NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this is a stupid reason to start a thread, but if you look at it Jesus is a Democrat. He helped the poor, spoke out against the conservative Pharisees, and he called for change in the Jewish church, and as you know Democrats constantly want to change government. Now I'm preparing for a grilling by the conservative evangalists. This should be fun. :rolleyes:

Jesus was NOT a Democrat - if anything he was libertarian :D

Jesus was NOT a Democrat - if anything he was libertarian :D
You sure he was one of us?

I agree that he was a liberal, but he wasn't part of the Democratic party.

Well, I didn't exactly mean he's a registered deomcrat and voted for John Kerry, but he would be a demcorat know if he lived in the US.

But he wouldnt live in the US, most likely he would find it morally offensive to live with that many ignorant rednecks :D

Jesus wouldn't vote for Kerry, I bet Jesus wouldn't even vote

Looking at the Old Testament though, God's certainly a conservative. He's all for killing women and children of faiths that don't coincide.

;)

Well, I didn't exactly mean he's a registered deomcrat and voted for John Kerry, but he would be a demcorat know if he lived in the US.

I think Jesus would be a moderate. He would definitely be to left of most Evangelicals in America on a lot of issues, but it's not hard to imagine he'd be far to the right on some issues as well. Would he support abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, et cetera? I don't know. Abortion and stem cells probably not, but gay marriage I don't know. Depends on how strict a Jew he was.

All I'm trying to say is that it's impossible to fit people who've been dead for millenia into a modern ideology.

Called in change of government? Since where?

And I don't think so Jesus was libertanian. He was for forgiveness, but also repentence for people to change their ways by the renewing of their mind by the word. Libertanian is more for freedom, to be able to do as you may. But doesn't quite cut it to what Jesus was talking about IMO.

Pharisee's are elitist who believe they were above and beyond others with their religionism 'holier than thou' attitude.

Jesus is apolitical. Church and state should never mix. He never called for a revolution or anything. He didn't go against the state.

Oh yes, of course, Jesus was always telling everyone that nobody could tell them what was right and wrong for them and that everything should be legalized. The only reason He came to earth was to take everyone's money and redistribute it to the less fortunate, right? :rolleyes:
Just because he was charitable doesn't mean he was liberal. And btw, I'm a hard-core "conservative" and I want the government to change A LOT. ;)

Jesus was against the killing of innocent people, kicked butt when he needed to, and generally resembled a "compassionate conservative".

You have enlightend me Greedy Pig :rolleyes:

Though I am a Democrat, this is my position on this issue:
"God is not a Republican. . .Or a Democrat."
The Evangelical Right's monopolization of God is atrocious.
And NEVER try to convince me that He was any sort of conservative:
"Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."

You are all wrong. He was:

'Cause Jesus was a country boy
Walkin' down a dirt road
With everything that he owned
He never met a stanger
Born in a barn underneath the stars
His momma laid him in a manger
Swimmin' in the river fishin' for his dinner
Livin' with the sinners like me
Makes me think
That Jesus was a country boy

Clay Walker
:D

Though I am a Democrat, this is my position on this issue:
"God is not a Republican. . .Or a Democrat."
The Evangelical Right's monopolization of God is atrocious.
And NEVER try to convince me that He was any sort of conservative:
"Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."
Many conservative evangelicals do just that. It's just that they do not believe that forgiveness necessarily means escaping the consequences of your actions.

Ahem..

Would Jesus support abortion? The murder of a baby?

Would Jesus support gay marrige?

Would Jesus support stealing from the people? (raising income tax)

Jesus was NOT a Democrat - if anything he was libertarian :D
We have a person with a brain, I'm glad I'm not the only one here!


Ahem..

Would Jesus support abortion? The murder of a baby?

Would Jesus support gay marrige?

Would Jesus support stealing from the people? (raising income tax)
Christ! Three people who think for themselves!

Many conservative evangelicals do just that. It's just that they do not believe that forgiveness necessarily means escaping the consequences of your actions.

AKA George Bush

I know this is a stupid reason to start a thread, but if you look at it Jesus is a Democrat. He helped the poor, spoke out against the conservative Pharisees, and he called for change in the Jewish church, and as you know Democrats constantly want to change government. Now I'm preparing for a grilling by the conservative evangalists. This should be fun. :rolleyes:

You are right, it is a stupid reason. Especially since your demonstrating contempt and ignorance of Republicans. Cause get this,

Republicans help the poor. Speak out against people they disagree with. Call for change in government.

If your only reason is that Jesus did those things, than Jesus is clearly a Republican.

People who use religion for political reasons to me is bad bad :p. Leaders who call or use Jesus as a democrat or a republican.. have ulterior motives :D

I know this is a stupid reason to start a thread, but if you look at it Jesus is a Democrat. He helped the poor, spoke out against the conservative Pharisees, and he called for change in the Jewish church, and as you know Democrats constantly want to change government. Now I'm preparing for a grilling by the conservative evangalists. This should be fun. :rolleyes:
Jesus was not Democrat. Most Democrats are atheists. Democrats are not for helping the poor, they are just wanting to help themselves (most rich Democrats are not tax payers because they are 'poor'). How do you know that Pharisees are conservative (give me good reasons). and He didn't call out for a change in the Jewish church, he called out for a change in everybody's lives. And most Democrats are *cough* *cough* um, maybe I should just leave it like that :D . Jesus was not.

Would Jesus have supported an unjust war that killed thousands and many were tortured, I think not!

You can help the poor and not be a Democrat or a liberal.

Carnage had a great idea, he said that the government should stop taking money from the rich so that the rich may give their money to charities that they know will help people. Carnage donated over 90% of his estate to education and today, over 100 years later, we are still benefiting from it.

Idealistic, yes, but if you force someone to do the right thing then they havn't really done anything right. Plus the government wastes so much money, I can spend my money better.

Conservative pharasies!!!!

They were liars! How is that being conservative!?

Called for a change in the Jewish church, therefore he would support change in the US government 2,000 years later.

Did you know that Hitler called for change in the German government about 70 years ago? He raised taxes, killed babies, and gave to the poor.

Sounds like a Democrat to me.

Ahem..
Would Jesus support abortion? The murder of a baby?
Would Jesus support gay marrige?
Would Jesus support stealing from the people? (raising income tax)

No. Jury's out. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

You are right, it is a stupid reason. Especially since your demonstrating contempt and ignorance of Republicans. Cause get this, Republicans help the poor. Speak out against people they disagree with. Call for change in government.
True. Democrats aren't all selfless philanthropists who live their lives for others. To think that Jesus [presuming he really was the amazing man/being many think he was] would somehow identify with the Democratic party is nearing the height of hubris. Watch that first step.

People who use religion for political reasons to me is bad bad :p. Leaders who call or use Jesus as a democrat or a republican.. have ulterior motives :D
Also true. Simply because the Republican Party uses Christianity as a political tool does not make it acceptable for the Democratic party to do so as well. Only more understandable.

Unjust? Would Jesus let those Iraqi people suffer under that terrible dictator who tortured and killed millions of his own people, committed genocide, and had ties to terrorists?

The US freed them! We should be proud to be one of the only countries in the history of the world to go out of their way to free an opressed peoples.

Pharisees called for strict adherence to the religious ritual (sounds pretty conservative to me).

Many conservative evangelicals do just that. It's just that they do not believe that forgiveness necessarily means escaping the consequences of your actions.
It means being forgiven for what you have done, in order that you do not do it again, and it doesn't meanAKA George Bush because what did George Bush do wrong? He freed people from a dictator who was killing them. The war was good. and the WMD's if you are wondering where they are, they were shipped out so that they wouldn't be found. Duh.

Would Jesus have supported an unjust war that killed thousands and many were tortured, I think not!

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
- Joshua 6:21

So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."
-Joshua 10:40-41

They were lying about the scriptures, manipulating it. How is that being conservative?

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
- Joshua 6:21

So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."
-Joshua 10:40-41

Thats the Old Testament dude.

Pharisees called for strict adherence to the religious ritual (sounds pretty conservative to me).

Sounds religious. Not conservative. But then Republicans aren’t conservative either.

Jesus called for strict adherence to religion as well, just a different kind of religion than the Pharisees.

Would Jesus have supported an unjust war that killed thousands and many were tortured, I think not!
If that was being refered to me, then which war are you talking about? (besides WWII)

Thats the Old Testament dude.

God is Jesus is God. The Old Testament and the New Testament exist in combination and neither overrides the other. God has demonstrated that he considers genocide an acceptable tool. Jesus, being God, would certainly see it as one also.

Yes the Pharisees did manipulate the Jewish laws, but the Pharisees were very strict and were devoted to the Jewish law, which is pretty conservative to me.

Jesus was not Democrat. Most Democrats are atheists. Democrats are not for helping the poor, they are just wanting to help themselves (most rich Democrats are not tax payers because they are 'poor'). How do you know that Pharisees are conservative (give me good reasons). and He didn't call out for a change in the Jewish church, he called out for a change in everybody's lives. And most Democrats are *cough* *cough* um, maybe I should just leave it like that :D . Jesus was not.


Most Democrats are not athiests. About 90% of Americans identify as religious, if not more than that. Maybe half identify as Democrats. The math doesn't add up and just illustrates your ignorance

I'm an atheist, so it really doesn't concern me much, but my Christian friends like this site: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/index.htm

Jesus would have been Muslim!

Staaaaaaaaaaaaaaarting on the left:


Communists-socialists-radical democrats-common democrats-conservative democrats-moderates-liberal republicans-common republicans-radical republicans-monarchys-total fascism.


Jesus HAD NO POLITICAL BOUNDARIES.

I'd suspect that Jesus was more of a quasi-libertarian. After all, he did all he did voluntarily and on his own...

Originally posted by Gamma 2435 Regime
If that was being refered to me, then which war are you talking about? (besides WWII)

Iraq, but i don't really want to start a big argument.

God is Jesus is God. The Old Testament and the New Testament exist in combination and neither overrides the other. God has demonstrated that he considers genocide an acceptable tool. Jesus, being God, would certainly see it as one also.



Umm, riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. God was ALL for murder.

Cause you know, it NEVER contradicts that ANYWHERE in places such as Exodus or the New testament.

Pharisees called for strict adherence to the religious ritual (sounds pretty conservative to me).
No, conservative is a political description, not a religious one. As far as strict adherence to religious ritual, that is anathema to most evangelicals. The Catholic and Episcopal churches might be accused of that.

I think this has been mentioned a little bit, but I want to expand on it a little bit:

Jesus could not affiliate with any of the major parties in our (US) political system today because all of them are wrong in some facet of what Jesus taught. Even the Republicans (whom I generally vote for as the lesser of several evils) are wrong because they often go soft on a controversial issue to appeal to moderates for the purpose of (surprise) getting votes, since we are in a democracy.

There's so many specific issues I could cite that would "disqualify" each party but that would be time consuming for me to write and for you to read.

Originally posted by Salvondia
God is Jesus is God.

If God is Jesus how in any way, shape, form, thoery, or ideology is he the son of god?

Unjust? Would Jesus let those Iraqi people suffer under that terrible dictator who tortured and killed millions of his own people, committed genocide, and had ties to terrorists?

The US freed them! We should be proud to be one of the only countries in the history of the world to go out of their way to free an opressed peoples.

God I hope you're being sarcastic.

If God is Jesus how in any way, shape, form, thoery, or ideology is he the son of god?
It's called the Holy Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. All are God. One of the more difficult theological concepts, but central to the Christian faith. God the Father - identified as the Creator, the "Old Testament" God, giver of the law, etc. God the Son - aka the Word of God (see Gospel of John, Revelation), perfect sacrifice for the sins of Man, past, present, and future. God the Holy Spirit - that resides in us when we accept Jesus, conscience, guide, and channel for gifts of God.

Originally posted by Bishop 0wnZ j00
God I hope you're being sarcastic.

He's not, that's the scary part.

This is why the Umphart is wrong on several points.
Think democrats are for the poor and minorities?

White Racists on the left.
1. High taxes and regulations keep minority upstarts down, protect good old boy network
2. Government monopoly on education keeps blacks in urban ghetto schools, prevents them from “infiltrating” “white” schools
3. The left recognized blacks as inferior and in need of special help and quotas
4. Proud tradition of segregationists, only 62% of democrats supported The Civil Rights Act vs. 92% of republicans
5. At least one democratic Senator (Robert Byrd) and several House members were actually in the KKK!

Jesus was a companionate conserv :sniper: ative, someone said that he was liberal because he wanted to change the “conservative Pharisees” if anything they were the liberal ones because they corrupted what the Lord originally set up, they wanted to be “progressive” and change where as Jesus taught that the Word of God was sacrosanct not the word of men. You people really need to actually read the Gospel instead of just repeating bad info that you overhear at a coffee house.

If God is Jesus how in any way, shape, form, thoery, or ideology is he the son of god?

You're not very familiar with Christianity are you? The Trinity is God. Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all facets and pieces of God but they are all God. And there is only one God.

God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit is God.

Originally posted by Selgin
It's called the Holy Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. All are God. One of the more difficult theological concepts, but central to the Christian faith. God the Father - identified as the Creator, the "Old Testament" God, giver of the law, etc. God the Son - aka the Word of God (see Gospel of John, Revelation), perfect sacrifice for the sins of Man, past, present, and future. God the Holy Spirit - that resides in us when we accept Jesus, conscience, guide, and channel for gifts of God.

Is this another interpretation created by man to try to understand the bible?

You're not very familiar with Christianity are you? The Trinity is God. Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are all facets and pieces of God but they are all God. And there is only one God.

God is Jesus is the Holy Spirit is God.

No kidding Sherlock!

Umm, riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. God was ALL for murder.

Cause you know, it NEVER contradicts that ANYWHERE in places such as Exodus or the New testament.


Read those quotes again. Then go read Judges and Joshua. He was for genocide.

But then, god is against Murder. Perhaps God doesn't feel acts of genocide during war is murder.

He's not, that's the scary part.
What is scary is those that wring their hands about the injustices of poverty, human rights violations, violence, etc, and sit on the sidelines, doing absolutely NOTHING to stop them. And then whine and complain when someone does do something to stop them.

