Republican AND Christian...? How?

You mean the post in which I responded to each of your points?

You mean this point?

"Democrats will retake the Senate in 2016 (narrowly) and Republicans will hold the House until someone sane becomes the House Democratic leader. In between we should have stalemate and that's the best anyone can hope for."​

Beginning with Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” the Republicans embraced racists and the reversal of the two parties was complete–but until recently there was still plenty of middle ground: conservative Democrats and moderate-to-liberal Republicans. The disappearance of this middle ground (especially among Republicans–conservative Democrats are still around) has led to Independents becoming the largest class of voters (40%) while the percentage of voters identifying with the Democratic Party (33%) and the Republican Party (27%) is rapidly dwindling. With the likes of Grover Norquist and his “no tax” pledge, the Conservative Political Action Committee, the Chambers of Commerce, and the Religious Right, the GOP’s presidential nominating process is now a long “purity test,” which almost every Republican president before this (including Ronald Reagan, who is now mythologized and nearly worshipped) would have failed miserably.
Abraham Lincoln, our greatest president of any party would clearly never be nominated by today’s Republicans: He believed that the federal government trumped “states rights” in many areas and did not believe in the theory of “popular sovereignty” which Southerners used to justify slavery or for nullifying federal laws. Lincoln supported organized labor in terms that sound like quotes from Karl Marx. He thought monopolies were dangerous and that corporate interests in politics were corrupting. He believed in free immigration, too. Can you imagine Lincoln getting anywhere in today’s Republican primaries?
Ulysses. S. Grant opposed “wars of extermination” (his words) against Native Americans and insisted on honoring treaties with them. Greatly increased federal enforcement of Reconstruction in order to protect the rights of black citizens, especially in the South. The newly readmitted Southern states protested African Americans owning property and voting, so Grant increased the use of federal troops to enforce this in the South. No “states rights” crap out of him. CPAC and the Tea Party “patriots” would have derided this man who won the Civil War as a RINO and a traitor.
Richard M. Nixon was the inventor of the “Southern Strategy” which turned the GOP into the racist stronghold it is today. He was a warmonger and more paranoid than Glenn Beck. He spied on everyone and broke law after law. But even Nixon would be considered a flaming communist by today’s GOP. That being said, look at his record: He created the Environmental Protection Agency. He signed the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act into law–and enforced all of them. Saying “we’re all Keynesians now,” Nixon used wage and price controls to curb inflation. JFK had lowered the top marginal tax rate from 91% under the Eisenhower years to 71%–and Nixon refused to lower it further. Although he expanded the Vietnam War, he also ended it (and the draft), against the wishes of many in his own party–something that no self-respecting NeoCon would allow, today. Nixon sent in Kissinger to negotiate peace in the Middle East–something that today would be called “betraying Israel.” Nixon negotiated arms deals with the evil empire of the USSR. He supported Roe v. Wade although Watergate overshadowed it’s importance, at first. Nixon also initiated full diplomacy with China–which would today be the equivalent of negotiating with the Taliban or lifting the trade embargo on Cuba.

Today's Republican party has shifted further right that at any point in history, which consequently moves the "center" of the left/right axis. Saying that Democrats are not near the center, because democrats have not shifted right, is intellectually dishonest.

 

That seems quite unlikely lol.

 

I'm not arguing with any of that.
In 2012 Michele Bachmann was the only Tea Party candidate and got 7% in Iowa.
Boehner was challenged for Speaker and the 2 men combined got 25 votes, right?
So the Tea Party represents a fraction of the party and will never be the controlling fraction. 2016 will leave no doubt.
Now back to my simple question:
List all Democratic Congressman to the left of Nancy Pelosi?
If you struggle, it proves that the leftists are in full command of the Dems, but the middle, almost liberal Republicans still control that party.

 

''liberal Republicans''

 

Wait, are you claiming Boehner is "almost liberal"?! Compared to what?!

