Republican AND Christian...? How?

It doesn't sound like you understand what a Christian or a Republican is. Which is not really much of a surprise since you started this thread to troll and not to understand. And if you're honest, you'll admit that.

Incidentally, I do have wonder how people like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden can call themselves Catholics when they support abortion. Catholics don't even believe in condoms. Much less infanticide.

 

Speaking of trolling...
Kudos to you though, I suppose, on your demonstrated ability to masterfully combine the "appeal to motive" and "tu quoque" fallacies.

Actually, I believe they support the individual's right to choose for themselves, rather than forcing their religious preferences onto others. It's called "free will". Feel free to consult your Bible on how God feels about free will.

A) I think Catholics do acknowledge condoms exist, although they historically discourage their use as sinful.
B) You'd have to illustrate that an embryo is an infant in order for abortion to be "infanticide".

 

Nice try. But supporting the "right to kill" is supporting killing by default. And whether or not you want to admit it, you agree with this. And I'll prove it. Prior to the Civil War, Democrats supported an individual's right to choose for themselves whether or not they owned slaves. Did that make them pro-slavery or pro-choice?

Not that I even needed to take it that far. Since Pelosi and Biden both support legislation that demands private businesses pay for other people's contraception. So much for your "freedom of choice" argument. Not to mention, once again, the rather glaring apostasy from the Catholic doctrine on birth control.

Fair enough. Semantical loophole acknowledged. Which, it should also be pointed out, was exactly what allowed the Supreme Court not to recognize children in the womb as people in the first place. Since the Fourteenth Amendment uses the word "born." Notice how we're basing life and death now on mere wordplay rather than science and reason. This is, in fact, a tactic that the Democratic party has used consistently throughout its history to subvert equal protection of different people under the law. Again, not very Christian.

 

That was an overwhelmingly stupid strawman.
A) something has to be "alive" before you can "kill" it. Please demonstrate that an embryo qualifies using the Bible.
B) Prior to the Civil War, Democrats were the conservative party. The Dixiecrats have since joined the Republicans. Of course, you know this.
C) Slaves were human beings with thoughts of their own. Are you saying the same is true of an embryo of less than 15 weeks gestation?

Contraception and pregnancy are medical issues that happen to be part of a much larger health care program, and you know it. Asking businesses to provide health care as part of an employee's renumeration is not accessive.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670673/Vatican-Many-Catholics-ignore-teachings-sex.html

Oh, if we want to "be Christian", it should be pointed out that the Bible makes several mentions of life beginning when breath is drawn for the first time...
Alternatively, we could look at the following link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_argu.htm

Or, if you'd prefer to use "science and reason", I'd be interested to see any scholarly articles you'd like to provide that illustrates that an embryo of less than 15 weeks is a living person. Of course, I won't hold my breath...

 

I think most of that is lies. i certainly haven't heard of most of them. George W. Bush-like millions of people, became an alcoholic because Democrats ended prohibition. he quit. Ted Kennedy never quit. Did he sell cocaine (like Obama and Eric Holder). did he advocate that drugs be legalized (like Clinton's Surgeon General because her son was a dealer). Did he tell his Attorney General to stop enforcing drug laws like former drug dealers Obama and Eric Holder?
The worst thing you can say for John Huntsman is that he worked for Obama. what is he the absorbing man who inherits the sins not only of his boss but the worst 20 previous employees?
Rehnquist was on the Supreme Court from 1972-2005. Plessey versus Ferguson was 1896, overturned in 1954. Did he go back in a time machine to join past cases. Brown Versus the Board of Education was 9-0. God had to kill Democrat Chief Justice Fred Vinson to make it so. The process was still going on in the 1970s because Democrat Felix Frankfurter told the Democratic bigots who unanimously controlled all southern states to proceed with "all deliberate speed." To those Democrats that meant never, or may be like the false evolution they believe in: in about a million years.
I do vote for Democrats sometimes, usually losers like John Silber. I did vote for Obama against McCain, just as I would have voted for Albert Speer against Hermann Goering in 1940 in Germany.
Come to think of it, almost every Democrat I've known personally is obnoxious, rude, arrogant, inflexible and closed-minded, kind of like your posts indicate you are.
There are more bad people than good people. that's why there are more Democrats in the US, and more Muslim fanatics elsewhere and more Communists in some countries.
I could prove in court that the average Republican is nicer than the average Democrat.
Pick two.

