Republican AND Christian...? How?

That's great.
My simple answer to the OP is that bigoted whites turned Republican when Democrats did something nice for blacks. Pro-life persons turned Republican when Democrats endorse abortion. Blacks turned Democrat when bigoted whites turned Republican. Jews turned Democrat when Democrats started giving Jews important jobs. Union workers turned Democrat when it became obvious the Socialist Party had no chance to influence policy.

 

I'd agree with that.

Endorsed abortion? Not that I know of. Protecting a woman's right to make the choice? That's more in line with reality. I'm opposed to abortion myself. But I don't know that I should make that decision for others.

Seeing that economic policies of Democrats is better for working people, including blacks, that is probably more like it.

What?

Republican labor and economic policies suck, is more like it. The GOP has been able to turn away some great groups of people away from them, and draw sociopaths, especially in the past 20 years.

 

I was referring to Woodrow Wilson's association with Bernard Baruch and appointment of Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court, followed by FDR's close association with many Jews. The Socialist Workers' candidate for President in 1920 got over 1,000,000 votes. When those people turned Democrat they gained strength in the party and turned some states blue. Since then Democrats have fought for business regulation, high wages, limited hours, time and a half, paid breaks and other concessions. that made greedy businessmen fight heavily for Republicans. That's a small but powerful group.
The American dream is bad for contemporary Democrats. Poor people want to get rich and everything Democrats stand for make it harder.
If the minimum wage rises as Democrats proposed it won't hurt big corporations, but will kill many small companies. It won't make poor workers wealthy, but it will multiply the number of poor workers who can't even crack middle class by working hard.
I make six times more than I did 35 years ago, but my standard of living is worse because most things cost seven times more.
My present hourly rate is based on performance, but if the minimum wage was lower, my rate might be higher because my least productive colleagues would be paid less.

 

A few appointments to the bench or offices doesn't really make a movement. The GOP in the Northeast was a WASPy, and sometimes anti-Jewish, party. Plus, many Jewish communities are in large urban areas, and as Democrats became the more urban party, it was a natural match.

Organized labor has become small, with the assaults on workers rights with the rise of the conservative movement. But, Americans are generally sympathetic to labor. Just a few years ago, polling for a study showed 60 million American workers would join a union if they could. And, while Eugene Debs fought a valiant fight in the 1920 elections, his third party candidacy hurt the chances of labor to have the bigger impact they had when they aligned with the Democrats.

What in the hell makes you think this? The poor just want to move into the middle class, American dream we have. And Democrats make it easier for more prosperity all around the whole economy, instead of a few rich, semen lottery winners who want it all for fewer than 1% of the population! like the GOP wants.

Not at all. Study after study in recent years shows either no job losses, or job gains, when the minimum wage rises.

Which is why wages need to rise at both the lower, but at the middle wage levels. All of the income rises in the past thirty years has been for the top portion of the top 1% wealthiest people. And they've also seen their tax bills fall pretty far.

I don't know what job you have, but it's unlikely the minimum wage has hurt your earnings, when you have merely been undercut by your employer, and treated like you're a dupe by them, while they don't have to pay you a fair wage.

 

What has the Democratic Party done for cities. Chicago, Boston and New York have countless killings and shootings and whole neighborhoods police don't even touch. There are so few Republicans in Boston they're not allowed a primary election, because finishing second in the general election becomes possible. The corruption guarantees a November race between two like-minded Democrats (white Catholics by the way) so nothing ever changes. Detroit is bankrupt and the unions are the reason. People who work on automobile assembly lines don't deserve twice as much as people on other assembly lines, but they got it. The cars therefore had to cost more and the companies still couldn't make a profit. NAFTA and other international trade agreements hurt those companies by helping more people buy some type of car.
Meanwhile the minimum wage doesn't apply to agriculture, waiters, salesmen or piece workers, so some businesses thrive at the expense of others.
When I was a salesman I sold almost nothing and earned almost nothing. As a fundraiser in 2008 I was down to an average of $2 per hour at the end. Obviously I didn't deserve much because I was terrible, but the desperation in my face or voice revealed I was not prosperous, giving the prospective client the product was bad or the company criminal.
When my wife had her shop her income was zero despite long hours. She paid her employees the minimum wage. Only bad workers no one else would take or keep would work for that, so the work got shoddy. Sales decreased until the company was liquidated. We also lost our house in the bargain.
We shouldn't have had the house except that Barney Frank made it possible for poorer people to buy bigger houses-or attempt to. We got a mortgage deal far too high with unpayable interest unless we could increase our income steadily. It decreased immediately because my wife was pregnant. The baby increased expenses. Then she opened the shop in an attempt to increase her income. Frank didn't help business loans because he dislikes businesses, so we got a very small loan with the house as collateral. They made her spend half the loan on new equipment she didn't need, so when she defaulted as they expected, they could recover half the money. By then her payments had covered roughly the other half.
The house was actually foreclosed before the business was liquidated.
Then we declared bankruptcy, so the rich credit card companies that gave us high limits at the highest possible rates lost some of the excess money they shouldn't have had after gaining lots of money they shouldn't have had.
In summary, Democrats gave me the illusion of wealth for five years followed by eight years and counting in the doldrums of the least comfortable condition i've ever experienced.
If we hadn't gotten the house and my wife had to save most of the money to open her business we would have coasted in the lower middle class, inching upward because we are good workers, and opening that shop when we could do so with our own hard-earned money.
That's the way it should be.
The bankruptcy also has flaws. While we literally have no money, many very comfortable people and companies get to use that too.
That's sinful, and the American public are the losers.

