoln freed American slaves, for instance, while democrats, especially in the South, opposed civil rights efforts in the 50s-60s); insisting upon the separation of church and state (Render unto…); making peace (sometimes at the end of a rifle barrel, but ask the Kuwaitis, French, and Germans about U.S. peacemaking); striving for strict constitutionalists (Bork?) and not lawmakers on the Court (that crafty Sanhedrin in Jesus' day and the 9th Circuit today); and giving things such as a hundred million dollars worth of HIV-aid to nations all over the world. In Matthew 25, Jesus made it plain that giving was a sign of belief, in the last of the three parables. In the second parable, he made it plain that the master/entrepreneur/capitalist/employer/boss was to be accepted, as well as the industrious servants, but condemned to outer darkness the one who did not work. Jesus was obviously for personal initiative and the things ensuing from it, realizing that there would be nothing to give if people didn't work and earn money to make giving possible. This is a Republican concept.</b>

S: To think that God would involve himself in our petty human institutions and politics by endorsing or favoring one political party over another is to cheapen and degrade his character. America isn't Old Testament Israel, and doesn't operate under the same covenant. The fact of the matter is that the Christian church is free as long as all other people are free.

<b>Who could possibly have said it better, although, while America isn't old Israel, it actually does or attempts to operate under the old covenant, the Ten Commandments? The fact of the matter is that the Christian Church is now free and will remain free as long as the U.S. government makes certain the nation stays free. This freedom is not affected by all other people, thank God. The obvious methodology for maintaining this freedom today is preemptive war, a Republican concept. It was Kerry who said as far back as 1970 in a newspaper interview that he was an internationalist and that he would like to see American troops deployed only at the directive of the United Nations…one world-government, in other words. God help us if he should be elected, although the Congress would render him relatively harmless.</b>

KE: I agree that this is the end result of the Republican efforts. But I don't [think] most Republicans knowingly have 'screw the poor guy/award the rich' attitudes. They usually say things like "a rising tide lifts all boats" or " teach them how to fish, not just give them a fish". Both lines are true but they haven't worked out that way - witness the rising poverty level and uninsured levels…

<b>The poverty and uninsured levels will continue to rise, and they will be most prevalent and pronounced in single-mother households, many, if not most, of which are the result of illegitimate births – a staggering 70 percent of all births in the black community and rising to alarming levels in both the white and Hispanic communities. Although I come from a blue-collar background with this world's means somewhere else, I believe that people with ability, luck, or the nerve to take a risk should be allowed to hang on to what they can earn. I also believe that people can improve their own situations considerably by just keeping their pants on, staying off drugs, and getting a job – any job.</b>

[fox]

1) Oh Brother Where Art thou is a great Movie
2)Master and Commander shoulda been seen in the theatre where the Sound Effects are better.
Illegitimacy and single parent households make are bringing us all down. To that I would add Catholics should become more Baptistic and use more birth control.
nAFTA has some serious flaws.

But Republicans are a different party than they were in the Time of Lincoln. Reagan and WA Criswell, not to mention Harry Dent and Nixon changed all that.
Lincoln is alive today mostly in Tom Daschle maybe with a little morph of John McCain. Nancy Kassebaum is a Great Republican, but Jesse Helms and our two Alabama Senators are not.
Do see Dogville Jim and read the NY Times review at http://www.rottentomatoes.com
And this is about as nice as I'm gonna be to you; but you and My Grandfather Jordan, my Mother's Father woulda had a lot in common, I think.
He ran as a Lincoln Republican for Dekalb County school supe in 1915 or so.
Russ get's ten percent attribution for the rottentomatoeslink. He has written or been part of 7 screenplays and his Momma says his IQ is 140 or so[/code][/quote]

[bobfrgsn]

[Guest]

Foxy: And this is about as nice as I'm gonna be to you; but you and My Grandfather Jordan, my Mother's Father woulda had a lot in common, I think.

<b>Hey, I'll take what I can get. Being too nice is not much fun anyway, but you should think more of your grandfather than that.</b>

BF: The party of Lincoln is no more. Read this excerpt from Garison [sic] Keilor [sic]: The party of Lincoln and Liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy-backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith-based economists, fundamentalist bullies with Bibles, Christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of AM radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, Lamborghini libertarians, people who believe Neil Armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in Roswell, New Mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, Newt’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. Republicans: The No.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.