 

What are you babbling about?!
You're willing to judge Democrats over a single infidelity, but pardon Republicans because (as far as your know) they "quit" the behavior? Hypocrisy.

You claim Obama dealt drugs? Based on what? I'd like to see a supporting link, otherwise I'll have to assume (given your praise of bigots as "virtuous") that it's another racial issue.

In case you didn't notice, a growing number of states are legalizing cannabis - so politicians who made this recommendation years ago were hardly doing anything wrong.

Your need to resort to personal insults once your views crumble under scrutiny makes it obvious that your ego is too fragile to admit the failure of your beliefs. Pathetic.

 

A single infidelity applies to Jim Bakker and that was enough to keep me from
acknowledging him since then. Jimmy Swaggert apparently did something wrong a few times without fornicating but I've denounced him since. I also turned against John Ankerberg for exposing it because even that reflects badly on his Christianity. This is far different from the serial adultery of Martin Luther King II that gave that psychopathic crossdresser J. Edgar Hoover an excuse to collect blackmail against him like he had on the Socialistic hypocrite pedophile Charlie Chaplain and the serial fornicator who married a pretty though also warped woman and became a serial adulterer including with people working for mobsters some of which were friends of his corrupt and sinister father who was a dear friend of those evil Roosevelts.
Meanwhile in Boston my black stepson was beaten up by people working for a local minister so corrupt he calls himself "the Godfather." he also is a close friend of serial adulterer Jesse Jackson Sr. and no doubt his nutty son.

 

Long thread... Anyway, in summary it's not possible. Nobody can love money and serve God.

I am a Christian Socialist.

 

Your ranting has led me to several questions... I wonder whether you can answer any of them:
1) Isn't your core value, as a Christian, supposed to be about striving to be "Christ-like"?
2) Didn't Christ feed the hungry, heal the sick, etc without asking for anything in return?
3) Did Christ "denounce" or "refuse to acknowledge" Mary Magdalene?
4) In John 8:7, can you clarify what you believe was meant by Jesus when he said "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."?
5) In Matthew 7:1, can you clarify what you believe was meant by "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."?
6) In what way, other than potentially attending a church, are you a Christian?

 

1. Yes
2. Christ fed the hungry twice when sending them on a long trip home without a meal would have been at some cost to their health. He did not drain the nation's resources to feed lazy people for 50 years.
3. Jesus cast 7 devils out of Mary Magdalene but wouldn't let her hug him tight.
4. Jesus was reminding them that strict but uneven adherence to the death penalty was a bad thing.
5. Jesus was saying that we should not attempt to analyze the condition of one's relationship with God based on incomplete personal knowledge.
6. I am a Christian by faith in the God of the Bible, personal relationship with Christ through love, prayer and meditation, personal behavior, public proclamation and abstaining from evil and the fellowship of evil-doers, like Democrats.

 

then why do many on the right support the right when they keep trying to push their flavor of religious fanaticism on the country, lets just all believe what we want to believe and that be it, we don't need to be force fed religion

.

 

Then why don't you do so?

So Christ only fed people when they had to take a long trip? Please point out the Biblical reference for that assertion.
While you're at it, please take a look at the link I've provided and point out the "lazy people" you're talking about. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/new-face-food-stamps-working-age-americans-0

And the fact that the Bible says she was the first person Christ appeared to after his resurrection? Was that an example of how to "denounce" or "refuse to acknowledge" someone?

You think it was specifically relating to the death penalty, even though you admit that Jesus indicates "...we should not attempt to analyze the condition of one's relationship with God based on incomplete personal knowledge"...?

And yet you choose to do so by "denouncing" and "refusing to acknowledge" individuals you deem to be sinful...

Dude, you've demonstrated a judgemental attitude - while admitting that Christ says you shouldn't judge others.
Your "public proclamation" is another contradiction of Christ's teachings (see Matthew 6:5-6).
And your over-the-top, holier-than-thou ranting about "abstaining from evil and the fellowship of evil-doers, like Democrats" illustrates that your previous posts about being non-partisan are outright lies.

The fact that someone with so many vices would consider themselves better, in any way, than others makes me ill.

 

The implication of your statement is that everything Christ taught should legally codified if they really mean it but then that would violate the 1st Amendment. Are you saying you want separation of church and state repealed??