Oh, I forgot, they did do something. Passed something like 14 resolutions over 14 years that did absolutely nothing to help the people of Iraq living under one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century.

No kidding Sherlock!

That was old when I first heard it a decade ago. It is still old now.

That was old when I first heard it a decade ago. It is still old now.
An oldie but a goodie. My dear Watson.

i like, "Wow, where'd you park your squad car Capt. Obvious."

There is a book I believe that is called God's Politics, I havent read it so feel free to correct me, but I have seen the author speak on TV. He basically said that if you think about it republicans dont really speak for morals just based on the bible. Compare the bible's lines about gays vs helping the poor. So really if the republicans want a moral debate based on religion they should speak about that not gay marriages. They basically have been frying small fishes oppose too the larger fishes.

What is scary is those that wring their hands about the injustices of poverty, human rights violations, violence, etc, and sit on the sidelines, doing absolutely NOTHING to stop them. And then whine and complain when someone does do something to stop them.

Oh, I forgot, they did do something. Passed something like 14 resolutions over 14 years that did absolutely nothing to help the people of Iraq living under one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century.

If you're a Kurd. The shi'ites and sunni's really didn't have too many qualms with the guy.

Look obviously Sadaam was a cruel and evil dictator. But if you want to sit here and play holier than thou and try to tell me that this war was about freeing the Iraqi people, Karl Rove truly is a genius and you my friend are just another in the flock.

I'm no raging liberal but this whole war and the pretenses they were founded on are bogus. We went in looking for WMDs (actually nuclear weapons but since our monkey of a President can't pronounce those words, we had to start calling them WMDs) and weapons labs that Sadaam might have been hiding. To date we haven't found jack squat and the White House has officially called off the WMD search.

Iraqi people? You, me, Bush, Cheney, Billy Bob, Muffy and Buffy, and everyone else could care less about the Iraqi people. If we were such humanitarians we'd be in Sudan, most of Africa, North korea, et. al. trying to help the poor, starving, and oppressed. Explain to me why genocide is going on in Darfur and why we're not doing anything about it if we're such compassionate, caring people.

We have too many damn problems on the domestic front to be involved in this bogus war. On the other hand I am 100% behind the effort in Afghanistan. They're the real legitimate threat that needs to be taken care of. Hell Sadaam was left in power for 12 god damn years before lo and behold one day he became the biggest threat to US security. Give me a break. This war is bogus and anyone with half a brain can see that.

I support the troops, I send care packages when i get a chance, and I hope they get the hell out of there safe and sound but I'm not going to sit here and say that this is a just war and a great humanitarian effort on the administration's behalf. They're so corrupt and morally bankrupt it's disgusting.

McCain in 2008. :)

Jesus couldn't be a democrat. A majority of americans support him.

That was old when I first heard it a decade ago. It is still old now.

You really do have a knack for stating the obvious don't ya?

Originally posted by Tiskoian
There is a book I believe that is called God's Politics, I havent read it so feel free to correct me, but I have seen the author speak on TV. He basically said that if you think about it republicans dont really speak for morals just based on the bible. Compare the bible's lines about gays vs helping the poor. So really if the republicans want a moral debate based on religion they have frying small fishes oppose too the larger fishes.

Excellent point :)
I think I'll read that book.

Originally posted by Bishop 0wnZ j00
You really do have a knack for stating the obvious don't ya?

That's Salvondia for ya.

Jesus was against the killing of innocent people, kicked butt when he needed to, and generally resembled a "compassionate conservative".
More like a "compassionate liberal"?

lib·er·al

adjective

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

And if HE was politically inclined, this would also work?

2. politics progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

Conservative doesn't cut it according to definition.

Jesus couldn't be a democrat. A majority of americans support him.
They do?

Originally posted by CanuckHeaven
They do?

Are you foreign or trying to be sarcastic?

More like a "compassionate liberal"?

lib·er·al

adjective

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

And if HE was politically inclined, this would also work?

2. politics progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

Conservative doesn't cut it according to definition.

Last time I checked, you either believed in him and God or you were going to be damned for all of eternity. Not exactly broad minded.

Jesus was a Hippie

lib·er·al

adjective

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

And if HE was politically inclined, this would also work?

2. politics progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual



first definition: ever hear of his whipping and chasing the money-changers in the temple in Jerusalem? Not very accepting of that behavior! His condemnation of the Pharisees and their views. How intolerant, and stereotyping to boot!

second definition: ever hear of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". I've read the Bible, and I do not recall anywhere him saying he wanted political reforms that favored redistributing wealth. Unless you count, as I recall, something about farmers leaving the wheat stalks not picked up in the first harvesting for the poor.

Are you foreign or trying to be sarcastic?
Other than being Canadian, no I am not foreign. Do you believe this statement posted by Chellis:

"Jesus couldn't be a democrat. A majority of americans support him."

I sure don't. I don't think God would be too happy with the US dropping bombs on the bithplace of civilzation, especially doing so in HIS name?

first definition: ever hear of his whipping and chasing the money-changers in the temple in Jerusalem? Not very accepting of that behavior! His condemnation of the Pharisees and their views. How intolerant, and stereotyping to boot!

second definition: ever hear of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". I've read the Bible, and I do not recall anywhere him saying he wanted political reforms that favored redistributing wealth. Unless you count, as I recall, something about farmers leaving the wheat stalks not picked up in the first harvesting for the poor.
Ahhh but you cannot recall HIS benevolent side where HE fed the masses, and how about HIS ultimate forgiveness as HE was dying on the cross?

Originally posted by CanuckHeaven
More like a "compassionate liberal"?

lib·er·al

adjective

1. broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others

And if HE was politically inclined, this would also work?

2. politics progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual

Conservative doesn't cut it according to definition.

This actually helped my postition, so thank u Canuck. ;)

Last time I checked, you either believed in him and God or you were going to be damned for all of eternity. Not exactly broad minded.
That is pretty broadminded? You have a choice? Choose wisely?

This actually helped my postition, so thank u Canuck. ;)
Good to be of service :-)

I know this is a stupid reason to start a thread, but if you look at it Jesus is a Democrat. He helped the poor, spoke out against the conservative Pharisees, and he called for change in the Jewish church, and as you know Democrats constantly want to change government. Now I'm preparing for a grilling by the conservative evangalists. This should be fun. :rolleyes:

Well, wouldn't it be better to say Jesus was a humanist? I mean, historically, if not biblically he is much more for all the people to be treated with respect, not just those of a particular colour or religion or nationality.

In fact the closest thing to his mindset I can see is probably Buddhist. Which, as a philosophy, is defined as living and being awake to the world around you, to see the truth, and to not be in denial of yourself or your situation, and to do what is the most human of actions and thoughts.

He never preached Christianity, in fact, I am certain that Jesus would not want all those deaths on his name for the sake of a religion that does not have acceptance of even his own constant companions and bestest of friends.

That said, Jesus would be likely booed and chastised by what in todays society is called "Conservative Christians" fortunately, they really only exist in the United States, everyone else just called themselves Christian and leaves it at that. Poltical association is completely seperated from the state.

That is pretty broadminded? You have a choice? Choose wisely?

The "you're either with us or against us" mentality isn't broad minded. The one problem I have with Christianity is that one pastor I was talking to basically told me that if Hitler had repented nears his end he would be in heaven (ala believed that jesus was the son of God and died for his sins, blah blah blah) yet a great man like Gandhi would never be in heaven because he was obviously a Hindu.

If that's the way it works, count me out.

You don't know shit, Jesus did not belong to the Democratic Party it wasn’t invented yet. Maybe Jesus was a liberal but that’s not an original idea I’ve read that in many books. I'm saying this as a Jew.

Well, i learned from from this people have different interpretations of Jesus' teachings, and what the Holy Trinity is (kudos Salvondia).

You don't know shit, Jesus did not belong to the Democratic Party it wasn’t invented yet. Maybe Jesus was a liberal but that’s not an original idea I’ve read that in many books. I'm saying this as a Jew.

LMAO. This guy's definetley a winner!

http://www.we-todd-did-racing.com/wetoddimage.wtdr/wODAyMjI5NnM0MTNkZmQzMXk1NDE%3D.jpg

Excellent point :)
I think I'll read that book.

Jesus spoke about the Republicans. He called them Romans. Fearing hostile takeover and suppressing all views not their own, while running a miltary dictatorship described some sort of elected republic, and taking over all territories around them to satisfy the rich, powerful back in Rome.

Rome had, what is called "houses". Each house functioned much like a Mafioso "Don" and offered protection for fealty. Those houses which were in power championed the state and hired people to brag on their behalf. Those houses which were not in power attempted to do so by appealing to the poor and underclassed in order to swell their numbers and improve their reputations.

It was a vicious idiotic cycle that we see today. Unfortunately the houses are called "Rich white families" or other "Corporations" and play mind games and popularity contests for more power and money.

How much things change, how much they stay the same.

Originally posted by Adar Land
You don't know shit, Jesus did not belong to the Democratic Party it wasn’t invented yet

Wow, where'd you park your squad car Captain Obvious? :rolleyes:

Ahhh but you cannot recall HIS benevolent side where HE fed the masses, and how about HIS ultimate forgiveness as HE was dying on the cross?
How is benevolence, charity, and forgiveness the exclusive province of liberalism? Those are moral values, not political philosophies.

It is my belief that the conservative and liberal ideologies are not differences of ends, but of means. Conservatives believe that the best way to help those in need is through private efforts, with as little government involvement as possible, because of government waste and intrusiveness on personal liberties. Liberals believe the best way to help those in need is through public, i.e. government, efforts.

Notice that on the cross, he forgave the thief, but did not take him down from his cross, something he certainly had the power to do. Forgiveness, as I've stated before, does not mean escaping the consequences of one's actions.

Originally posted by CanuckHeaven
Other than being Canadian, no I am not foreign. Do you believe this statement posted by Chellis:

"Jesus couldn't be a democrat. A majority of americans support him."

I sure don't. I don't think God would be too happy with the US dropping bombs on the bithplace of civilzation, especially doing so in HIS name?

I just wondered. :cool:

The "you're either with us or against us" mentality isn't broad minded. The one problem I have with Christianity is that one pastor I was talking to basically told me that if Hitler had repented nears his end he would be in heaven (ala believed that jesus was the son of God and died for his sins, blah blah blah) yet a great man like Gandhi would never be in heaven because he was obviously a Hindu.

If that's the way it works, count me out.
If you want to make excuses, so be it, that is what "free will" is all about. It is all about forgiveness? Do you think that Hitler before he committed suicide all of a sudden found God? Highly unlikely, perhaps because he thought he was God. So Hitler rots in Hell?

Gandhi would be forgiven for all his work with the children of God?

Why guess and make excuses?

Well, wouldn't it be better to say Jesus was a humanist? I mean, historically, if not biblically he is much more for all the people to be treated with respect, not just those of a particular colour or religion or nationality.

In fact the closest thing to his mindset I can see is probably Buddhist. Which, as a philosophy, is defined as living and being awake to the world around you, to see the truth, and to not be in denial of yourself or your situation, and to do what is the most human of actions and thoughts.

He never preached Christianity, in fact, I am certain that Jesus would not want all those deaths on his name for the sake of a religion that does not have acceptance of even his own constant companions and bestest of friends.

That said, Jesus would be likely booed and chastised by what in todays society is called "Conservative Christians" fortunately, they really only exist in the United States, everyone else just called themselves Christian and leaves it at that. Poltical association is completely seperated from the state.
Jesus = Humanist is like saying Sacred = Secular. Humanism places the human being at the center of the universe, and believes in man's basic goodness. Christ taught that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Paul talked of how he often did what he did not want in spite of himself.

Those "Conservative Christians" you so derisively refer to did not start calling themselves conservative Christians. That term has been used as and turned into a pejorative used by people against Christianity. And they do not just exist in the United States.

Other than being Canadian, no I am not foreign. Do you believe this statement posted by Chellis:

"Jesus couldn't be a democrat. A majority of americans support him."

I sure don't. I don't think God would be too happy with the US dropping bombs on the bithplace of civilzation, especially doing so in HIS name?

You, somehow, badly misunderstood me. I never said god, nor jesus, supported a majority of americans. A majority of americans believe in(and support the ideals of) jesus. However, a majority of americans dont support the ideals of the democrats, and don't support them(at least in voting, though people under the voting age seem to side with democrats).

It's called the Holy Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. All are God. One of the more difficult theological concepts, but central to the Christian faith. God the Father - identified as the Creator, the "Old Testament" God, giver of the law, etc. God the Son - aka the Word of God (see Gospel of John, Revelation), perfect sacrifice for the sins of Man, past, present, and future. God the Holy Spirit - that resides in us when we accept Jesus, conscience, guide, and channel for gifts of God.

Or... using Occam's Razor : "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." Otherwise versed as "The simplist answer tends ot be the truth."

It's much more likely that this very benevolent and decent man, Jesus of Nazareth, had a following, over time the following grew, especially after his death. Those with the means and intelligence took the opportunity to create a monotheastic religion with the popular support to bring Rome to its knees. But as humans tend to put their intentions into their work, the only pure work that was undistorted by politics and the dogma that comes from it, died with Jesus.

What you are supposing is to explain that an invisible man came down from the sky, and impregnated a virgin girl, then existed somehow as a ghost, an the was born into the body of a man. Sounds much more like an Alien abduction story rather than a faith.

What you are espousing may have been able to keep the stupid and impressionable individuals with lifespans of 35-40 years complacent for extended periods, but it has no fundemental use to intelligent human beings living in the 21st century.

Faith, fundementally mean to adopt beliefs other than those based on your experiences. Why would one do that? Seeing things as they are and not from a particular viewpoint someone else told you was true would be more logical. All you can know when someone tells you something like what you had mentioned is that they believe in it strongly. It does not make it any more real than an Alien Abduction story.

Originally posted by Selgin
Jesus = Humanist is like saying Sacred = Secular. Humanism places the human being at the center of the universe, and believes in man's basic goodness. Christ taught that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Paul talked of how he often did what he did not want in spite of himself.

Those "Conservative Christians" you so derisively refer to did not start calling themselves conservative Christians. That term has been used as and turned into a pejorative used by people against Christianity. And they do not just exist in the United States.