<b>The party of FDR is no more. Read this excerpt of a blow-by-blow Keillor paraphrase from an absolute nobody: The party of FDR and common sense was transmogrified into the party of draft-dodging, Whitewater golf-course developers and Sharpton shills; agnostic tax-and-spenders; liberal "girlie men" humming mantras; non-believers of politically correct inconvenience; united racist/condescendence-mongers; maniacal fat guys (who use cigars strangely); screeching idiots of non-radio (Franken's Follies); ballot-box cheaters (no military votes counted); goof-balls in no pants; pinheads in brown suits; sweaty same-sex grooms; fundamentalist (and funny?) fakirs; regressive jerks; sushi socialists; people who believe Kerry's Viet movies are authentic, not to mention the band-aid purple hearts; huge 527 propaganda/nonsense-squawkers out to "snow" the rest of us; Daschle's desperate, devious, demonic, donkey-IQed devils and their Sketch-A-Wretch president, a practitioner of perversion suspected of encouraging the free flow of cash from China and pardons for the rich, whose philosophy was a jumble of permanently disassociated versions of <I>if it feels good, do it, or do it to somebody else</I>. Democrats: The Number 1 reason the rest of the world thinks any little old tinhorn dictator can with impunity bomb the WTC, bomb the Khobar Towers, bomb American embassies, bomb American naval vessels, and fly airplanes into buildings, killing thousands, in other words, that we are deaf, dumb, decrepit, and deranged.

But, really, that is, really, I mean really really, do you actually believe that guy walked on the moon? I mean, really.</b>

[fox]

Here this is a worthwhile thread but will be enormously better if you bring this Wisdom of Evans and Torre to Bear.
That, is Jim Evans of FBC Auburn Bama in the current Bham Post Herald, his weekly column at http://www.postherald.com/religiion.shtml
and do site search for Biblical Morality or Torre at http://www.ethicsdaily.com

Torre crunches some numbers for Christians concerned about the Bush administration, and Evans invokes Campolo's latest thoughts.

I still think it calls for a National Convocation at the Gardendale Baptist Church in the Heart of Dixie.

Fergy, your quote was good. I am a sometime fan of Lake Wobegone myself. There was as good or better line in the Atlantic couple years ago about how the GOP had become the paarty of fundamentalist preachers and Mississippi used car dealers and realtors.
Here in Bama it's Alfa's Party nationally and Lowell Barron's in the state even though he sued em a couple years ago.
sfox

[Jonathan]

[rickwright01]

[Guest]

Jim wrote:
In other words, Jesus would be a Republican activist, especially setting the captives and oppressed free (Republican Lincoln freed American slaves, for instance, while democrats, especially in the South, opposed civil rights efforts in the 50s-60s);


Rick: According to my computer it is the year 2004. Not 1884 [perhaps sic, in favor of 1863, considering Lincoln, who was long dead in 1884?]. Or 1964. People and parties can and do change over time. The Pharisees of the Maccabean period were the faithful few who fought against the oppressive policies of Antiochus Epiphanes. By the time of Jesus - they had changed.

<b>Hey, my computer indicates the same thing. Do you suppose we're both wrong or both right? I've always believed that a sense of history is important to most any consideration, but to each his own. If you don't think 1884 [perhaps sic, see above] or 1964 are important, why mention the Pharisees of any period? You lost me here.</b>

Jim wrote:
insisting upon the separation of church and state (Render unto…);

Rick: As much as I believe in this principle - do you? your references to Ten Commandments and basing US policy on (misinterpretations of?) Jesus' teachings make me wonder - I have always thought squeezing it out of Jesus' "render unto..." statement is unpersuasive. What is God's? Everything. Therefore render unto God everything. A more careful reading of the text would almost overturn the separation principle.

