Was Jesus the First Republican?

right wingers expand the military industrial complex and spread its imperialistic terrorism in the Middle East - the exact opposite of liberty

 

And as Gibbons said, this is what led to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

 

on the contrary, Jesus and his apostles entrenched slavery into Christian culture - in fact slavers in the South based their crazed ideas on those teachings

 

if they were ever given welfare it of course should be taken away and real Republicans would support doing so. But, do you understand now that Jesus was the first Republican?

 

actually fighting for liberty in Iraq, if that's what you mean, was fighting for liberty. Do you understand?

 

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_E...
According to Gibbon, the Roman Empire succumbed to barbarian invasions in large part due to the gradual loss of civic virtue among its citizens.

 

actually they lost out to the Christian majority and exactly at that time slavery disappeared. 1+1=2. Notice it will not ocur to a liberal to study history!!

 

Since Christian dogma emphasizes belief in Jesus rather than following the teachings of Jesus, I don't make that assumption.

 

Actually, for the first 200 years, Christianity was a subset of Judaism, and was persecuted relentlessly by the Romans because Christians were pacifists who refused to support the Empire's militaristic ways. During the 3rd century, Christianity broke away from Judaism, but continued to be hounded by the Romans until Constantine made it the official religion of Rome after he attributed his victories against his adversaries for the throne to help from the Christian God. It didn't hurt that Constantine's mother was a Christian. But Constantine gave direct orders to the men he appointed to head the new state church, to keep it a tool of the Empire. Early Christians didn't have much to say in the matter during these early events. Control was from the Emperor and his minions.

 

speak for yourself, buddy

It took liberals to end slavery while your friends fought to keep it going.

 

"We" assume wrong. Paul was a throwback to the ancient testament. Fck St-Paul. If he lived in the Christ's times, this huckster would have been punched in the face by Simon-Peter, like he did in his times after the Christ's passing.

 

In fact they should have called it "Constantinity". IMO the OT does not have its place in a true Christian bible.

 

I disagree. The Christ's message is simply love. That duty thing is typically an Anglican one.

 

Buddha was the first republican. He said you were precisely accountable for your own suffering (republicans see interior causation, liberals focus on exterior causation).

 

Treat your neighbor as yourself, help those in need, feed the hungry, sell your riches, preach the gospel throughout the world (perhaps the fundamental call to evangelicals, as one notes their very name), ...

Duties were very involved in that love thing.

And, our personal rights were not.

 

I know the excuse.

But, I do not see ANYTHING that justifies the position of cutting support for those who are in serious need.

 

The Roman empire was very tied to religion.

But, the split wasn't sudden. It happened over a rather long period of time.

And, no, Christians did NOT "create morality". That's just plain ridiculous.

 

You are totally ignoring original sin, which is very clearly fundamental to the Christian faith. The OT makes clear exactly what I said.

God loves everyone, but all are damned to eternal hell unless they come to Him for salvation. That is NOT just "be worthy of God's love" - which might include other activities of generosity, love, self sacrifice, or whatever. And, those do NOT get you out of hell according to Christianity.


The Roman empire was not the whole world, by the way. And, the split between religion and government in the western world wasn't complete until the Roman empire was pretty much not involved.

 

Convicts are in serious need. I have yet to learn of a jail cell that equals the Motel 6 rooms. The food we are told is very very bad.

When cities round up the homeless and offer them aid and food and shelter, they often turn down the city and stay on the street.

What is the motive to force them off the city streets?

 

Jesus did not "cut the Roman state in half".

Good Lord!

 

Suggesting Rome was "liberal" is preposterous.

Romans believed individuals had their individual choices and responsibilities to god, too. They just had different gods. Every religion requires acceptance of that religion. Romans, Greeks, etc. couldn't ignore the gods and hope to reach good end. There's nothing unique about that.

The transformation came separation of religion from state and recognizing that individuals have rights. Jesus had NOTHING to say about an individual having rights. He had nothing to say about government. He certainly recognized that individuals have CHOICES, but that's not the same as rights such as those our founders enumerated.

 

The problem with Iraq is that there were NO clear objectives of ANY kind.

Our government is well documented as having NO PLAN as to what to do with Iraq once we conquered it.

You can't claim our objective was "liberty" when we did NOT claim that as a reason for conquest (a claim that would be totally illegal to make) AND when we did NOT have any plan for liberty after the conquest.

So, sorry, NO "liberty" was NOT the justification for conquering Iraq.

 

You base your argument on the fact that there are those who WANT to live on the street. But, that's not a large percent of the problem. Thus using that as justification for ignoring the issue is false logic.

Besides, there are many reasons for having people not live on the street. You can start with the health of those on the street as well as the community as a whole. There are plenty of issues related to the greater dependence on public services, such as policing, and monitoring of other factors. There are issues related to the ownership and rightfully expected use of the property they land on. Etc., etc.

 

Look .... no need for you to mischaracterize my comments. I included two arguments. We do not treat Convicts well is number 1. What makes sidewalk dwellers better than convicts is number 2. Please stick to the actual argument.

 

Oh gosh no. Bush had a clear plan. And executed it. Turns out that rebels still in Iraq came up with their plans.

Bush did call liberty the main reason for his invasion. Do you not recall the name for the invasion?

The Bush plan did turn liberty over to the citizens who voted for leaders.

You do not end a dictatorship and leave in the dictators men. That would ruin the chance of liberty.