Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Christian, Not Conservative

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Christian, Not Conservative

    Or, put another way, Jesus Wasn’t A Republican...

    Well, what is a Christian, after all? Can we say that most of us are defined by the belief that Jesus Christ made the most gracious gift of his life and death for our redemption? Then what does he deserve from us? He said we are to love our enemies, to turn the other cheek. Granted, these are difficult teachings. But does our most gracious Lord deserve to have his name associated with concealed weapons and stand-your-ground laws, things that fly in the face of his teaching and example? Does he say anywhere that we exist primarily to drive an economy and flourish in it? He says precisely the opposite. Surely we all know this. I suspect that the association of Christianity with positions that would not survive a glance at the Gospels or the Epistles is opportunistic, and that if the actual Christians raised these questions those whose real commitments are to money and hostility and potential violence would drop the pretense and walk away.
    ...

    Skepticism is appropriate in all cases, especially where money is involved. There should always be checks and balances. We all know of non-government charities whose CEO’s have done very well for themselves. As Christians, we must be concerned with outcomes—are the hungry fed, are the naked clothed, are the sick visited. The more strategies that are brought to bear on the problem—which current policy or lack there of has made a pressing problem—the greater the likelihood that it will be dealt with as Christ, who identifies himself unambiguously with those in need, tells us it must be. There is no analogy to be drawn between a beleaguered community governed, in effect, by a hostile and alien occupation and a modern society that can indeed govern itself and care for its own as it chooses. If we were indeed a Christian country I think we would be making other choices than many self-proclaimed Christians are trying to impose on us now. No talk of compassion impresses me when the tone of all reference to those who are struggling is hostile and judgmental. And of course anyone can be open-handed. But, as an American, I want to be able to help an American child in Detroit, an American family in Alaska, because they are as much my own as my dear Iowans. The national government is without question the most efficient means for this kind of ‘redistribution,’ a word that distracts from the deeper fact that one naturally wishes to share one’s blessings with one’s own.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-conservative/

  • #2
    Originally posted by TonyR View Post
    Or, put another way, Jesus Wasn’t A Republican...

    http://www.theamericanconservative.c...-conservative/
    Yet the word "sacrifice" is nowhere to be found. Pretty good evidence of a fundamental ignorance of Christian (or even definitional) charity

    I've yet to find one who can reconcile their preference for campaign-to-ballot-box charity with Matthew 6.

    Comment


    • #3
      If Jesus had had his own conceal carry, that whole event at Gethsemane might have turned out a bit different.

      That would be a cool video game. Armed Jesus vs. the Romans! Jesus whips out his AK on the legionaries! Chaos ensues!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
        If Jesus had had his own conceal carry, that whole event at Gethsemane might have turned out a bit different.

        That would be a cool video game. Armed Jesus vs. the Romans! Jesus whips out his AK on the legionaries! Chaos ensues!
        I think the quote was right along those lines. Christ wouldn't consider himself a Republican (or Democrat)

        In the political realm it's all politics and bedfellows stuff. That's all it is.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by BBII View Post
          I've yet to find one who can reconcile their preference for campaign-to-ballot-box charity with Matthew 6.
          Which part?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by W*GS View Post
            Which part?
            Just start at 1. That's the meat of it.

            Although an argument could be made for most of it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by BBII View Post
              Just start at 1. That's the meat of it.

              Although an argument could be made for most of it.
              Indeed. Like these parts:

              19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
              24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
              25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life[e]?

              28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the flowers of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by W*GS View Post
                Indeed. Like these parts:
                Leave it to Wagsy to ignore the one part I said I specifically had in mind.

                “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.

                2 “So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
                Regardless to say, this doesn't reconcile well with the whole "Us Libruls Care More because we vote the help to go from those Rich people over there to the Poor"

                As for the rest, I should've figured that a passage mostly about Trusting God for his providence would automatically make you assume that really means The Government.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BBII View Post
                  Leave it to Wagsy to ignore the one part I said I specifically had in mind.
                  Leave it to you to ignore the other parts that go against modern conservative dogma - more and more and more money, ostentation, and conspicuous consumption.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BBII View Post
                    Regardless to say, this doesn't reconcile well with the whole "Us Libruls Care More because we vote the help to go from those Rich people over there to the Poor"...
                    Just want to make sure you don't think this was the point of the article I posted.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by W*GS View Post
                      Leave it to you to ignore the other parts that go against modern conservative dogma - more and more and more money, ostentation, and conspicuous consumption.
                      Conspicuous consumption is a human weakness, not necessarily a political one.

                      I'd love for you to tell me the rich and famous trend Republican. Nothing could be further from the truth. And then even when it comes to wealth...

                      http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/10/...support-obama/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TonyR View Post
                        Just want to make sure you don't think this was the point of the article I posted.
                        But, as an American, I want to be able to help an American child in Detroit, an American family in Alaska, because they are as much my own as my dear Iowans. The national government is without question the most efficient means for this kind of ‘redistribution,’ a word that distracts from the deeper fact that one naturally wishes to share one’s blessings with one’s own.
                        Here when they say "efficient" they really mean "coercive"

                        There's no definition of "efficient" that could in any way include the nationalization of charity.

                        The usual answer is "Well, you can't just count on people to help their neighbors" and to some extent that may be true. But once you cross the threshold against free will, there can no longer be anything Christian about it. The motive is more important than the work. As Christ was talking about at the beginning of Matthew 6.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BBII View Post
                          Conspicuous consumption is a human weakness, not necessarily a political one.
                          Showing off is a conservative weakness.

                          I'd love for you to tell me the rich and famous trend Republican. Nothing could be further from the truth. And then even when it comes to wealth...
                          You've missed the point, and changed subjects, as usual, when you're caught in a corner.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm having a hard time keeping up with this forum. Last week Jesus never existed. This week, the guy who didn't exist wasn't even Republican. Next week, I'm going to find out the guy who didn't exist last week, and isn't a Republican this week, was actually gay.

                            Of course, that's all nonsense. The person who the New Testament chronicles wasn't political in any conventional sense. If anything, he was a Classical Liberal in that he was very individualistic, preaching that people get their souls right with God, neglecting matters of state and religion (which were more or less joined at the hip) to the degree that people should render unto them what is required in order to peacefully exist.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by W*GS View Post
                              Showing off is a conservative weakness.
                              Lolz. Take that line to Hollywood. See how it plays.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X