I think Jesus is Jesus, but i still think he had liberal tendencies.

This is why the Umphart is wrong on several points.
Think democrats are for the poor and minorities?

White Racists on the left.
1. High taxes and regulations keep minority upstarts down, protect good old boy network
2. Government monopoly on education keeps blacks in urban ghetto schools, prevents them from “infiltrating” “white” schools
3. The left recognized blacks as inferior and in need of special help and quotas
4. Proud tradition of segregationists, only 62% of democrats supported The Civil Rights Act vs. 92% of republicans
5. At least one democratic Senator (Robert Byrd) and several House members were actually in the KKK!

Jesus was a companionate conserv :sniper: ative, someone said that he was liberal because he wanted to change the “conservative Pharisees” if anything they were the liberal ones because they corrupted what the Lord originally set up, they wanted to be “progressive” and change where as Jesus taught that the Word of God was sacrosanct not the word of men. You people really need to actually read the Gospel instead of just repeating bad info that you overhear at a coffee house.


When you are smoking weed during these rants of illogical conclusions, please remember to puff twice, then pass it to the next person... Puff Puff Pass...

Originally Posted by Liberal smashers
This is why the Umphart is wrong on several points.
Think democrats are for the poor and minorities?

White Racists on the left.
1. High taxes and regulations keep minority upstarts down, protect good old boy network
2. Government monopoly on education keeps blacks in urban ghetto schools, prevents them from “infiltrating” “white” schools
3. The left recognized blacks as inferior and in need of special help and quotas
4. Proud tradition of segregationists, only 62% of democrats supported The Civil Rights Act vs. 92% of republicans
5. At least one democratic Senator (Robert Byrd) and several House members were actually in the KKK!

Jesus was a companionate conserv :mp5: ative, someone said that he was liberal because he wanted to change the “conservative Pharisees” if anything they were the liberal ones because they corrupted what the Lord originally set up, they wanted to be “progressive” and change where as Jesus taught that the Word of God was sacrosanct not the word of men. You people really need to actually read the Gospel instead of just repeating bad info that you overhear at a coffee house.

The world needs less people like you.
And I don't drink coffee thank you. ;)

How is benevolence, charity, and forgiveness the exclusive province of liberalism? Those are moral values, not political philosophies.

It is my belief that the conservative and liberal ideologies are not differences of ends, but of means. Conservatives believe that the best way to help those in need is through private efforts, with as little government involvement as possible, because of government waste and intrusiveness on personal liberties. Liberals believe the best way to help those in need is through public, i.e. government, efforts.

Notice that on the cross, he forgave the thief, but did not take him down from his cross, something he certainly had the power to do. Forgiveness, as I've stated before, does not mean escaping the consequences of one's actions.

Right. Conservatives want to help the poor and unfortunate. LOL.

Man, you shold work for the Bush administration.

This actually helped my postition, so thank u Canuck. ;)

I disagree, as do most intelligent human beings. Fortunately the majority exist outside your country (at least, on your TV screens, which is rampant exemption of rationality and logic). If anything, rationality and logic is all that is required to see the truth of his words. Your objection or denial does, in no way, renouce his statement as being truthful.

You, somehow, badly misunderstood me. I never said god, nor jesus, supported a majority of americans. A majority of americans believe in(and support the ideals of) jesus. However, a majority of americans dont support the ideals of the democrats, and don't support them(at least in voting, though people under the voting age seem to side with democrats).
I did not badly misunderstand you at all, but I do believe that you misunderstood my reply.

If as you say, the majority of Americans support Jesus/God, then you would be against the bombing of Iraq?

My reply has nothing to do about voting and a lot to do with conscience.

Originally posted by Krackonis
I disagree, as do most intelligent human beings. Fortunately the majority exist outside your country (at least, on your TV screens, which is rampant exemption of rationality and logic). If anything, rationality and logic is all that is required to see the truth of his words. Your objection or denial does, in no way, renouce his statement as being truthfu.l

What the hell are you getting at?

If you want to make excuses, so be it, that is what "free will" is all about. It is all about forgiveness? Do you think that Hitler before he committed suicide all of a sudden found God? Highly unlikely, perhaps because he thought he was God. So Hitler rots in Hell?

Gandhi would be forgiven for all his work with the children of God?

Why guess and make excuses?

How so? One of the most fundamental tenents that Christians preach is believing in Christ and that he died for your sins. All of a sudden it's a wash because you say so?

Please.

Excuses? I don't need excuses. I could list a few dozen reasons why Christianity is a bunch of BS to me but I have respect for those of that faith and their beliefs.

Why guess? Because oh I don't know, we don't have any of the answers! Dumbass.

Right. Conservatives want to help the poor and unfortunate. LOL.

Man, you shold work for the Bush administration.
Did a conservative do something mean to you in a past life?

I am a conservative, I want to help the poor and unfortunate. I would prefer to do it personally rather than thru the government. I can't speak for anyone else but myself, but I personally know many other conservatives that feel the same way.

When you become a mind reader, you can tell me what conservative motivations are. Until then, please don't stereotype. It is insulting, and a very weak debating technique.

What the hell are you getting at?

If you don't understand what I wrote, I apologize.

Did a conservative do something mean to you in a past life?

I am a conservative, I want to help the poor and unfortunate. I would prefer to do it personally rather than thru the government. I can't speak for anyone else but myself, but I personally know many other conservatives that feel the same way.

When you become a mind reader, you can tell me what conservative motivations are. Until then, please don't stereotype. It is insulting, and a very weak debating technique.

Again the dodging and weaving is first rate my friend.

I am a conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. If there's anything you can say about Republicans is that they don't give a rat's ass about the poor. You may, and I commend you on that, but let's be real about this.

This has nothing to do with mind reading. It has everything to do with legislation that passes through Congress, bills enacted by said politicians, disdain for all types of social welfare, etc. You're telling me that the things Republicans do in Congress are in any way beneficial to the poor? Right.

Name me one bill/act/thought presented by a Republican that was aimed to help the poor.

How is benevolence, charity, and forgiveness the exclusive province of liberalism? Those are moral values, not political philosophies.

It is my belief that the conservative and liberal ideologies are not differences of ends, but of means. Conservatives believe that the best way to help those in need is through private efforts, with as little government involvement as possible, because of government waste and intrusiveness on personal liberties. Liberals believe the best way to help those in need is through public, i.e. government, efforts.

Notice that on the cross, he forgave the thief, but did not take him down from his cross, something he certainly had the power to do. Forgiveness, as I've stated before, does not mean escaping the consequences of one's actions.
"Benevolence, charity, and forgiveness" are the exclusive domain of each and everyone of us. God dwells within each individual, and some individuals choose to repress their "God sense: in exchange for selfish interests. Unfortunately, far too many souls are blocked from the sunlight of the spirit and they pay the price.

Originally posted by Krackonis
If you don't understand what I wrote, I apologize.

I'm ending this argument now. :gundge:

Again the dodging and weaving is first rate my friend.

I am a conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. If there's anything you can say about Republicans is that they don't give a rat's ass about the poor. You may, and I commend you on that, but let's be real about this.

Another thing you can say about Republicans is that they're not conservative on economic issues either. Ever since Reagan came along Republicans have followed a policy of spend everything you can, then spend everything you can't and when democrats get into office blame them for Republican fuckups. They act like a teenager that just stole dad's credit card.

This has nothing to do with mind reading. It has everything to do with legislation that passes through Congress, bills enacted by said politicians, disdain for all types of social welfare, etc. You're telling me that the things Republicans do in Congress are in any way beneficial to the poor? Right.

Name me one bill/act/thought presented by a Republican that was aimed to help the poor.

Well they passed the Defense of Marriage act. That helps them maintain their smug sense of superiority right? The republican poor at least.

I know this is a stupid reason to start a thread, but if you look at it Jesus is a Democrat. He helped the poor, spoke out against the conservative Pharisees, and he called for change in the Jewish church, and as you know Democrats constantly want to change government. Now I'm preparing for a grilling by the conservative evangalists. This should be fun. :rolleyes:

Jesus did believe in helping the poor, but he didn't believe in stealing other people's money to do it.

"Benevolence, charity, and forgiveness" are the exclusive domain of each and everyone of us. God dwells within each individual, and some individuals choose to repress their "God sense: in exchange for selfish interests. Unfortunately, far too many souls are blocked from the sunlight of the spirit and they pay the price.

Not when Republicans are in charge. They just add it to the deficit.

You're telling me that the things Republicans do in Congress are in any way beneficial to the poor? Right.

Name me one bill/act/thought presented by a Republican that was aimed to help the poor.
You need to read the posts a little more attentively.

I would prefer to do it personally rather than thru the government.

Conservatives DO NOT BELIEVE IN CHARITY THROUGH GOVERNMENT! They believe in less government, and charity thru the private sector. Thus, why would any conservative propose any legislation to help the poor? They would be advancing charity thru government, to which they are diametrically opposed.

Is it possible for you to post w/o any sarcasm or cynicism?

I should of known when i started this thread it would spawn a semi-relevant debate.

How so? One of the most fundamental tenents that Christians preach is believing in Christ and that he died for your sins. All of a sudden it's a wash because you say so?

Please.

Excuses? I don't need excuses. I could list a few dozen reasons why Christianity is a bunch of BS to me but I have respect for those of that faith and their beliefs.

Why guess? Because oh I don't know, we don't have any of the answers! Dumbass.
Did I say it was a wash? I may believe, but HE has all the answers. You will notice that I put my reply in the form of a question as to my best guess.

Well I thank you for having respect for my beliefs and I shall respect yours as well, even though they are obviously different. :)

"Benevolence, charity, and forgiveness" are the exclusive domain of each and everyone of us. God dwells within each individual, and some individuals choose to repress their "God sense: in exchange for selfish interests. Unfortunately, far too many souls are blocked from the sunlight of the spirit and they pay the price.
I completely agree!!! Hey, wait, I never agree with you . . . Anyway, well said. :D

I'm ending this argument now. :gundge:
Krackonis has made some very good statements on this thread. Don't give up. We all can learn from discussion?

Originally posted by Pwnsylvakia
Jesus did believe in helping the poor, but he didn't believe in stealing other people's money to do it.

When did i say Jesus stole from people?

When did i say Jesus stole from people?
I believe he was referring to confiscatory tax rates on the wealty.

I completely agree!!! Hey, wait, I never agree with you . . . Anyway, well said. :D
Thanks!! Agreements are good even if they only happen occaisionally. :)

Did a conservative do something mean to you in a past life?

I am a conservative, I want to help the poor and unfortunate. I would prefer to do it personally rather than thru the government. I can't speak for anyone else but myself, but I personally know many other conservatives that feel the same way.

When you become a mind reader, you can tell me what conservative motivations are. Until then, please don't stereotype. It is insulting, and a very weak debating technique.


I am very conservative in my home life, in my private life and in my family life. However, I espouse the freedoms and rights of humans whenever they are challenged. Right now, people who believe in the rights and freedoms are being persecuted and told they are wrong in the country of the Unite States. This is not good. This is the exact type of situation that the Nazi's created to gain absolute power in the Riechstag.

Rights and Freedoms an democracy are essential to the future continuation of our planet. They are methods of sutainability and survival. Conservative viewpoints tend to favor less socialist reforms, effective saying "To each their own and if you can hack it, die." which, is saddening. Conservative viewpoints also tend to be constantly driven by fear an forcing views upon others. Well thats not right. Who has the right to tell a person they must behave or believe in one way or the other. I certainly don't an I doubt anyone else can say so either. Lastly conservative viewpoints tend to allow private enterprises have more and more power, thereby taking more and more money from the people. Corruption an Cronism is becoming an ever increasing problem under conservative rule.

Whatever the future will bring, it simply cannot tolerate those views. Those views support suppression of rights, power to corporations and away from the people, and the destruction of earth as our habitat.

This is almost criminal behavior. Unfortunately, in this case, the criminals are in power, and control what you see and what you watch and what you hear.

Basically, what I am saying, is, sir, your conservative views on your personal life is completely your business and certainly not mine. A great man once said "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.". However, your views of conservatism are bastardized and brought forth out of your home and becomes a driving force of supression of dissent and contrary views.

Well, that can't be, just as we have no right to tell people to stop talking, or even tell them what to think, with binding force. Freedom means free. Not supressed. I don't think its even legal to do in any democratic country.

I will shake the hand of a gay man, I will offer my home to a destitute urchin, I will help carry the groceries of a black single mother, a chinese student can rely on me to not laugh at his accent and I don't mind walking slower for my friend who is physically handicapped.

I also will support, with all my heart anyone who resists oppression and fights for their freedom and the freedom of their people. I was with the United States when Roosevelts New Deal came to pass, but I will not tolerate what it has become now. The United States used to mean the land of the free. It no longer stands for that anymore.

I will shake the hand of a gay man, I will offer my home to a destitute urchin, I will help carry the groceries of a black single mother, a chinese student can rely on me to not laugh at his accent and I don't mind walking slower for my friend who is physically handicapped.

I also will support, with all my heart anyone who resists oppression and fights for their freedom and the freedom of their people. I was with the United States when Roosevelts New Deal came to pass, but I will not tolerate what it has become now. The United States used to mean the land of the free. It no longer stands for that anymore.
These last two paragraphs of yours also apply to just about any conservative I know. Even shaking the hand of a gay man. Not because he is gay, but because he might be a friend of mine, might be congratulating him on a job well-done, etc. Nothing in those paragraphs goes against current US conservative philosophy.

Wouldn't it be easier to afford an extra room in your home to give to a destitute urchin if the government didn't take so much of your money? Wouldn't that single black mother be better able to make ends meet if her family/support system had more of their money, instead of it being wasted by the government for the latest ketchup study? And I've seen many a liberal laugh at the Southerner's accent, so don't try to pin that as a conservative behavior either. And George Bush the elder was the one who pushed for and signed the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As to supporting anyone who resists oppression and fights for their freedom and the freedom of their people, that is exactly what the US did in Iraq, what it should have done in 1991 when the Kurds rose up after Saddam got thrown out of Kuwait and we did not support them.