 

In my estimation deeply religious people have a tendency to look back of how much better everything in the past was and wish political change which would take policies "back to the way they were before" something. This is reflected in conservative views usually.

 

Funny that most Republicans and Conservatives I know ask this of Democrats.
Many do not get how anyone can be prochoice and Christian.

If you only look at it from a liberal viewpoint, you won't understand the politics going on that work both ways.

A lot of Conservatives only see the corruption and abuse of the Democrat leadership,
which I can attest to as a Democrat who has seen this over and over, where the people in power
crush the constituents that have solutions and only go with what is popular enough to sell for votes and campaign contributions.

If that is all the Conservatives see, they only see hypocrisy and "PIMPING THE POOR" not serving or helping minorities the right way.
i have seen the real sustainable solutions pushed by liberals get CENSORED and HIJACKED by Democrat leaders locally.
where community plans were completely DESTROYED so that politicians could take the funding for themselves and their cronies, both corporate and govt.

Now for you and others to look at Conservatives and Republicans this same way,
of COURSE you would only see the greedy corporations finagling courts and campaigns to run amok.
But that's not what most people are fighting for.

We actually have more in common as working taxpayers,
and should NOT listen to politics that conveniently blames one party or another so we keep fighting.
Or we will keep pouring milliions into campaigns back and forth, without solving problems really costing us as taxpayers.

If we put aside the bad political hype and see what people are really trying to do to protect American interests and future:
1. prochoice and prolife are not opposites, but we need both to prevent abortion by preventing sexual abuse and unwanted pregnancy
AND free choice to make decisions responsibly without abusing govt to force people by law
We need BOTH. but right now, both sides demonize the other which isn't helping solve the problems or causes.
2. gun safety and responsible gun ownership and defense
are NOT mutually exclusive and don't need to be forced by fighting each other
solutions can be derived by working together, not making a fight out of everything
3. microlending and business training to end poverty and dependence on welfare
are NOT opposed by anyone!
Both Obama, Dr. Ben Carson, liberals and conservatives on all sides support
sustainable economic investment in education without handouts!

So why this demonization?
it is just part of the political game to get points to push for votes and elections.

if you remove that factor from the equation and look at the solutions people
want from all sides, we have more in common and we can resolve the other conflicts that way,
by focusing on solutions not blaming each other for why problems arent getting solved.


this onesided blame game that keeps people and parties divided
is the worst enemy holding up solutions and wasting resources fighting politically.

That is unchristian to bear false witness, to accuse each other of projecting blame unfairly when both are equally at fault.
The Christian way is to seek mutual forgiveness and correction, to restore justice and peace and good faith relations between neighbors.
Not to spew and espouse hatred, fear and unforgiveness to destroy relations which is antichrist.

We should include and embrace one another as equal neighbors in order to collaborate on solutions.
That is the Christian way to Equal Justice by being true to conscience and quit fomenting fear which is the devil's way of dividing people to be conquered.
What we forgive, we can correct; it is a mutual process of changing how we approach each other to be positive and constructive in order to rebuild and grow.

 

The (*)(*)(*)(*) are you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

The (*)(*)(*)(*) are you talking about?

 

As if this single issue is justification for people voting for a party that violates their alleged beliefs in a dozen different ways...
Besides, the abortion issue centres around when life begins. The Bible, which is ostensibly the foundation document for Christian belief, is unclear on this.

Such as?

Remind me which political party overwhelmingly voted to get big money out of politics, and which party voted to keep their bribes...

Please define "the right way" of helping the poor and/or minorities that is being recommended by conservatives.