<b>Oh, of course not. I believe that the church should operate the government, preferably on the basis of the Southern Seminary <I>Abstract of Principles</I>, but failing that, maybe the <I>Apostles Creed</I>. It's axiomatic, of course, that when one asks a silly question, one should expect a silly answer. Jesus said rather plainly that we should render something to Caesar, so apparently he didn't mean for us to render everything to God. You can second-guess Jesus, but I prefer not to. I've read the passage again at your suggestion – more carefully – and have no change of mind. Perhaps I take it too literally.</b>

Jim wrote:
making peace (sometimes at the end of a rifle barrel, but ask the Kuwaitis, French, and Germans about U.S. peacemaking);

Rick: As much as I admire the political realism of Alexander Hamilton, how you manage to turn Jesus into someone who advocates pre-emptive military force strikes me as utterly perverse. Talk about stretching to the point of mutilation what Jesus says!

<b>I quoted Jesus, relative to his instructions about being armed. I sort of remember his action in the temple, when he lashed some folks with a whip (non-violently?), and take that to mean violence is sometimes necessary in correcting a problem. Jesus didn't wait for the crooks to attack him. He attacked them first – preemptively. Again, I took Jesus very literally. Maybe that's a mistake for you, but not for this hillbilly. It's axiomatic that one sues successfully for peace only from the standpoint of strength. Actually, I would never knowingly <u>mutilate</u> what Jesus said, either by stretching it or compressing it, and I prefer not to talk about it, even at your bidding.</b>

Jim wrote:
striving for strict constitutionalists (Bork?) and not lawmakers on the Court (that crafty Sanhedrin in Jesus' day and the 9th Circuit today); and giving things such as a hundred million dollars worth of HIV-aid to nations all over the world.

Rick: And what the Bush administration did/proposed was actually less than what was previously on the table by his political opponents. One of his better PR coups, in my opinion. Give the world less but capture all the kudos. This is a matter of record, Jim.

<b>This country's decisions should never be made on the basis of what the honchos in other countries think, or on the basis of the loyal opposition in this government. That prerogative goes with the turf. As for PR (or spin, perhaps), isn't that what it's all about – in both parties? I trust you ARE living on planet Earth and have watched the scene for a while. Shades of the late Lee Atwater, may his tribe increase!</b>

Jim wrote:
In Matthew 25, Jesus made it plain that giving was a sign of belief, in the last of the three parables. In the second parable, he made it plain that the master/entrepreneur/capitalist/employer/boss was to be accepted, as well as the industrious servants, but condemned to outer darkness the one who did not work. Jesus was obviously for personal initiative and the things ensuing from it, realizing that there would be nothing to give if people didn't work and earn money to make giving possible. This is a Republican concept.


Rick: First, I do not think Jesus made that plain at all in Matthew 25 - if anything quite the opposite, notice the surprise and shock on both parties. The "believers" are cast away - which we see elsewhere in the gospels, especially in Mark and Matthew - and the other group pleases the Lord without apparently having known they were doing so. Many people take your approach to Matthew 25, I think because it is so hard to resolve the tension between that pericope and our deeply ingrained concept of sola fides from the Reformation. But the text just does not seem to support it.

<b>All I know is that the master wasn't censured by Jesus for making a buck, but the lazy worker was thrown out, notwithstanding that he didn't realize his perfidy, just as the benefactors (sheep in parable#3) didn't realize their goodness, and the malefactors (goats) didn't realize their badness. The text supports this view rather concretely, but then, in my simplicity, I take it quite literally, the deeply ingrained concepts of anything about the Reformation notwithstanding.</b>

Second, Jesus also had rather a lot to say about the "working" poor. Those who have been left on the edge through no particular fault of their own and indeed the fault of others who use them. There is also the parable of the generous farm owner. If you want to turn parables into highly literalistic economic policy statements - then I suggest you be consistent about it. And where is Acts 2 in your whole schema?

<b>The reason there are millions of illegal aliens working in this country is the simple one that multitudes of Americans are too lazy to work at what they are equipped to do, largely through their own fault or that of parents who have worked the welfare system for generations. The <I>generous farm owner</I> parable simply indicates that the farmer could run his business the way it suited him, just as God can. As for Acts 2, start your own commune and see how it works in your schema. It didn't work for long back then, but give it a try anyway.</b>

Jim wrote:
Who could possibly have said it better, although, while America isn't old Israel, it actually does or attempts to operate under the old covenant, the Ten Commandments?