I am very conservative in my home life, in my private life and in my family life. However, I espouse the freedoms and rights of humans whenever they are challenged. Right now, people who believe in the rights and freedoms are being persecuted and told they are wrong in the country of the Unite States. This is not good. This is the exact type of situation that the Nazi's created to gain absolute power in the Riechstag.

Rights and Freedoms an democracy are essential to the future continuation of our planet. They are methods of sutainability and survival. Conservative viewpoints tend to favor less socialist reforms, effective saying "To each their own and if you can hack it, die." which, is saddening. Conservative viewpoints also tend to be constantly driven by fear an forcing views upon others. Well thats not right. Who has the right to tell a person they must behave or believe in one way or the other. I certainly don't an I doubt anyone else can say so either. Lastly conservative viewpoints tend to allow private enterprises have more and more power, thereby taking more and more money from the people. Corruption an Cronism is becoming an ever increasing problem under conservative rule.

Whatever the future will bring, it simply cannot tolerate those views. Those views support suppression of rights, power to corporations and away from the people, and the destruction of earth as our habitat.

This is almost criminal behavior. Unfortunately, in this case, the criminals are in power, and control what you see and what you watch and what you hear.

Basically, what I am saying, is, sir, your conservative views on your personal life is completely your business and certainly not mine. A great man once said "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.". However, your views of conservatism are bastardized and brought forth out of your home and becomes a driving force of supression of dissent and contrary views.

Well, that can't be, just as we have no right to tell people to stop talking, or even tell them what to think, with binding force. Freedom means free. Not supressed. I don't think its even legal to do in any democratic country.

I will shake the hand of a gay man, I will offer my home to a destitute urchin, I will help carry the groceries of a black single mother, a chinese student can rely on me to not laugh at his accent and I don't mind walking slower for my friend who is physically handicapped.

I also will support, with all my heart anyone who resists oppression and fights for their freedom and the freedom of their people. I was with the United States when Roosevelts New Deal came to pass, but I will not tolerate what it has become now. The United States used to mean the land of the free. It no longer stands for that anymore.
This is a most excellent post!! :)

These last two paragraphs of yours also apply to just about any conservative I know. Even shaking the hand of a gay man. Not because he is gay, but because he might be a friend of mine, might be congratulating him on a job well-done, etc. Nothing in those paragraphs goes against current US conservative philosophy.

Wouldn't it be easier to afford an extra room in your home to give to a destitute urchin if the government didn't take so much of your money? Wouldn't that single black mother be better able to make ends meet if her family/support system had more of their money, instead of it being wasted by the government for the latest ketchup study? And I've seen many a liberal laugh at the Southerner's accent, so don't try to pin that as a conservative behavior either. And George Bush the elder was the one who pushed for and signed the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As to supporting anyone who resists oppression and fights for their freedom and the freedom of their people, that is exactly what the US did in Iraq, what it should have done in 1991 when the Kurds rose up after Saddam got thrown out of Kuwait and we did not support them.
Did you know that the US spends more on military every year ($420.7 billion) than almost the rest of the other countries combined (Total of $950 billion)? Think what America could do with that money at home.

I did not badly misunderstand you at all, but I do believe that you misunderstood my reply.

If as you say, the majority of Americans support Jesus/God, then you would be against the bombing of Iraq?

My reply has nothing to do about voting and a lot to do with conscience.

A. You are interpreting gods beliefs. This is the same as wondering whether the iraqi war was for WMD, helping the people, or oil. Whatever the real reason was/is, a certain percent of people believe in and support the war.

B. Following that, a majority of americans believe in the ideals of jesus as they understand the ideals of jesus. A majority of americans support the ideals of republicans as they understand the ideals of republicans, even though they are quite possibly wrong that the rep's will restore the economy, uphold morality, whatnot(not to get into an argument about any of these things, just random examples).

C.My original reply was more than a joke that anything, though this whole thread is also. The evidence for the joke, however, works.

Did you know that the US spends more on military every year ($420.7 billion) than almost the rest of the other countries combined (Total of $950 billion)? Think what America could do with that money at home.
I do. I wish it was not necessary. However, America is the prime target of terrorists these days, for whatever reason. And no other countries, aside from repressive regimes like China or North Korea, have any military to speak of. So when some sort of genocide starts happening, or some dictatorship starts taking over other countries, the only one there is the US, because they are the only ones who have the materiel to do so.

Note that I am not saying that we always go in for the right reasons, or don't go in for the wrong reasons.

I do. I wish it was not necessary. However, America is the prime target of terrorists these days, for whatever reason. And no other countries, aside from repressive regimes like China or North Korea, have any military to speak of. So when some sort of genocide starts happening, or some dictatorship starts taking over other countries, the only one there is the US, because they are the only ones who have the materiel to do so.

Note that I am not saying that we always go in for the right reasons, or don't go in for the wrong reasons.

Actually, that 950b number includes the USofA, and so the US spends nearly half of the world budget, and 7-8 times the second highest spender.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

If Bush gets another 80 or so billion, we will surpass the rest of the world.

A. You are interpreting gods beliefs. This is the same as wondering whether the iraqi war was for WMD, helping the people, or oil. Whatever the real reason was/is, a certain percent of people believe in and support the war.

B. Following that, a majority of americans believe in the ideals of jesus as they understand the ideals of jesus. A majority of americans support the ideals of republicans as they understand the ideals of republicans, even though they are quite possibly wrong that the rep's will restore the economy, uphold morality, whatnot(not to get into an argument about any of these things, just random examples).

C.My original reply was more than a joke that anything, though this whole thread is also. The evidence for the joke, however, works.
Personally speaking, I don't believe that God's will is being served in Iraq. However, you will notice a question mark at the end of the sentence and that leaves the question open for what YOU think is right or wrong.

I could argue that by attacking Iraq, 4 Commandments have been broken:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.

I leave the rest up to you.

THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

Its Thou Shalt not Murder.

Big difference.

Boy! Between scripture-quoting and hypotheticals, there isn't much else to add to this argument, besides this:

http://members.aol.com/cbrstreetracerxx/crap/gay.jpg

First of all the Commandment you first refer to is NOT Thou shall not kill it is Thou Shall not MURDER! there is a difference. If it was never justifiable to kill anyone for any reason you would not be able to protect your family , property or country.
Second: False Witness? Where is the lie? And please don't use the whole BS that Bush lied about WMD, as far as he, the CIA, State Department, Military Intelligence and The entire British Government knew there was credible evidence. There still is such evidence but we just haven’t been able to track down the weapons that he must have had, (since he used them, duh). My money is that they will turn up in Syria.
Third: Coveting is when you lust after something that you do not yourself have. WE do have oil but you libs won’t let us drill in the artic tundra because you want to protect what? the Ice? All those photos and video of the caribou and the cute little bunnies that the left has shown to try and sway public opinion are BS! They were not recorded any where near the ANWAR area! Further more in areas where we have drilled in Alaska and have a pipe line the Caribou population has doubled! They apparently like the warmth of the pipeline since it thaws some of the snow and ice so that they may graze for longer periods of time.
Fourthly: Steal??? What was stolen??? The oil and the land belongs to the Iraqis who are now free, if they really didn't want us to act than why did more than 60% of them show up to vote!!!???!!!

In the future please include some evidence!!

:sniper:

I do. I wish it was not necessary. However, America is the prime target of terrorists these days, for whatever reason. And no other countries, aside from repressive regimes like China or North Korea, have any military to speak of. So when some sort of genocide starts happening, or some dictatorship starts taking over other countries, the only one there is the US, because they are the only ones who have the materiel to do so.

Note that I am not saying that we always go in for the right reasons, or don't go in for the wrong reasons.
So your reply might beg the question:

Why do terrorists target America primarily?

The history has been written and the answers are all there?

When mankind starts helping mankind, there will be no poverty and there will be no starvation (http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm), the world will prosper.

Its Thou Shalt not Murder.

Big difference.
No it is THOU SHALT NOT KILL (http://www.themiracleofstjoseph.org/commands.php).

But don't take my word for it, use the link.

First of all the Commandment you first refer to is NOT Thou shall not kill it is Thou Shall not MURDER! there is a difference. If it was never justifiable to kill anyone for any reason you would not be able to protect your family , property or country.
It is THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Second: False Witness? Where is the lie? And please don't use the whole BS that Bush lied about WMD, as far as he, the CIA, State Department, Military Intelligence and The entire British Government knew there was credible evidence. There still is such evidence but we just haven’t been able to track down the weapons that he must have had, (since he used them, duh). My money is that they will turn up in Syria.
If you believe that then I am afraid that you have been duped?

Third: Coveting is when you lust after something that you do not yourself have. WE do have oil but you libs won’t let us drill in the artic tundra because you want to protect what? the Ice? All those photos and video of the caribou and the cute little bunnies that the left has shown to try and sway public opinion are BS! They were not recorded any where near the ANWAR area! Further more in areas where we have drilled in Alaska and have a pipe line the Caribou population has doubled! They apparently like the warmth of the pipeline since it thaws some of the snow and ice so that they may graze for longer periods of time.
Not only does the US covet the oil, it also covets the Iraqi economy. Read Bremer's Orders and you will see that.

Fourthly: Steal??? What was stolen??? The oil and the land belongs to the Iraqis who are now free, if they really didn't want us to act than why did more than 60% of them show up to vote!!!???!!!
The Iraqis are free? Is that why the US is establishing no less than 14 military bases in Iraq? Their freedom has been stolen. Their houses have been destroyed. Their businesses are delivered to US foreign interests. Much has been stolen, including those that have lost their loved ones.

In the future please include some evidence!!
I try my best. :eek:

So your reply might beg the question:

Why do terrorists target America primarily?

The history has been written and the answers are all there?

When mankind starts helping mankind, there will be no poverty and there will be no starvation (http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm), the world will prosper.
Because America is the most powerful country, militarily and economically, in the world (economy at least in the top 5?), and the freedom it represents is a threat to their oppressive way of life (Sharia law, total subjugation of women, etc.)

Until the time when all mankind helps mankind, someone has to maintain some sort of justice. Sitting around making paper resolutions doesn't do it. For the record, I wish the US had ignored the UN and just gone into Sudan/Darfur and stopped the genocide that is still going on while the UN twiddles its thumbs.

No it is THOU SHALT NOT KILL (http://www.themiracleofstjoseph.org/commands.php).

But don't take my word for it, use the link.
No, it is thou shalt not murder:

Thou shalt not murder (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:Xpv_Dd5kIW8J:www.icteachers.co.uk/resources/re/torah_laws.doc+translation+of+the+10+commandments&hl=en)

I believe this is a little more authoritative than your source.

Jesus couldn't be a democrat. A majority of americans support him.

LOL !

Well.. we could also reverse the question. Which party would the people that crucified Jesus vote ?
Answer: conservatives. Definately. But conservative in their society.

Further more in areas where we have drilled in Alaska and have a pipe line the Caribou population has doubled! They apparently like the warmth of the pipeline since it thaws some of the snow and ice so that they may graze for longer periods of time.






first of all, are you saying that is a good thing or a bad thing?


If you are saying its a good thing it really isn't. Overpopulation will lead to starvation.

If its a bad thing then its even more riduclous. If we drill then there will be more oil pipelines to cope and more buidlings creating HEAT in the area to thaw out the grasses. Meaning there will be even more caribou if your claims are true.

No, it is thou shalt not murder:

Thou shalt not murder (http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:Xpv_Dd5kIW8J:www.icteachers.co.uk/resources/re/torah_laws.doc+translation+of+the+10+commandments&hl=en)

I believe this is a little more authoritative than your source.
Ummmm from the Jewish reference link that you provided, I noticed this:

Dealing with other people

Love your neighbour.
Love strangers.
Don’t tell lies.
Don’t harbour grudges.
Don’t kill people.
Don’t steal.
Don’t cheat people.

The Defense rests your honour.

Because America is the most powerful country, militarily and economically, in the world (economy at least in the top 5?), and the freedom it represents is a threat to their oppressive way of life (Sharia law, total subjugation of women, etc.)
Do you honestly believe that? Is it up to you to change their religion, their beliefs? Did God appoint the US as the defender of HIS word?

Until the time when all mankind helps mankind, someone has to maintain some sort of justice.
What is justice to you is death to others?

Sitting around making paper resolutions doesn't do it. For the record, I wish the US had ignored the UN and just gone into Sudan/Darfur and stopped the genocide that is still going on while the UN twiddles its thumbs.
At this point in time, I am reluctant to want the US to go into any country.

Ummmm from the Jewish reference link that you provided, I noticed this:

Dealing with other people

Love your neighbour.
Love strangers.
Don’t tell lies.
Don’t harbour grudges.
Don’t kill people.
Don’t steal.
Don’t cheat people.

The Defense rests your honour.
You look at a summary, and ignore the actual translation?
The actual translation of the source says:
6. You shall not murder.
Conveniently ignore that?
The prosecution rests.

You look at a summary, and ignore the actual translation?
The actual translation of the source says:
6. You shall not murder.
Conveniently ignore that?
The prosecution rests.
From your same reference:

You may find slightly different words if you look in an English bible or Christian prayer book, but the meaning will be the same.

Kill = Murder or Murder = Kill all same no difference.

Defense rests, and gets a coffee. :)

I still think he was a hippie, tree-hugging, pot-smoking hippie...

And he had a marketing team behind him that makes every company CEO drool.


I think there's a difference between "kill" and "murder". If you kill in self-defence you don't murder someone.

I still think he was a hippie, tree-hugging, pot-smoking hippie...

And he had a marketing team behind him that makes every company CEO drool.


I think there's a difference between "kill" and "murder". If you kill in self-defence you don't murder someone.
Well that is certainly debatable. While the Bible states that we are to turn the other cheek, I do not know if it is God's intention that we turn ourselves into road kill to accomplish that act of humility?

Kill = Murder or Murder = Kill all same no difference.


So since murder = kill, and kill = murder.

Do you accept that meat is murder?

I know this is a stupid reason to start a thread, but if you look at it Jesus is a Democrat.


He took clean and pure water and turned it into an evil alcoholic brew. He corrupted it. Yes... he must be a democrat.

He took clean and pure water and turned it into an evil alcoholic brew. He corrupted it. Yes... he must be a democrat.