Even if this was true, how is this a democrat/republican issue (rather than a whole-of-government issue) since you claim it is being done by both parties?
That being said, can you remind me once again which political party voted to get big money out of politics and which one voted to keep the bribes rolling in?

Goodie... So what are you "fighting for"?

What are you talking about? How does this justify voting for a party that contradicts your alleged core belief system?

Remind me which party opposes sex education for kids, access to birth control, and is on record as constantly demonizing rape victims while adopting a "boys will be boys" mentality toward rapists?

Right, so remind me why any form of challenge to the status quo (which represents neither safety nor responsibility) is automatically demonized by conservatives as being one step toward the collapse of society, rather than an exercise in promoting public safety and responsible ownership?

So please explain why conservatives have demonized education while making it more expensive.

In other words, it's political propoganda. The only "demonization" routinely undertaken by the democrats seems to be pointing out the fallacies in republican propoganda.

That's exactly the point. People who make money from the status quo don't want the status quo changed with solutions... and they buy votes to "conserve" the status quo. Once again, it is fairly clear that one political party overwhelmingly supports maintaining this gravy train when the other voted to stop it.

Even if both parties were "equally at fault" as you claim (which they aren't)... Why vote for the party that routinely adopts the least "Christian" policies?

Great. Please illustrate how the republican party upheld this "Christian way" by making their primary goal to ensure Obama was a one-term president, and by refusing to collaborate with him when he was willing to.

 

Sounds like a very good - albeit long-winded - demonstration of why deregulation is stupid... Remind me, which political party pushes for deregulation while claiming that wealth will "trickle down" to the poor if we keep handing more of it to the top earners?

 

Here is a thought: republicans are left-wing, and therefore pro-Christian because that the majority of religion in the past is Christian. I also despise the major parties of the U.S.A. and wish that people would be more willing to vote on minor parties more.

 

If your worst employees got what they deserve (almost nothing) your best workers could get what they deserve(a lot). The minimum wage brings these two numbers closer together. If the average workers are productive the business thrives and the owners get richer. If the average workers are bad the business fails. the owner recovers because bankruptcy is an option, but that allows them to be reckless and run the business badly. That hurts good rival businesses.
If it was hard to buy a house there would be fewer realtors, so the ones in the business would do better. People would save money instead of spending every cent. that would allow banks to give more loans for businesses and houses at lower rates and with fewer restrictions.
Obviously if we had 20 American car companies, cars would be cheaper. They might be less safe, but buying safety features would earn you cheaper insurance-as would buying safer cars. Instead you have to buy cars full of safety features you may never need and get no discounts as a result.
They say car insurance is and should be required because you might get in an accident. Arguing for mandatory health care insurance makes more sense because almost everyone dies either sick or getting medical attention after an accident. Millions of people never have a car accident, but everyone gets sick and dies.
Obviously if the biggest employer in your district (and your biggest campaign donor) tells you deregulation will make him $40 million richer,increase your campaign fund by $5 million, employ 2000 more constituents and increase tax revenue for the city, state and federal government at the expense of 500,000 non-voting sand flies, how would you vote?

 

You seem to be suffering from the misconception that businesses will automatically hire more people and/or give their front-line workers raises if they make more money (by cutting corners after deregulation). In other words, you seem to believe the wealth will somehow "trickle down".

This thread was actually about politics and religious belief, not economics, but I'm willing to digress somewhat.

Imagine I own a business that employs 100 people and has 1000 orders per month... 100 people are all I need to meet consumer demand.
If my customer orders drop to 900 a month, I may have to lay off 10 people or so. If my orders increase to 1500 per month, I may have to hire an additional 50 folks. Customers drive growth and employment (not CEOs), and customers are everyday consumers.

Imagine I have a spare $1,000,000 and I use it to buy two very nice cars. The amount I drive each of these cars will be limited, so I'll have each of them serviced infrequently and I'll only need to get gas proportionate to the amount one person (me) drives.
Now, if that same $1,000,000 was distributed amongst 100 middle-class people who could each buy a $10,000 car... Each of their cars would be driven, each would need service, each would consume gas...

So distributing money to the middle class creates more work (and therefore jobs) than consolidating it in the hands of the wealthy, no matter what your local (well-bribed) conservative politician says. What is it about this that you don't understand?

 

Asking this is like asking Jews why they weren't members of the nazi party, which, after all, advocated taking Saturdays off. Then, when a well formed explanation is formed for why they wouldn't choose a political movement that detested them (as if this really needs to be explained), the other person quoted a passage from the Torah telling them to take Saturdays off. The reasoning behind being republican, as a christian, are so obvious, that it begs disbelief when people ask.