 

I implied no such thing.
There is a HUGE grey area between (a) voting for those who actively fight against the principles you claim to adhere to, and (b) legislating adherence to a specific religion.

False dilemma fallacy much?

 

So what principles derived from Christ's teaching is contradicted by voting for Republicans? I just want to make sure I understand you this time.

 

Well, there's been a few posts on this thread that clarify this point... The below posts may provide a general overview of the OP query:

If those aren't clear enough examples, I also got more specific in post #70.

 

Well, it just seems to me that both republicans and democrats can call themselves Christians, but none of them can call themselves with any honesty, Followers of Christ. And the last time I read the NT, Christ told those around him to Follow Him. Or do as I do. What did He do? Lots of things. One thing he did was to tell the rich to give their wealth to the poor. So looks like to me that Christ didn't think much of the rich. Which means He has no place for the rich. He saw something sinful about them, obviously. Now why would He see this? Well, the rich know others are doing without necessary resources for survival, yet they fly their jets, eat their caviar, waste money on every widget imaginable and waste their wealth, or hoard it up.

But it takes an insatiable greed in man to exploit others, in order to build up his own wealth which he hoards. God gave the resources of the earth to allow humanity to thrive, as other life thrives. But left it up to man to distribute those resources. How have we accomplished this? Not well, for people have always starved whiles others had far too much surplus.

It appears that God didn't want us to create capitalism, or any other system that has the rich and the poor. Capitalism is obviously evil.

 

As the Bible teaches, there are many Antichrists. Republican Pharisees are one such example.

 

Just a reminder that it was a Republican majority that approved of Roe v Wade.


As for Trail of Tears, it was Republican Lincoln who ordered the execution of Indian warriors who were trying vainly to save the lives of innocent women and children who were being starved to death in Minnesota. And it was a Republican who started two wars in the Middle East.

 

Check your math. William O. Douglas (FDR appointee, Democrat), William Brennan (appointed by quasi-Republican Eisenhower in October 1956 when Sherman Minton decide to retire suddenly four weeks before the Presidential election so Ike would hastily appoint a Democrat to gain votes, Democrat), Potter Stewart (Eisenhower appointee, man of honor, who told Blackmun he could vote with the majority only if he declared that in the eyes of the Constitution a fetus-however viable-was not a person and had to keep his word when he wrote it that way), Thurgood Marshall (Democrat, LBJ appointee), Warren Burger (Republican, Nixon appointee, afraid to take a stand but frequently changing his vote to be on the winning side-sometimes to influence the decision but in this case only for statistical purposes) Blackmun (persuaded more by three liberal daughters and the powerful persuasive methods of Brennan) chosen to write it precisely because he was the shakiest vote in favor of it and might switch sides and Lewis Powell (Republican but an expert on medical law always siding with doctors). I don't think either party had a firm position at the time, but Democrats have made it mandatory and the Republican platform has stood against it in every election since 1980.
lincoln was a bartender when the Trail of tears started. I don't know what you're talking about.
It would be literally sinful for me to reply directly to post 112, but one short summary will end my participation in this thread.
If 50 million people belong to a party that officially endorses a set of sins whether they perform them or not and the only viable rival party consists of 50 million people who officially oppose those sins, though some at times practice them, joining the latter party is the only option a Christian can entertain.

 

Are you talking about Christian Dems, like President Obama?

 

NOTE THE REPEATED REFERENCE TO REPUBLICAN APPOINTEE.


Thank you for confirming that the TRUTH is 100% correct.

 

Are you unable to read the title of the thread?
No, I'm clearly talking about those whose political philosophy is "screw you, I got mine".

 

When I meet a rhetoric thread, I tend to become rhetoric ...

 

It's a take on Darwinism. They like the jungle environment of where only the strong survive. Capitalism has its foundation there.

Of course one cannot help but notice the incoherence between how Christ felt about the rich, and how the republicans feel about the rich. How they could corrupt this, and then worship the rich, holding them up as examples for the majority in this nation who are not rich is the funny part. Clearly obvious what a Christian republican is, or at least it should be. God made the rich, rich, and he favors them more than folks like Mother Teresa. This is the god of the republicans, and now we know. LOL.

Christ said the poor will be blessed, that the meek shall inherit the earth. So, the republicans are on the losing team, in the long haul. I guess they are more concerned with how they faire right now, in this life, so their god is consumption, gold, silver, you know, worldly treasures.