Or a republican. That description can be applied to both.

Or a republican. That description can be applied to both.


Nah, he hung around with hookers too. now THAT's a democrat!

So since murder = kill, and kill = murder.

Do you accept that meat is murder?

kill humans is murder.
animals were given to man by god to use as we need,but also for us to shepard and protect.

kill humans is murder.
animals were given to man by god to use as we need,but also for us to shepard and protect.


I'll just shepherd mine onto the grill and between a bun, thanks!

Speaking of which, http://www.savetoby.com

Looking at the Old Testament though, God's certainly a conservative. He's all for killing women and children of faiths that don't coincide.

Well, you know, a lot of children rebel against their parents' politics!

So since murder = kill, and kill = murder.

Do you accept that meat is murder?
God gave man the dominion over animals to provide sustenance. Therefore meat = food. Certain animals also provide milk, eggs, and clothing.

God gave man the dominion over animals to provide sustenance. Therefore meat = food. Certain animals also provide milk, eggs, and clothing.

Although it is probable that before the first sins in the Garden of Eden that all animals were intended to be herbivores, since the predator/prey relationship clearly violates the commandment of thou shalt not kill (between animals.)

However, animals do not have a soul, and cannot go to hell, so people can do whatever they want with them within reason.

God specifically ordained dominion over the animals by killing his new creations to make fur coats for Adam and Eve, despite their sinfulness. And, in canonical law, he ordained the sacrifice of animals for the Jews.

Basically what it boils down to is that man is supposed to be a 'good steward' so there is a balance to be achieved between ecological concerns about animals rights and the interests of homo sapiens.

Jesus was NOT a Democrat - if anything he was libertarian :D
Would have to agree that he was a libertarian. Definately not a democrat

Would have to agree that he was a libertarian. Definately not a democrat

What kind of a Libertarian are we talking about? I would definitely vote Libertarian if I thought they had a chance of beating the Democrats. But I wouldn't waste a potential Republican vote unless I thought someone other than a Democrat could win.

Some Libertarians support legalization of drugs. Maybe it is better to give the choice back to the people and let the free market work itself out, but Jesus clearly would not approve of a narcotics trade. Although he drank wine, the wine they drank back then was generally less potent and Scipture does not indicate that he ever was drunk or (this should not need to be said but I'll say it anyway) under the influence of any narcotic.

Although it is probable that before the first sins in the Garden of Eden that all animals were intended to be herbivores, since the predator/prey relationship clearly violates the commandment of thou shalt not kill (between animals.)

However, animals do not have a soul, and cannot go to hell, so people can do whatever they want with them within reason.

God specifically ordained dominion over the animals by killing his new creations to make fur coats for Adam and Eve, despite their sinfulness. And, in canonical law, he ordained the sacrifice of animals for the Jews.

Basically what it boils down to is that man is supposed to be a 'good steward' so there is a balance to be achieved between ecological concerns about animals rights and the interests of homo sapiens.
Well stated and I concur.

Ahem..

Would Jesus support abortion? The murder of a baby?

Would Jesus support gay marrige?

Would Jesus support stealing from the people? (raising income tax)
Allow me to add: Would Jesus support gun control?

and were devoted to the Jewish law, .
No, they distorted Jewish law.

Ahhh but you cannot recall HIS benevolent side where HE fed the masses,
With private donations, not government handouts. Republicans give to charity far more generously than Democrats.

Personally speaking, I don't believe that God's will is being served in Iraq. However, you will notice a question mark at the end of the sentence and that leaves the question open for what YOU think is right or wrong.

I could argue that by attacking Iraq, 4 Commandments have been broken:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.

I leave the rest up to you.
Not only have you misquoted the Bible, not only have you grossly misrepresented the actions of the United States, you have missaplied these commandments. The laws of the Old Testament are laws for men, not countries. They do not apply in the same manner.

No it is THOU SHALT NOT KILL (http://www.themiracleofstjoseph.org/commands.php).

But don't take my word for it, use the link.
No, any text that translates it is as "thou shalt not kill" has mistranslated the Hebrew.

From your same reference:

You may find slightly different words if you look in an English bible or Christian prayer book, but the meaning will be the same.

Kill = Murder or Murder = Kill all same no difference.

Defense rests, and gets a coffee. :)
kill
v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v. tr.
1. a.To put to death.
b. To deprive of life:

mur·der
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


We the jury find in favour of the prosecution.

Well that is certainly debatable. While the Bible states that we are to turn the other cheek, I do not know if it is God's intention that we turn ourselves into road kill to accomplish that act of humility?
I do. The instruction to 'turn the other cheek' is explicity given in response to a blow to the right cheek, which to execute would require a back-handed slap from a right-handed person. A back-handed slap is an insult, not an assault.

Both the Old and New Testaments speak about the importance of bearing arms for one's defense and extablish a moral and legal justifiction for the use of deadly force in some cirumstances. Indeed, resisting those who would harm innocents is not only permissible, but obligatory. To permit innocents to come to harm through inaction is utterly un-Christian.

jesus was not a democrat.
he was a communist. Anyone can see that. Damn pinko.

With private donations, not government handouts. Republicans give to charity far more generously than Democrats.
Pardon?
Do you have any type of proof?

Of course.

Generosity Index (http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2003)

Unjust? Would Jesus let those Iraqi people suffer under that terrible dictator who tortured and killed millions of his own people, committed genocide, and had ties to terrorists?

The US freed them! We should be proud to be one of the only countries in the history of the world to go out of their way to free an opressed peoples.

Even if freeing them wasn't why we went to war in the first place, but is now the accepted reason since the war did nothing to improve our own safety! Yes! YES! YESSSSS!!!

You still believe Saddam had ties to terrorists?

Show me some proof. Enough of your rhetoric. I need proof.

Don't tell me - you also thought he was in cahoots with Bin Laden and was behind 9/11. :rolleyes:

Of course.

Generosity Index (http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2003)

ah, the old rank/relationship thing. the one that proves that the united states gives the least amount to anyone,by far. no, wait, we give more than Saudi arabia, but as far as non-totally authoritarian,theocratical regimes with terrible human rights abuses, we still give les than anyone with comparable wealth.

Also: I beleive you said private donations
Also : state welfare.

Also, I seriously doubt that texas ranks 23rd in wealth.

Personally speaking, I don't believe that God's will is being served in Iraq. However, you will notice a question mark at the end of the sentence and that leaves the question open for what YOU think is right or wrong.

I could argue that by attacking Iraq, 4 Commandments have been broken:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.

I leave the rest up to you.

Actually, thou shalt kill doesnt mean any kind of killing, but regardless, Im not interpreting how god feels. Im a militant antitheist, if it makes you feel better. Im simply saying a majority of americans dont support the democrats, but they do support jesus, thus creating an inconsistency.

kill
v. killed, kill·ing, kills
v. tr.
1. a.To put to death.
b. To deprive of life:

mur·der
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


We the jury find in favour of the prosecution.
Ahhh how presumptuous of you to suggest you represent the jury. Even under the the description of murder are the words "to kill".

*Canuckheaven* appeals the decision of the jury to the Supreme Being. I guess we all will have to wait for the true "judgement" in this case?

Not only have you misquoted the Bible, not only have you grossly misrepresented the actions of the United States, you have missaplied these commandments. The laws of the Old Testament are laws for men, not countries. They do not apply in the same manner.
Pray do tell how I have "misquoted the Bible"?

These "men" have collectively voted their conscience in regards to the matter at hand and are still accountable to God in the end?

If the laws of governance overrule the Bible, then what?

I believe that I fully understand the actions of the US and I believe that their goals are less than noble. It appears that by the action of the US government in regards to Iraq, that they take the position that they are unaccountable to no one and IMHO, I disagree.

Of course.

Generosity Index (http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2003)
What does this prove? Maybe it proves that the poorest people give more generously, whether they be Republicans or Democrats?

One thing you cannot factor in here is that generosity is not just related to the giving of money?

How about all those people who volunteer their time to charity, and the helping of others?

Of course.

Generosity Index (http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2003)
In regards to a "generosity index", the US, arguably the "richest" country ranks 20th in the world for Economic aid - donor (per capita).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_cap

You will note that Canada gives almost twice as much per capita than the US, and perhaps you will note that most of the countries ahead of the US in donations are socialistically inclined in regards to governance.

Also in defence of Canada's 16th place ranking, this will change significantly upwards due to the most recent Liberal budget which will provide:

$425 million to support the immediate humanitarian response to the Asian tsunami disaster and long-term reconstruction.

Boosting international assistance by $3.4 billion over the next five years with the goal of doubling assistance from 2001–02 levels by 2010–11.

So much for your "generosity index"?

So much for your "generosity index"?

yes, but it says right there that it does not include private contributions. in the wake of the tsunami tragedy, private US citizens donated nearly as much as the US government (some individuals alone giving $1 million+).

furthermore, it does not include the US military deployment as the world's police force. what is the value are our troops on the Korean border?

i don't think you will ever be strictly able to quantify it, but i think very few nations (if any) are more generous than the US.

Furthermore, it does not include the US military deployment as the world's police force. what is the value are our troops on the Korean border?
US troop deployment is charity? Many would argue that it is for a multitude of other reasons other than charity.

i don't think you will ever be strictly able to quantify it, but i think very few nations (if any) are more generous than the US.
You say that you cannot "quantify" it, but you are attempting to do so by your statement.

US troop deployment is charity? Many would argue that it is for a multitude of other reasons other than charity..

historically, look at the peace problems with the middle east with israel, whenever the violence gets out of hand, both sides come to the US asking us to broker the peace talks. it was the US that stepped into kosovo while the UN twiddles its thumbs. if we were to completely pull out of S. Korea, they would be invaded by the day's end.

my point is, this is not something that we are required to do. we could be isolationist like much of europe and let local thugs do as they may, however we often step in to settle disputes because of our unique situation as the world super-power.

You say that you cannot "quantify" it, but you are attempting to do so by your statement.

if you want to measure charity strictly by the number of dollars a government gives out per capita, fine go ahead. i am simply saying that there are other non-tangible factors that contribute to a country's global contributions.

I'd say he wasnt a liberal in the pure form of the word because he liked the idea of a community collective looking out for the welfare of the less fortunet, thats right jesus is a commie!


:)

Most Democrats are not athiests. About 90% of Americans identify as religious, if not more than that. Maybe half identify as Democrats. The math doesn't add up and just illustrates your ignorance
Most democrats are Baptist, and Baptists don't do much. So technically, that doesn't count.
Iraq, but i don't really want to start a big argument.
This war was started to seek out WMD's to protect the US. We saw some in Iraq. Our mistake was that we took it to the UN, giving Iraq time to move them to other countries. And during the war, there 'torturing' was not from the government's command, some stupid soldiers did it because they wanted to. So that has nothing to do with George Bush.

You still believe Saddam had ties to terrorists?

Show me some proof. Enough of your rhetoric. I need proof.

Saddam Hussein cut cheques to terrorists and their families.



The Daily Telegraph
Saddam spends millions to win hearts in Jenin
By Alan Philps in Jenin

One of the few smiles in Jenin - the site of the biggest battle between Israelis and Palestinians last month - is on the face of Mahmoud Besharat, the man who is handing out millions of pounds of largesse from Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader.
Mr. Besharat has just started distributing cheques for £17,000 each to the hundreds of people whose homes in the Jenin refugee camp were destroyed by the Israeli army in April. He is budgeting for a total expenditure of £5 million, a vast sum for the dirt-poor refugee families.
In the offices of the Arab Liberation Front, a Palestinian group funded by Iraq and loyal to Saddam, the cheque-book warrior is besieged by families desperate to prove their case and demand their money.
"People embrace me on the street," said Mr. Besharat, the ALF representative for the northern West Bank. "But they know that it is not my money but a gift from Saddam Hussein."
Saddam's bounty is all the more astonishing as refugee families will not have to use it to rebuild their homes. That expense is being taken in hand by UNRWA, the United Nations agency which provides schools, clinics and social services for the refugees, thanks to a promise of £17 million from the United Arab Emirates.
"The Iraqi money is a gift, no more than that. They can put the money in their back pockets, or build another house," said Mr. Besharat.
Saddam's reward for losing a home applies only to the Jenin refugee camp, in honour of the camp's status in Palestinian lore as "citadel of steadfastness". About 60 Palestinians and 23 Israeli soldiers died during a vicious battle in the narrow alleys, which ended with the army bulldozing about 140 houses in the middle of the camp.
The ALF is also doling out generous bounties for the dead and injured in the 20-month intifada.
Payments are on a strict scale: £350 for a wound, £650 for disablement, £6,500 for death as a "martyr" and £17,000 for a suicide bomber.
Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, has accused Iraq of fomenting the recent wave of suicide bombings which has traumatised Israel and shocked the world. Mr. Besharat does not disagree.
"You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue," he said.
Continuing the struggle serves Saddam's purposes. According to one faction in Washington, the Bush administration's promised assault to remove him is unlikely to take place as long as the Israeli-Palestinian crisis remains at boiling point.
Mr. Besharat has already paid out to the families of 12 suicide bombers on his patch, and has three more waiting. He insists that no one would kill themselves just for Saddam's bounty.
The rules for rewarding suicide attackers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. This has angered the parents of six young men from Jenin who went to the nearby Israeli town of Afula with a gun and opened fire, only to be shot dead themselves.
On being told that they merited only the £6,500 reward for an ordinary martyr, they complained to the Iraqi embassy in Jordan and sent a telegram to Saddam, but the dictator is not bending the rules.
One happy recipient of Saddam's bounty is Amjad Farahti, a tailor, who is planning to set up his own business. Four branches of his family occupied four floors of the same demolished building - meaning they get a total of £65,000.
As he tells his story, women gather around to murmur: "God save Saddam".

What does this prove? Maybe it proves that the poorest people give more generously, whether they be Republicans or Democrats?

Perhaps, but there is a stronger correllation to voting patterns than prosperity.

One thing you cannot factor in here is that generosity is not just related to the giving of money?