If you really don't understand, study the phase "personal responsibility". Think about how it relates to Christianity, and to politics. If you still don't get it, you simply never will.

 

The example I was presenting involves a factory owner who dominates a region of his state.He was rich when he started and already has huge profits that justify adding a second factory somewhere. He gave heavily to your first campaign because you were the only candidate who took a stand against higher corporate taxes, fearing as a civilian that that business might leave the state and the country. Then he tells you he's found a site in your district for a second factory he's determined to build somewhere. It's in an empty section once used as a sand quarry. If you continue to fight tax increases he'll continue to support you, and if you try to persuade the EPA to let him use that site at the expense of the sand flies it will bring additional employment to the district, including commission salesmen who will travel the country to sell more products but get wealthy living in your district. Unemployment in the district will go down and that eyesore will look more presentable.
The other party by the way has plans for that site too: a set of tenements to house the poor unemployed people-many of the same people he might hire. Either way the sand flies are doomed and the next state over has lower taxes for business and lots of empty space for a factory or two.
These are the tradeoffs between idealism and reality. I'm a utilitarian philosopher and see the choice as obvious.
The government guarantees no one will starve (Welfare). Why does it have to guarantee rich people won't get too rich, or the upper lower class will never reach the middle class?

 

Another thesis that has nothing to do with the OP? Does this serve any purpose other than to derail the thread?

Nonetheless, for the last time, I'll respond to this off-topic gish gallop:
In your hypothetical example, you mention a politician being paid by private industry to "grease the wheels" with the EPA as if that type of activity is somethow beneficial. I call BS.
You mentioned 'sand flies' several times in this instance as the EPA's primary concern. What about pollution of drinking water, as we've seen in several major instances recently? Should politicians be bribed to cut red tape and allow corporations to poison US citizens? A line has to be drawn and - given the potential ramifications - I'd rather it was drawn well clear of corruption that harms our citizens.

Now, did you have anything to say about how Republican ideology relates to Christian values?

 

You seem to be implying that the Republican party's values are more in line with Christianity that those of the Democratic party, and that the Democratic party "detests" Christians the way nazis detested Jews.

Please feel free to clarify those points, because I think we have very different perspectives on them and I'm interested to learn what your position is based on.

 

Christianity requires us to act in certain ways, personally. It requires us to be responsible for our own actions. The Democrat party places responsibility on society for an individual's actions, and makes the individual responsible for society's actions. Reparations, welfare, social programs, reformation vs imprisonment, gun laws, business friendly taxes. Most of these things are handled in a way by republicans that hands responsibility to the individual, just as Christianity does.

Why else do members of the Democrat party embrace sexual promiscuity, drug abuse, deference of blame for crime from the individual, ownership of economics by the state? Why do governments, the more they embrace these ideals, the more they discriminate against religious people? The DNC actually booed the inclusion of God in their charter. Liberal groups regularly sue christian groups. Liberals regularly mock christianity. Look at the way liberals talk to Christians on this board. This is an illustration of the way democrats treat Christians in this nation. You can't expect to belittle, harass, and discriminate against a religious group, their families, and their businesses, and then expect them to vote for you.

 

So many hasty generalizations in one post...

I thought that Christianity included the following?

- Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. [Matthew 22:21]
- Love your neighbor as yourself.[Matthew 22:39]
- So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.[Matthew 7:12.]
- If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. [Matthew 19:21]
- But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just. [Luke 14:13 &14.]
- You cannot serve both God and Money. [Matthew 6:24.]
- If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her. [John 8:7]
- And when thou pray, thou shall not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou pray, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret… [Matthew 6:6 & 7]
- Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. [Matthew 7:1 & 2.]
- In the temple courts [Jesus] found men selling cattle, sheep and doves and other sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. [John 2:14 & 15.]
- Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. [Luke 12.15.]
- Truly, I say unto you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. [Matthew 19:23]
​

Can you seriously say that any one of those things is representative of Republican ideology? I doubt it.