Rick: I'm sorry, the old covenant is the Ten Commandments? The Ten dvarim are part of the "old" covenant, true, but I find tiresome how people try to slice Exodus 20 away from Exodus 21-24. Not to mention Exodus 25 through Number 9. Sinai takes up about 40% of the Torah!

<b>I'm sorry you're sorry but also sorry that I can't do anything about it. For orientation, read the first two and the last paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. This may give you an idea of the point of reference with regard to everything that has happened in this country with respect to its laws, notwithstanding all or part of the <I>Torah</I> or any other biblical considerations, though I regret your tiresomeness and suspect it may keep you from doing this. If it does, I don't blame you.</b>

Furthermore, show me exactly how America implements all not just some of the Commandments. "Worship only God"? "Make no idols to worship them"? "Honor the Sabbath"? The God-oriented commandments, where exactly are they in American legal practice? And how the slime do we enforce the Tenth? Of course the Commandments influenced heavily our legal tradition. But "based on"? I don't buy it. Not at all.

<b>The Sabbath? You probably don't remember the no-longer-applicable <u>Blue Laws</u>, but I do. They didn't apply because of the recognition or worship of Buddha, Confucius, or Allah. They're no longer around but they might give you some idea of the first four commandments vis-à-vis the origin of governance. They are yet emblazoned all over the Supreme Court building, our coins, and oaths. <I>In God We Trust</I>, as far as I'm concerned, indicates worship. Slime? What does that have to do with this? Laws concerning killing, stealing and perjury are derived from commandments, at least as far as I'm concerned. The old covenant had something to say about sodomy and bestiality, too, and that was for a very long time written into law. Laws having to do with rape and/or incest have to do with an extreme level of covetousness, the tenth. I'd say eight out of ten is quite good in insisting that the commandments impacted our laws more than anything else. You don't buy it. So what!</b>

Jim, I have been a Republican for most of my life. {Although I was a registered Conservative while in college in NY. NY Republicans were waaaay too liberal for my tastes.} But your efforts to conflate Jesus with conservative Republicanism strike me as stretched, strained, and wacked.

<b>Well, stretched and strained are terms I understand, but I can't find the term wacked in my <I>M-W, 11th Edition</I>. Did you mean wacked-out or whacked-out or wacky? I did find them. As for my conflating Jesus with conservative republicanism, I intend to do penance by listening to John Kerry speak for three minutes without going to sleep (hard, I know, but I see the error of my ways), and then play the <I>Dean Scream</I> tape until vomiting or going nuts, whichever comes first.</b>

[rickwright01]

[Guest]

[Hal Eaton]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Guest]

[rickwright01]

[Norm]

[Guest]

Rick: Well.

I don't mind dialoguing with people whose views are different from mine. But what I read of your posts including and especially your response to me leaves me with an impression of the way you dialogue with others and conclude that I have better ways to spend my time and energy than continuing to engage you.

<b>I suppose the first part of that 2nd statement means that I dialogue with everyone the same way, and the underlined part means that you have had an important epiphany. Great!</b>

As for whether our rhetorical styles are truly equivalent - I doubt that.

<b>I don't remember mentioning equivalency or even thinking about it, but you certainly are entitled to your doubt, whatever it means.</b>

"A whole bunch of things" is a convenient way of summarizing everything and is mainly an effort to save bandwidth. A habit that goes back to time wasted on Usenet groups.

<b>Perhaps you should have thought of that before your long, long post of "a whole bunch of things," to which you apparently think I should not have responded because, while you can eat up bandwidth, ordinary people shouldn't be so bold. Whether I'm right or wrong about that (and I don't know, not being a computer engineer), summarizing any set of statements with the term "a whole bunch of things" seems strange.</b>

"Us" = everyone on this board, especially those who do not (altogether) agree with you on Jesus-as-conservative-Republican-who-would-use-prempetive [sic]-force.

<b>Now there's a summary for you that's worth something, and I'm sure it took very little bandwidth. Happy dialoguing with someone else, the better way to use your time and energy.</b>