How about all those people who volunteer their time to charity, and the helping of others?
And indeed, the religiously observants -- who are more likely to be conservatives and Republicans -- are more likely to be volunteers, and volunteer more. ;)

Ahhh how presumptuous of you to suggest you represent the jury. Even under the the description of murder are the words "to kill".

To kill UNLAWFULLY. To ignore that is intellectually dishonest.

*Canuckheaven* appeals the decision of the jury to the Supreme Being. I guess we all will have to wait for the true "judgement" in this case?
The Bible is quite clear on the subject. The New International Version of the Bible correctly translates it as "murder," and the use of deadly force is justified in several seperate instances throughout the Bible. There is no doubt whatsoever as to what the Bible actually says.

What does this prove? Maybe it proves that the poorest people give more generously, whether they be Republicans or Democrats?

There is a greater correllation here between generosity and voting patterns than with prosperity.

One thing you cannot factor in here is that generosity is not just related to the giving of money?

How about all those people who volunteer their time to charity, and the helping of others?
The religiously observant, who are more likely to be conservatives and Republicans, volunteer more, and more often.

In regards to a "generosity index", the US, arguably the "richest" country

In regards to what, per capita GDP? Nope.

ranks 20th in the world for Economic aid - donor (per capita).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_cap

You will note that Canada gives almost twice as much per capita than the US, and perhaps you will note that most of the countries ahead of the US in donations are socialistically inclined in regards to governance.

Also in defence of Canada's 16th place ranking, this will change significantly upwards due to the most recent Liberal budget which will provide:

$425 million to support the immediate humanitarian response to the Asian tsunami disaster and long-term reconstruction.

Boosting international assistance by $3.4 billion over the next five years with the goal of doubling assistance from 2001–02 levels by 2010–11.
[/quote]
Which proves only the United States is economically more responsible than many other countries.


So much for your "generosity index"?
The question at hand was the charitibility of Democrats versus Republicans, rendering your information utterly irrelevent; doubly so since it measures government handouts, and not private donations. There is nothing virtuous about being generous with money extracted from others by threat of force.

I'd say he wasnt a liberal in the pure form of the word because he liked the idea of a community collective looking out for the welfare of the less fortunet, thats right jesus is a commie!


:)
...no.

Perhaps, but there is a stronger correllation to voting patterns than prosperity.

And indeed, the religiously observants -- who are more likely to be conservatives and Republicans -- are more likely to be volunteers, and volunteer more. ;)
I would like to see you prove that one.

Saddam Hussein cut cheques to terrorists and their families.
~~Snip~~

You know, I often wonder when you people will figure all of this stuff out?

The US backed Iraq in more ways than one during the 1980's. Yes the US sponsored Saddam Hussein.

The US backed the Taliban in Afhghanistan (http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/us_taliban.html) to repel the Russians.

The US trained Osama Bin Laden (http://healthandenergy.com/osama_bin_laden.htm) and supported his efforts.

The US supported the dictatorship of Mohamed Suharto (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Asia/EastTimor_Q&A_Z.html)

The US supported Gen. Augusto Pinochet (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger18.html)

How many people have died through the US support of terrorists and dictators? Saddam is small potatoes?

Perhaps, but there is a stronger correllation to voting patterns than prosperity.

And indeed, the religiously observants -- who are more likely to be conservatives and Republicans -- are more likely to be volunteers, and volunteer more. ;)

But does donating time to a local church really count as charity? I don't really think so. Church is big business. It is no more charitable to volunteer at a church than it is to take an unpaid internship with a business.

Liberals donations of time or money tend to be to actual causes. Fighting diseases, feeding the poor, protecting battered women etc. Religous people tend to donate their time and money to institutions like the hate factory of Bob Jones University or Pat Robertson's televangelical beg-athons. Giving money to a guy who owns gold mines isn't charity in my book, yet it's still tax deductable.

Which proves only the United States is economically more responsible than many other countries.
Ummm the US owes $8 Trillion dollars, has a $435 Billion trade deficit, has a $450 Billion budgetary defict, and individual savings are at an all time low. The amazing thing is that most of these record deficits were recorded while the interest rates were at an all time low.


The question at hand was the charitibility of Democrats versus Republicans, rendering your information utterly irrelevent; doubly so since it measures government handouts, and not private donations. There is nothing virtuous about being generous with money extracted from others by threat of force.
Threat of force....come on now....get real.

To kill UNLAWFULLY. To ignore that is intellectually dishonest.
Do you think that man made laws or government actions trump God's Commandments? I don;t think I am intellectually being dishonest but one might question if you are spiritually bankrupt?

The Bible is quite clear on the subject. The New International Version of the Bible correctly translates it as "murder," and the use of deadly force is justified in several seperate instances throughout the Bible. There is no doubt whatsoever as to what the Bible actually says.
Does God condone the death and destruction of innocent men, women, and children? Does "democracy" trump Islamic beliefs?

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
- Joshua 6:21

So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."
-Joshua 10:40-41

Thats Joshua not Jesus dude! LOL....u cant use old testament to say what Jesus is like. Jesus life is in the new testament.

Threat of force....come on now....get real.
What exactly do you think taxes are? Its a threat of force to collect money from you. Talking about the charitably of a country that simply takes people's money and throws it around is not charity, its theft.

Charity comes from a country that gives money *after* they pay taxes. Your taxes are supposed to support your country for what needs to be done in your country, they shouldn't be used to pay for some over-paid bureaucrat to live in a compound in Africa with a luxury SUV. And that is where government charity goes.

History Lovers beat me to the punch: "God is not a Republican... Or a Democrat"

I doubt that Jesus would have voted with either party in the U.S. given that both of them have sold out to corporations. The of the few times that Jesus really became pissed off was when the people were buying and selling in the temple, whihc tends to be a frequent occurence in most places of worship today. Not to mention the U.S. have the curious distinction of worshiping the American Flag (with apparently can be found in many U.S. churches).

That being said, Jesus was neither liberal nor conservative, he was a radical fundamentalist... one who goes to the root of problems instead of dealing with the symptoms. He pleased neither liberals nor conservatives... and that was why he was crucified.

Thats Joshua not Jesus dude! LOL....u cant use old testament to say what Jesus is like. Jesus life is in the new testament.

Jesus is the Lord God of Israel. Those are his words. As was mentioned at another point in this thread God is Jesus is God is the Holy Spirit is Jesus is God.

When you compare Jesus' actions with the defintion of the word "liberal," Jesus is a perfect match. Too bad he never actually existed, and too bad he doesn't exist today. If he existed today, the Democrats could run him in 2008.

When you compare Jesus' actions with the defintion of the word "liberal," Jesus is a perfect match. Too bad he never actually existed, and too bad he doesn't exist today. If he existed today, the Democrats could run him in 2008.

Riiighhttt because you know, Jesus would actually want to be the presidential candidate of the Democratic party when he would likely disagree one some oh so minor things like abortion, God in Schools, Evolution and on and on. Never mind that we have no idea of his actual political leanings when it comes to national defense, free speech etc...

Jesus would likely never run for the Democrats, the Republicans or anyone else for that matter.

P.S. Democrats don't fit anything even close to the definition of the word "liberal." The word Liberal in American politics has a very different meaning than the definition in the dictionary.

I think Jesus would be a moderate. He would definitely be to left of most Evangelicals in America on a lot of issues, but it's not hard to imagine he'd be far to the right on some issues as well. Would he support abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, et cetera? I don't know. Abortion and stem cells probably not, but gay marriage I don't know. Depends on how strict a Jew he was.


Well, I can't say anything for stem cells and abortion as they really wern't around for Jesus. But I think I can say he would have supported gay marriage. Where did he speak out against it in the NT? As far as I know, he never did. He did however, have pretty much thousands of quotes preaching tolerance, peace and love.

I think Jesus would be a moderate. He would definitely be to left of most Evangelicals in America on a lot of issues, but it's not hard to imagine he'd be far to the right on some issues as well. Would he support abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, et cetera? I don't know. Abortion and stem cells probably not, but gay marriage I don't know. Depends on how strict a Jew he was.

All I'm trying to say is that it's impossible to fit people who've been dead for millenia into a modern ideology.

Umm, according to the Torah, a child is not alive until it is 3/4 out of the vagina. The punishment for causing a miscarriage in another man's wife was a handful of silver (less than the punishment for petty theft). There was no punishment listed in the Mitzvah for anyone causing a miscarriage in their own wife or for a woman who caused it herself.

While there may be nothing to suggest that he would be definately pro-choice (I refuse to claim to know what Jesus wants or wanted), there is nothing to suggest that he would be anti-abortion in the Mitzvah. There is a good chance though that he would be against gay marriage (as homosexuality has a couple of mitzvah against it), but he would likely be just as much against the eating of shellfish (since the mitzvah use the same language). That is, assuming of course that he is only basing his beliefs upon the mitzvah of the torah as a rabbi, and not using talmudic texts which often have their own interpretations and levels of import.

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
No it is THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

But don't take my word for it, use the link.

No, any text that translates it is as "thou shalt not kill" has mistranslated the Hebrew.
I found this and could not resist the urge to post it:

http://www.stevenfeuerstein.com/outrage/israel.htm

"Why have I come to this point in my life? [speaking out on the issue] Because I am Jewish. Because Jews are taught: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. The Torah does not say: Thou shalt not kill only Jewish people. The Torah does not say: Thou shalt not kill only those who agrees with Jewish people. And the Torah DEFINITELY does not say: Thou shalt not kill anyone but Palestinians."

What say you now?

Threat of force....come on now....get real.
If you don't pay your taxes, armed federal agents will come to your house and arrest you. You will go to jail, and your possessions sold at auction. What the hell else would you call that?

If you don't pay your taxes, armed federal agents will come to your house and arrest you. You will go to jail, and your possessions sold at auction. What the hell else would you call that?
Every citizen should gladly pay their taxes and be grateful that they are gainfully employed, and therefore there would be no threat of force for law abiding citizens.

What say you now?
*sigh*

List of the Aseret ha-Dibrot
6. Prohibition of Murder
This category is derived from Ex. 20:13, saying, "You shall not murder."

http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

Halakhah (Jewish law) holds that not only is the taking of human life morally and legally permissible under certian circumstances, it is sometimes an OBLIGATION.

Incidentally, I am holding an NIV Bible in front of me. It has a list of the Ten Commandments at the front. VI reads "you shall not murder."

Are we done here?

and therefore there would be no threat of force for law abiding citizens.
There's no threat of force for Canadian gun owners, so long as all of their firearms are registered, they don't move a handgun ANYWHERE without the government's explicit permission, they allow government agents to arbitrarially and without cause or warrant search their premises at any time if they own more than ten firearms. There's no threat of force for North Koreans as long as they don't speak out against the government. There's no threat of force for Saudi women as long as they wear the complete hajib.


Just because something is the law, does not make it right.

but He would likely be just as much against the eating of shellfish
He specifically stated that the dietary laws no longer needed to be observed.

Ahem..

Would Jesus support abortion? The murder of a baby?

Would Jesus support gay marrige?

Would Jesus support stealing from the people? (raising income tax)

I think Jesus wouldn't really join a party, but get this......

Early Christians had a habit of leaving thier newborn babies outside of their houses for thier husbands to find. If he accapted the child, he would bring it in, and if he didn't it was left to die, so please, don't go on about murder. And yes, this pactice was fairly short lived, but still.....

and for gay marriage, well, think of this, Jesus wouldn't really descriminate against people. Jesus tought the idea of loving other people unconditionally, and probubly, in this point in time, would have adjusted himself the way all people mush, and would have come to support thier way of persuing happiness, as long as they are good people (ie, having morals, and not disrupting anyone but the biggots and such....). Plus, the Bible conflicts itself a lot, so I'm sure you could used the Bible to disprove the idea that gay people are sinners.

And about the Income tax, well, I belive jesus said, "give to him what is his", reffering to the coins with the emperer's hear imprinted on the coin. Thus, he meant to teach that there are more important things than money. And anyway, JOHN KERRY ONLY WANTED TO PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT. Am I the only one who knows that everyone's share has raised 19,000 dollars a piece, from $500 to $24,000. For a lot of people, that is the majority of a year's salery. raising taxes now is better than a huge hike a few years down the road......

there are some republican ideas that have helped the nation (ie, the national bank) but they tend to include privitation, which Jesus would not support, since he was a supporter of people's rights, not the rights of the corperate powers.

There's no threat of force for Canadian gun owners, so long as all of their firearms are registered, they don't move a handgun ANYWHERE without the government's explicit permission, they allow government agents to arbitrarially and without cause or warrant search their premises at any time if they own more than ten firearms. There's no threat of force for North Koreans as long as they don't speak out against the government. There's no threat of force for Saudi women as long as they wear the complete hajib.


Just because something is the law, does not make it right.
I kinda like Canada's gun laws. Seems to be keeping the murder rate down.

Well, I can't say anything for stem cells and abortion as they really wern't around for Jesus. But I think I can say he would have supported gay marriage. Where did he speak out against it in the NT? As far as I know, he never did. He did however, have pretty much thousands of quotes preaching tolerance, peace and love.

True, he did teach about tolerance, peace, and love. But there's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I think His support of gay marriage would've been based on if He felt homosexuality was a way in which people are just "being different", such as different clothing or hair styles--or if He viewed homosexuality as a sin; He being against the acceptance of sin.

Either way, He in no way condoned hatred or animosity towards gays or anyone who was different or those that sinned (whether gays are sinner for their decisions or not). Exactly the opposite was His stance: love for the sinner, peace with those different. I think the debate over gay marriage, whichever way is right, would gain a lot from but a little of that civility.

I know this is a stupid reason to start a thread, but if you look at it Jesus is a Democrat. He helped the poor, spoke out against the conservative Pharisees, and he called for change in the Jewish church, and as you know Democrats constantly want to change government. Now I'm preparing for a grilling by the conservative evangalists. This should be fun. :rolleyes:

One would think that if Jesus was a card carrying member of the Democratic Party, that he could have arranged a win for them in the last election. :confused:

Originally posted by Lunatic Goofballs
One would think that if Jesus was a card carrying member of the Democratic Party, that he could have arranged a win for them in the last election.

Ya, that's a head scratcher. :confused: :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:

I kinda like Canada's gun laws. Seems to be keeping the murder rate down.