A recurring theme in the Bible is that we should provide equal justice for all, not favoring the rich or powerful. Also, because all the peoples of the world are God's creation, we should not discriminate against foreigners:

"He who oppresses the poor reproaches his maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors Him." (NAS, Proverbs 14:31)

"Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits. Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty. Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous. Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt." (TNIV, Exodus 23:6-9)

"Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who constantly record unjust decisions, So as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights, in order that widows may be their spoil, and that they may plunder the orphans. Now what will you do in the day of punishment, and in the devastation which will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help? And where will you leave your wealth?" (NAS, Isaiah 10:1-3)

The Bible often speaks of charity as an individual-to-individual act of generosity. The law of Moses and the Hebrews, though, provided an institutional way of providing for the poor that did not depend on the good will of any individual. Not only was individual generosity encouraged, but, as a matter of law, part of everyone's produce or income was to be set aside to aid the poor:

"And you shall sow your land for six years and gather in its yield, but on the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the needy of your people may eat; and whatever they leave the beast of the field may eat. You are to do the same with your vineyard and your olive grove." (NAS, Exodus 23:10-11)

"When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns, and be satisfied." (NAS, Deuteronomy 26:12)

 

So Christianity is about "personal responsibility", is it?
One doesn't have to dig very deep to learn the spoken sentiments of Jesus related to these matters:

Matthew 25:31-46 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?' And the king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

As per the OP, it seems to me that the "personal accountability" Jesus spoke of did not justify being an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to everyone else.

 

Every single one of those are mandates to the individual, not to a system of government. The most ironic thing is the reason why you disagree with republican values (your lack of understanding of personal responsibility) is the very reason you don't understand christianity. You probably believe Christians should force their views of redistribution on the rich, but don't feel they should force their views on homosexuals. Christianity isn't a political movement. It's a religious one. Anti theists do not understand the difference because they feel their beliefs aren't beliefs, but fact, and therefore enforceable, and become indignant when Christians don't enforce viewpoints, unless of course they disagree with those viewpoints.

And yes, I generalized above. How else to represent a huge and diverse political movement but to talk about the ideals it generally upholds. Again, ironically you just did the same things for republicans. I'm a christian. I generally vote for republicans. If you want to understand why, I explained. If your purpose is really to explain to me why my beliefs are wrong, then go sucked eggs. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Christ's mandate to the individual is not for the individual to pursue his own well-being at the expense of everyone else! If that's honestly what you believe, then it's clear you're only interested in "Republican JesusTM", not the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

If anything, the truth about Christianity is quite the opposite... Another example:

Jeremiah 22

1 This is what the LORD says: "Go down to the palace of the king of Judah and proclaim this message there: 2 'Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah, you who sit on David's throne—you, your officials and your people who come through these gates. 3 This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place. 4 For if you are careful to carry out these commands, then kings who sit on David's throne will come through the gates of this palace, riding in chariots and on horses, accompanied by their officials and their people. 5 But if you do not obey these commands, declares the LORD, I swear by myself that this palace will become a ruin.' " ?

13 "Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness, his upper rooms by injustice, making his countrymen work for nothing, not paying them for their labor.

14 He says, 'I will build myself a great palace with spacious upper rooms.' So he makes large windows in it, panels it with cedar and decorates it in red.

15 "Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar? Did not your father have food and drink? He did what was right and just, so all went well with him.

16 He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD.

17 "But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain, on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion."​

Everyone, both rich and poor, benefits when a government respects the rights of all and provides for the needy. Crime and drug abuse breed in areas of poverty and unemployment, where people may feel they have nothing to lose. Likewise, apathy and violence breed where people perceive injustice and feel excluded from the benefits of society. To the extent every individual feels empowered as a valuable, productive member of society, then society becomes healthier and more secure for everyone.

 

Ugh. Where to start.

Judaism is a political movement, not christianity. I'm not going to explain Jeremiah to you. You can't honestly expect Christians to want to enforce Hebrew law in America and then expect to be taken seriously in a debate about the application of Christianity in politics.

Finally, I'm just going to politely disagree with you that the policies of the Democrat party help the poor.

I refuse to give you a lesson in history, politics, and religion. The question of why Christians vote republican was posed. I answered. You think their logic is wrong. Either learn more about these three topics then debate with me, or don't bother. Even if I am wrong, you are so ignorant about my fundamental beliefs that you have literally no understanding of how to approach the bible to a christian.

Seriously, you quoted Jeremiah.

 

Interesting perspective... I'm sure Jesus would have disagreed with you (as a Jew) that Judaism is a political (rather than religious) system.

I note you've completely avoided the point I raised in post #71...

 

When Jesus said render to Ceasar what is Caesar's, if you think he is advocating a complex system of economic redistribution, you are beyond my help. Basically, a bunch of people wanted him to take a political position of himself over ceaser, using money. If you notice everyone knows that part of rending to ceaser, but people miss rending to God what is God's. Chairity, kindness, forgiveness, compassion, etc. These are not political things, and Christ made that distinction apparant with this teaching. It's not surprising that when asked if christianity would be a political movement, Christ's distinctive answer of no Is taken to mean the exact opposite. Can't you see how dismissive Christ is there?