Though gun laws are shown to be inconsistent with murder rates...

I know this is a stupid reason to start a thread, but if you look at it Jesus is a Democrat. He helped the poor, spoke out against the conservative Pharisees, and he called for change in the Jewish church, and as you know Democrats constantly want to change government. Now I'm preparing for a grilling by the conservative evangalists. This should be fun. :rolleyes:

hmmm... would he also have been against abortion... for religious schooling... against the propgation of laws spreading immoral behavior such as ... gay marriages.. and technically.. against taxation >.> .. i'd say there is a strong case for a fiscal and social concervative... he was all about donation.. which concervatives are all for..

hmmm... would he also have been against abortion... for religious schooling... against the propgation of laws spreading immoral behavior such as ... gay marriages.. and technically.. against taxation >.> .. i'd say there is a strong case for a fiscal and social concervative... he was all about donation.. which concervatives are all for..

I don't think he ever said abortion, Christians didn't think there was anything wrong with it until 1850's and the OT only forbade it as a population booster.

On civil authorities trying to promote their idea of moral behavior, "judge not lest ye yourself be judged."
On enforcing such laws, "let he who is among you without sin cast the first stone."
Taxation, "render unto Ceaser those things that are Ceaser's, render unto God those things that are God's."

You would have had a strong case for him being a strong social and fiscal conservative if you had anything to back your claim up. But even if he was a strong fiscal conservative he would cry to see what idiots that republicans have been on that score lately.

If you don't pay your taxes, armed federal agents will come to your house and arrest you. You will go to jail, and your possessions sold at auction. What the hell else would you call that?

Your arguments against taxation for charitable ends are no more valid than overturning laws against murder because "we should not kill eachother because we're good peole who choose not to kill not because the government will punish us if we don't."

A government's job since the dawn of civilization has been to redistribute wealth from those who produce it directly to those ends that the government sees that society depends on. In a primative chiefdom this will be taking grain from the farmers to feed the potters and blacksmiths who make the tools that the farmers use to grow more grain, and feed the warriors that keep the barbarians from stealing everything they can carry and burning the rest. In a post industrial society with a global economy it is infinitly more complex and uses money instead of food.

The grossly over simplified explanation would be that the government needs to fund programs to promote civic stability and international peace. Of course corrupt politicians will also use it to fatten their own pockets, but the job still has to be done. Redistribution of wealth is, and always has been, the basic function of government.

All of this means that Jesus would still be as pro-taxation as he was when he said "render unto Ceaser..."

I don't think he ever said abortion, Christians didn't think there was anything wrong with it until 1850's and the OT only forbade it as a population booster.

On civil authorities trying to promote their idea of moral behavior, "judge not lest ye yourself be judged."
On enforcing such laws, "let he who is among you without sin cast the first stone."
Taxation, "render unto Ceaser those things that are Ceaser's, render unto God those things that are God's."

You would have had a strong case for him being a strong social and fiscal conservative if you had anything to back your claim up. But even if he was a strong fiscal conservative he would cry to see what idiots that republicans have been on that score lately.

abortion is a clear cut case of murder.. if jesus belives humans are gods greatest creation, as they are created in his image... its hard to imagine how he would be bickering over what level of development is needed to be considered a person.. especially since a soul is in the fetus from its inception

One would think that if Jesus was a card carrying member of the Democratic Party, that he could have arranged a win for them in the last election. :confused:

jesus would have done it, but he was overruled by the big guy, who loves a little fire and brimstone and mass slaughter. jesus may be a democrat, but god is a fascist.

especially since a soul is in the fetus from its inception

not according to the culture and religion jesus grew up in and claimed to be a part of

not according to the culture and religion jesus grew up in and claimed to be a part of

It was never an issue back then because people had no medically clean way to committ this barbaric practice of abortion that we glorify.

The Jewish people inherently knew that killing babies was WRONG because God had ordered them to commit genocide against all the surrounding tribes who sacrificed their firstborn to Molech. If God tells you to wipe out a nation, and the reason is because they are sacrificing their babies, you would take that pretty seriously in your culture I think.

Early Christians had a habit of leaving thier newborn babies outside of their houses for thier husbands to find. If he accapted the child, he would bring it in, and if he didn't it was left to die, so please, don't go on about murder. And yes, this pactice was fairly short lived, but still.....

But we are referring to Jesus, yes? And Jesus was all about the chil'en. That's already been covered here.

and for gay marriage, well, think of this, Jesus wouldn't really descriminate against people. Jesus tought the idea of loving other people unconditionally, and probubly, in this point in time, would have adjusted himself the way all people mush, and would have come to support thier way of persuing happiness, as long as they are good people (ie, having morals, and not disrupting anyone but the biggots and such....). Plus, the Bible conflicts itself a lot, so I'm sure you could used the Bible to disprove the idea that gay people are sinners.

It seems to be common belief here that Jesus would be all for homosexual marriage. I do not see why.
Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.
-Matthew 19:4-6

Again in Mark, though they are primarily discussing the issue of divorce, Jesus harps on the "God created them male and female" distinction. The Pharisees agreed that homosexual acts were abhorrent to God, so why try to convince them further? Jesus loved everyone, and he--lovingly--tried to make them repent and embrace God.

One interesting thing brought up here is that Jesus had no aim of overthrowing the government; he aimed at overthrowing people's hearts. So, perhaps he WOULD be libertarian to the point of anarchy, so that everyone could choose for themselves whether to live lovingly or wickedly.

But all sources seem to indicate that he would tell us the right way to live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Umphart
Well, I didn't exactly mean he's a registered deomcrat and voted for John Kerry, but he would be a demcorat know if he lived in the US.

ok to the exstant of my knowledge democrats are pushing for aborshin and for one thing i know jesue was agianst that. so im trying to see how he would be a democrat can u email me and explain it my email is scseagles1@yahoo.com

Jesus who?

Jesus was not a democrat.

he was staunchly in favor of an ethical code. he was not terribly open-minded. He was righteous and right-minded. Right and wrong were clear to him. He healed the sick and helped the poor, but i bet he'd much rather see private donations help the poor than the impersonal, arbitrary government.

He would favor hard work over sloth... so I would imagine that, to an extent, he would support legislation that makes it hard to live off other people's hard work. He would be a staunch supporter of the "personal-responsibility" crowd.

He would be (obviously) pro-life.

He would be against drinking, drugs, etc.

(does he still sound like a liberal?)

He'd be staunchly against gay marriage... his Father defined marriage.

He'd be against frivolous lawsuits.


Overall, he'd likely be a moderate in terms of economic/financial matters, but totally conservative in terms of social issues. He would therefore more likely, were he in human form today, be a Republican.

Though gun laws are shown to be inconsistent with murder rates...
New York City has gun control and their murder rate has declined sharply

Jesus was not a democrat.

he was staunchly in favor of an ethical code. he was not terribly open-minded. He was righteous and right-minded. Right and wrong were clear to him. He healed the sick and helped the poor, but i bet he'd much rather see private donations help the poor than the impersonal, arbitrary government.

He would favor hard work over sloth... so I would imagine that, to an extent, he would support legislation that makes it hard to live off other people's hard work. He would be a staunch supporter of the "personal-responsibility" crowd.

He would be (obviously) pro-life.

He would be against drinking, drugs, etc.

(does he still sound like a liberal?)

He'd be staunchly against gay marriage... his Father defined marriage.

He'd be against frivolous lawsuits.


Overall, he'd likely be a moderate in terms of economic/financial matters, but totally conservative in terms of social issues. He would therefore more likely, were he in human form today, be a Republican.
Since Jesus whould be pro-life as you state, then HE wouldn't be a Republican, who for the most part appear to be pro military, and pro war, especially when US bombs are killing people in the cradle of civilization?

I know this is a stupid reason to start a thread, but if you look at it Jesus is a Democrat. He helped the poor, spoke out against the conservative Pharisees, and he called for change in the Jewish church, and as you know Democrats constantly want to change government. Now I'm preparing for a grilling by the conservative evangalists. This should be fun. :rolleyes:

Hmm.. He advocated going out and personally buying arms.
Luke 22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

That's not a Democrat.

It was never an issue back then because people had no medically clean way to committ this barbaric practice of abortion that we glorify.

beyond the fact that abortion existed and was practiced before and during the time of jesus, that has nothing to do with what i said. the hebrew belief was not that fetuses became ensouled at conception. they got a soul at birth - specifically when the head came out.

Jesus wouldn't vote for Kerry, I bet Jesus wouldn't even vote

Jesus would convince everyone to vote for him, I'm sure of it. lol.

Hmm.. He advocated going out and personally buying arms.
Luke 22:36: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

That's not a Democrat.

but that is only one quote; doesn't nessecarily sum him up.

Originally posted by Uglyness1989
ok to the exstant of my knowledge democrats are pushing for aborshin and for one thing i know jesue was agianst that. so im trying to see how he would be a democrat can u email me and explain it my email is scseagles1@yahoo.com

It is not worth my time to argue about something so petty, and learn to spell right.

He would be against drinking

what are you on? jesus is the guy that brings more alcohol to the party.

Originally posted by Free Soviets
what are you on? jesus is the guy that brings more alcohol to the party.
That's because that's the only sanitary thing they had to drink back then.
But your right, Jesus was a kegger! :p

They were lying about the scriptures, manipulating it. How is that being conservative?

That's sarcasm, right?

But your right, Jesus was a kegger! :p

seriously. 150 more gallons of wine after people were already drunk - jesus sure liked to party.

Well, we know that Bush was a bigger party guy than Kerry, so we'll figure that Republicans are the party drinkers.

But since Clinton and Condit got into women's pants, we can figure the Democrats like to get it on.

We know that Jesus was the winemaker at the party - he brought the party. But we don't have any evidence that he ever got laid.

He was also big into the "worship me" thing, so I figure he's a Republican.

Of course.

Generosity Index (http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2003)

All that shows is that poorer states give more in relation to per capita income and vicariously, that poor people give more in comparison than the rich. To which I have to say, well, duh. A dollar is a much more signifigant gift when all you have is 5.

That doesn't backup your statement that republicans are more giving than democrats. If anything, since the median income of republicans in most states is higher than it is for democrats, it detracts from your statement.

New York City has gun control and their murder rate has declined sharply

Even our mayor at the time has no idea how that happened. Guns were never legally widespread here in NYC, we have people who go down south and buy them by the carload and then sell them out of their trunks in poor neighborhoods.

The mayor, appearantly through blind luck, got a great commisioner who realized that everyone in NYC uses the subway, even our current millionare mayor. The kind of person who is willing to kill for money is also likely to be the sort of person who's willing to skip over the subway turnstiles.

Guliani didn't really understand the principle, but that didn't stop him from taking credit for it. So now he makes millions of dollars for, for example, telling the mayor of Mexico City, "the kind of guy who's willing to squeegee windshields in slow traffic in exchange for pocket change, that's the kind of guy who has no moral compunctions against running an international drug smuggling operation. Get the squeegee guys and you stop your drug problem."

He specifically stated that the dietary laws no longer needed to be observed.

Umm...No. The text you are referring to, happened after the death of Christ. Jesus said, "I am come to fullfill the whole of the law, not to take from it". And the lesson of the picnic, to which you are likely referring, was about Jewish Christians (specifically Peter, who was a racist) accepting non-Jewish Christians as members of their faith. According to Jesus, ALL of the mitzvah stand. They are G-d's gift to man, not rules to go ignoring all willy-nilly.

Or am I the only one of us that actually read the Bible?

New York City has gun control and their murder rate has declined sharply

In the 33 states that have liberalized concealed carry, violent crime has gone down.
In areas where guns are banned, violent crime has gone up, with very few exceptions.

Interestingly, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the number of guns owned and the number of gun owners - 89 million more guns. But violent crime is at an all-time low.

Want to know why the crime in my jurisdiction is much lower than the neighboring jurisdiction? Because the criminals know we're walking around armed, and our neighbors are most assuredly unarmed.

Montgomery County had an increase in armed robbery of 70 percent in a single year. Isn't that gun control working great?

We have had double-digit decreases in our violent crime for the past few years since the introduction of concealed carry - and now, since last July, open carry is now legal.

Whoa - haven't seen any of those mass shootouts we were supposed to have - no gunfights at the OK Corral the anti-gun people warned us about.

And what's interesting - only one person in the US who was a concealed carry permit holder ever killed someone as a result of a traffic dispute - and that was held up in court because the man WITHOUT the gun tried to beat that gun owner to death. Self-defense. The gun owner was exonerated.

All that shows is that poorer states give more in relation to per capita income and vicariously, that poor people give more in comparison than the rich. To which I have to say, well, duh. A dollar is a much more signifigant gift when all you have is 5.

That doesn't backup your statement that republicans are more giving than democrats. If anything, since the median income of republicans in most states is higher than it is for democrats, it detracts from your statement.

whoa, my head is spinning from all the spinning in that post.

You're assuming that poor people give more, per income amount, than the rich.

Based on that, and based on your statement that the median income for republicans is higher than that of democrats in most states... that democrats are more giving.

wow

no

your first assumption is unfounded. How the red states give more than the blue states is not, to my knowledge, broken down by income demographic.

All we can say, based on the comparison, is that states which voted for Bush, by and large, give more money, by % of income, to charities. That's it.

Given that, the logical conclusion IS that either

a)the democrats in the red states are really, really into donating

or

b)republicans, on average, simply give more.

I would tend to agree with b... though a is possible (not likely).

A is not likely because the republicans outnumber the democrats in the red states. If the hypothesis that democrats give more than republicans were true, that'd mean that the democrats in the blue states must really be chumps while the dems in the red states must be carrying their states' high per-income giving rate.

I am much more inclined to believe that, generally, Republicans give more than Democrats. This is the least subjective/"out there" way to explain how states with higher Republican concentrations give more per-income than states with a majority Democrat base.

And here's a recent example from someone I know who just experienced first-hand how a concealed firearm can prevent something:

Friend of mine is a bondsman that also does street sweeping as a second job. From what I understand, he was standing on a sidewalk at night waiting for his dad (running the truck) to come back when a guy in a trench coat started walking toward him.

He gave the guy a verbal warning to keep his distance, but kept going. At that point he flipped his coat back to expose his CCW in the holster and told him again to back off. The guy stopped saying "I was just gonna ask for a cigarette", then promptly left rather quickly.

abortion is a clear cut case of murder.. if jesus belives humans are gods greatest creation, as they are created in his image... its hard to imagine how he would be bickering over what level of development is needed to be considered a person.. especially since a soul is in the fetus from its inception

If it were a clear-cut case of murder, why would the punishment for doing so (and only if it were to another man's wife, not your own, or yourself) be less than the punishment for petty theft (or for that matter, talking back to your parents)?

Exodus 21:22-22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp)

If it were a clear-cut case of murder, why would the punishment for doing so (and only if it were to another man's wife, not your own, or yourself) be less than the punishment for petty theft (or for that matter, talking back to your parents)?

Exodus 21:22-22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. (http://www.bibleontheweb.com/Bible.asp)

So did you completely miss the "...according as the woman's husband will lay upon him..."?

I take that to mean that the husband could do just about whatever he wants with the offender.

whoa, my head is spinning from all the spinning in that post.

You're assuming that poor people give more, per income amount, than the rich.

I never said that. I said that poor people give more as a percentage of income (and according to the cite posted, not me) than richer people. If a person that brings in $10,000 a year gives $100 that's 1% of his gross income. A person who makes 100,000 a year has to give $1000 to match that and on up. Bill gates would have to give like $200M to match that $100 donation.

Based on that, and based on your statement that the median income for republicans is higher than that of democrats in most states... that democrats are more giving.

Um, no. The person to which I was replying, stated that Republicans give more than Democrats, and when asked to prove it gave the cite listed. She was assuming that since the top states were mostly red, that that proved her point. It does not, since there are other explanations for this that more correctly match the data.

your first assumption is unfounded. How the red states give more than the blue states is not, to my knowledge, broken down by income demographic.

No it's based on the total per capita % as compared to total. News flash, the total per capita % will always be higher in states with less per capita wealth.

All we can say, based on the comparison, is that states which voted for Bush, by and large, give more money, by % of income, to charities. That's it.

And you're ignoring the fact that large portions of the population, did not vote for bush, and even larger portions did not vote, so your conclusion that bushy's give more, is invalid when compared against the data presented.

Given that, the logical conclusion IS that either

a)the democrats in the red states are really, really into donating

or

b)republicans, on average, simply give more.

I would tend to agree with b... though a is possible (not likely).

No the logical conclusion is that when you are comparing someone's wealth to what their charitable donations are, it takes less donations (by amount) for poorer states to get higher comparisons (by percentage of total).

A is not likely because the republicans outnumber the democrats in the red states. If the hypothesis that democrats give more than republicans were true, that'd mean that the democrats in the blue states must really be chumps while the dems in the red states must be carrying their states' high per-income giving rate.

I am much more inclined to believe that, generally, Republicans give more than Democrats. This is the least subjective/"out there" way to explain how states with higher Republican concentrations give more per-income than states with a majority Democrat base.

You can believe it all you want to. I might even be inclined to aggree with you. But the source presented does nothing to prove your assertion, or BC's and until someone posts something that does, your assertion is conjecture.

So did you completely miss the "...according as the woman's husband will lay upon him..."?

I take that to mean that the husband could do just about whatever he wants with the offender.

That means monitary damages and generally get's specified in other similar mitzvah as meaning 'a handful of silver' or the equivilent. Or perhaps you mentioned the word pay in the last part as opposed to 'suffer' which is the word used when they are intending stoning or the like as punishment.

No where in the Torah is revenge listed (or implied, as you seem to think it is here) as something to be legally taken by one man against another (at least not, one Jew to another). That is/was always the pervue of G-d and no other (sometimes actually handled by the local representative of G-d).

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
- Joshua 6:21

So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."
-Joshua 10:40-41

Yes, but you have to keep in context what areas the bible is talking about here. Sodom and Gomorrah ring a bell, by any chance?

Read those quotes again. Then go read Judges and Joshua. He was for genocide.

But then, god is against Murder. Perhaps God doesn't feel acts of genocide during war is murder.



Sodom and Gomorrah were COMPLETELY EVIL cities.


There is a passage that states (and I quote) "If there is one righteous person in this city, I will spare the entire area."


This "genocide" you speak of was not something God wanted to do; Therefore, he can't really be "for" Genocide. Genocide is murder, and God was AGAINST murder.



For all the people that felt Jesus was wrong, you need to base your information out of more than the old testament.

No it is THOU SHALT NOT KILL (http://www.themiracleofstjoseph.org/commands.php).

But don't take my word for it, use the link.


Thats hard because different interpretations use different wordings.

I know this is a stupid reason to start a thread, but if you look at it Jesus is a Democrat. He helped the poor, spoke out against the conservative Pharisees, and he called for change in the Jewish church, and as you know Democrats constantly want to change government. Now I'm preparing for a grilling by the conservative evangalists. This should be fun. :rolleyes:

the democrats are in league with the communist ACLU to ban christianity from schools, state buildings etc... (but of course, courses on Islam are allowed... :mad: ). Jesus would never support a party that does that.

Also, democrats keep black people down, Jesus would be against that.

the democrats are in league with the communist ACLU to ban christianity from schools, state buildings etc... (but of course, courses on Islam are allowed... :mad: ). Jesus would never support a party that does that.

Also, democrats keep black people down, Jesus would be against that.

Wait, when are the democrats in league with ACLU to ban christianity from schools?
What does Communism have to do with Jesus, he loved their ideals, he even used them.(or vice versa)
What do African Americans have to do with Jesus, and why do you say democrats keep them down?

Wait, when are the democrats in league with ACLU to ban christianity from schools?
What does Communism have to do with Jesus, he loved their ideals, he even used them.(or vice versa)
What do African Americans have to do with Jesus, and why do you say democrats keep them down?

democrats keep blacks down because they fear that succesful blacks would no longer vote for the democRAT party, also, succesful republican blacks are painted as uncle Toms and aunt Jemimas, and race hustlers like the Rev adulterer JJ Jackson and Al Sharpton get rich with money from the democratic party organization in keeping blacks voting democrat.

the ACLU was exposed in the 1930's, by the FBI, as nothing but a front organization of the communist party, and as an organization that carries out the platform of the communist party. The democrats have also usurped part of the communist platform.

democrats keep blacks down because they fear that succesful blacks would no longer vote for the democRAT party, also, succesful republican blacks are painted as uncle Toms and aunt Jemimas, and race hustlers like the Rev adulterer JJ Jackson and Al Sharpton get rich with money from the democratic party organization in keeping blacks voting democrat.

the ACLU was exposed in the 1930's, by the FBI, as nothing but a front organization of the communist party, and as an organization that carries out the platform of the communist party. The democrats have also usurped part of the communist platform.

Um, no you didn't explain the keeping down part. How do they keep them down?

Plus what type of Communism? Stalinism, Karl Maxim, China Communism (China has recently changes to Mixed Economy mostly), or what?

Karl Marc was not against religion, Stalinism is, China Communism had restricted religion, but not totally break down.

So free speech is communistm, geesz out forefathers were communist! :p

Recent comment-

"Jesus was not Democrat. Most Democrats are atheists. Democrats are not for helping the poor, they are just wanting to help themselves (most rich Democrats are not tax payers because they are 'poor'). How do you know that Pharisees are conservative (give me good reasons). and He didn't call out for a change in the Jewish church, he called out for a change in everybody's lives. And most Democrats are *cough* *cough* um, maybe I should just leave it like that . Jesus was not."

if you're going to make a comment on this forum- please do not generalize or make up facts
I'm not an atheist! i go 2 my synagogue every single week and I am far from being an atheist but I am a die-hard democrat.
Democrats r not for helping the poor?
U R SICK!
THE DEMOCRATS WERE THE ONES WHO ENCACTED A SOCIAL SECURITY SAFETY NET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEY CREATED MEDICARE, MEDICAID, MINIMUM WAGE, SOCIAL SECURITY, PROTECTING A RIGHT TO A LBAOR UNION LAWS, BANNED CHILD LABOR, FOUGHT FOR EQUAL RIGHTS!
THEY WERE THE ONES FOR WOMEN RIGHTS, GAY RIGHTS, CIVIL RIGHTS!
and we shouldn't apply Jesus 2 politics but Jesus wanted equal rights for everyone.
Also another comment-

"democrats keep blacks down because they fear that succesful blacks would no longer vote for the democRAT party, also, succesful republican blacks are painted as uncle Toms and aunt Jemimas, and race hustlers like the Rev adulterer JJ Jackson and Al Sharpton get rich with money from the democratic party organization in keeping blacks voting democrat.
the ACLU was exposed in the 1930's, by the FBI, as nothing but a front organization of the communist party, and as an organization that carries out the platform of the communist party. The democrats have also usurped part of the communist platform."


Democrats keep blacks down???
THAT IS THE MOST OUTRAGEOUS COMMENT I EVER HEARD!
THE DEMOCRATS WERE THE ONES FOR CIVIL RIGTHS!!!
THE DEMOCRATS WERE AND STILL ARE THE ONES FOR VITAL SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT HELP AFRICAN AMERICANS SO MUCH!
also-democrats r communists?
that wuz the 50's with mccarthism- i think u republicans r so lost and out of it for your pointless, ignorant bickering
in addition- the ACLU doesn't represent the democratic party.
The ACLU is a fine organization but how is it communist?
PLEASE BACK UP YOUR FACTS WHEN MAKING OUTRAGEOUS COMMENTS!
i pray for this country because with bush packin the courts with right wing nut-heads :(

the democrats are in league with the communist ACLU to ban christianity from schools, state buildings etc... (but of course, courses on Islam are allowed... :mad: ). Jesus would never support a party that does that.

Also, democrats keep black people down, Jesus would be against that.

Why don't you check the ACLU's website. They have a list of all the cases in which they stood up for the rights of the religous. They have a clear position on religous expression.

Government as an entity has no right to express religous attitudes.

Government has no right to keep individuals from expressing their religous attitudes.

They are not trying to ban religion from state property, merely keep the government from foisting it upon the unwilling.

In the 33 states that have liberalized concealed carry, violent crime has gone down.
In areas where guns are banned, violent crime has gone up, with very few exceptions.

Interestingly, over the past 10 years, there has been an increase in the number of guns owned and the number of gun owners - 89 million more guns. But violent crime is at an all-time low.

Want to know why the crime in my jurisdiction is much lower than the neighboring jurisdiction? Because the criminals know we're walking around armed, and our neighbors are most assuredly unarmed.

Montgomery County had an increase in armed robbery of 70 percent in a single year. Isn't that gun control working great?

We have had double-digit decreases in our violent crime for the past few years since the introduction of concealed carry - and now, since last July, open carry is now legal.

Whoa - haven't seen any of those mass shootouts we were supposed to have - no gunfights at the OK Corral the anti-gun people warned us about.

And what's interesting - only one person in the US who was a concealed carry permit holder ever killed someone as a result of a traffic dispute - and that was held up in court because the man WITHOUT the gun tried to beat that gun owner to death. Self-defense. The gun owner was exonerated.
Yet the following two sites do not support your claims:

A State-by-State Look at Gun Laws in the U.S. (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/)

United States: Uniform Crime Report -- State Statistics from 1960 - 2000 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/)

On the 2nd link, when you click on a State, go to the bottom and you will notice a stats comparison.

Example:

New York State (gun control):

In the year 2000 New York had an estimated population of 18,976,457 which ranked the state 3rd in population. For that year the State of New York had a total Crime Index of 3,099.6 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 40th highest total Crime Index.

Texas (no gun control):

In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index.

New Jersey (gun control);

In the year 2000 New Jersey had an estimated population of 8,414,350 which ranked the state 9th in population. For that year the State of New Jersey had a total Crime Index of 3,160.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 39th highest total Crime Index.

Louisiana (no gun control):

In the year 2000 Louisiana had an estimated population of 4,468,976 which ranked the state 22nd in population. For that year the State of Louisiana had a total Crime Index of 5,422.8 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 4th highest total Crime Index.

Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports

How do you explain your figures?

Whereas Jesus would probably support gun control and removal of the death penalty, it should be resolved that those beliefs would make HIM unacceptable as a Republican.

Whereas Jesus would probably not condone abortion, it should be resolved that such belief would make HIM unacceptable as a Democrat.

Whereas Jesus would probably support a system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of a community, be it resolved that such belief would make HIM acceptable as a true communist.

Just curiosity...what, in the stories of Jesus (either in the Bible, the Apocrypha, or the non-canonical gospels) would indicate to you that he would be a communist?

Nothing that I have read on the subject in the actual text would indicate that Jesus as a man had any political inclinations or ideals. It seems from what he actually says that he felt that government was of little concern, and that the only truly important thing was an individuals relationship with G-d. But he seemed to most support an incorruptable Theocracy, which is of course, impossible.

Just curiosity...what, in the stories of Jesus (either in the Bible, the Apocrypha, or the non-canonical gospels) would indicate to you that he would be a communist?

Nothing that I have read on the subject in the actual text would indicate that Jesus as a man had any political inclinations or ideals. It seems from what he actually says that he felt that government was of little concern, and that the only truly important thing was an individuals relationship with G-d. But he seemed to most support an incorruptable Theocracy, which is of course, impossible.
Don't look at the politics of the word, look for the essence of the word, which is:

"a system in which all property and wealth is owned in a classless society by all the members of a community"

That is about as close to equality that you can get. A society that truly shares all.

I kinda like Canada's gun laws. Seems to be keeping the murder rate down.
Montana, Idaho, Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire, with some of the least-restrictive gun laws in the US, all have lower murder (and crime generally!) rates than the provinces they border.

All our gun laws do is prevent law-abiding people from defending themselves. They are disgustingly immoral.

New York City has gun control and their murder rate has declined sharply
A result NOT of new gun laws (there have been no new guns laws as of late), but because of Mayor Giuliani's "broken window" approach to crime control, and the fact that murder rates are declining across the nation (and have been for over a decade).

On the other hand, Florida and Texas saw HUGE decreases in the murder rate, far in excess of national trends, when they passed right-to-carry laws in 1987 and 1995, respectively.