BTW, what does any of this have to do with whether the agenda of the modern Republican party aligns to the values of Christianity?

 

Communism is anti-Christian because when in power they kill Christians.
Most American Communists became Democrats and elect real Communists and socialists like Nancy Pelosi.
The Communist, Socialist, Anti-Christian wing of the Democratic includes President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, the 2 top dogs.
Since remaining Christian requires staying alive, voting for people who want you dead is a bad strategy.
Therefore Christians vote for Republicans because they are less likely to kill all Christians and more likely to kill people like Communists and Jihadists who are killing Christians.
In any case your earlier diatribe proving that the only Conservative President in the last 80 years was George W. Bush is true.
You just want to kilol the rest of them.

 

Far too many Republicans embrace the ideas of antichrist Ayn Rand - therefore, these people cannot be Christian. Just read the Bible and see for yourself.

 

I didn't notice this post before.
Liberals believe there should be a minimum wage.
Socialists want it to be as high as possible so the poorest workers will be numerous and equal.
Conservatives want the minimum wage phased out, pointing out that starvation was never a big problem before the minimum wage.
Liberals believe Social Security is a good idea.
Socialists want the poorest senior citizens to be even with the poorest workers (see above).
Conservatives want to phase out Social Security in favor of better investment education.
Liberals want anyone who feels disadvantaged by society to be made comfortable.
Socialists want everyone to be equally uncomfortable.
Conservatives want anyone capable of working for a living working for a living or living off their relatives.
By these definitions, how many true Republican conservative Congressmen can you name?
How many Democrats fit the Socialist description?
I contend that the second list is longer.
As far as the Bible, Paul said, "If a man will not work, neither should he eat," and "Honor widows that are widows indeed but if any have nephew or brothers let them take care of them."
You don't become more Christian when someone takes 30% of your money and does good things with it.

 

You cannot be a Christian and tell lies, kill innocents, enrich the wealthy {like Bush and his supporters} or be openly antichrist like Ayn Rand {and her supporters}. I can give you more examples but this proves Republicans cannot be Christian.

 

You can not be a Christian and tell lies (like the Clintons) kill innocents (like the Kennedys) enrich the wealthy (like the Roosevelts) and be openly antichrist like the Obamas.

 

Ayn Rand ANTICHRIST:


http://liberalslikechrist.org/+Believable/JesusChristvsAynRand.html



it follows that those who support her are antichrist as well

 

ALL, that is every, single liberal democrat or socialist IS in fact an "anti-Christ."

Jesus said pertaining to the moral laws of Moses in the Old Testament:

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matt 5:17

Not one dot of "all homosexuals and beastaphiles being put to death or marriage being between a man and a woman" should be relaxed.

If you go against His words, then you are an anti-Christ, aka, liberal/progressive/socialist/communist.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Antichrist/

 

''moral laws''


We have discussed enough times on this forum how it is the red states which use pornography more than the other states.



''homosexuals''


Log Cabinites are Republican. There have been far more Republicans caught in sex scandals than anyone else.



Further proof that you cannot be Republican and Christian at the same time.

 

So every woman who speaks in church, every person who eats shellfish, every person who "goes against" the other random BS in Leviticus is a liberal/progressive/socialist/communist anti-Christ?

 

Let me see if I understand your position:
1) you believe that socialism and communism are the same thing.
2) when someone points out that some Christians do not adhere to the tenets of Christianity, you believe that an attack is being launched on the entire religion.
3) you believe that anyone who makes such a point therefore wants to kill all Christians...

Is this correct? If so, I disagree with the foundations of your position.

 

nancy pelosi is communist lol!!!

how strong is your christian persecution complex that you vote based on which party is less likely to kill ALL christians???

 

anyone can be a Christian... the reason Christian fanatics like Republicans is many push for a theocracy which is what they want

 

"Christian" sharia:








Republicans again appeal to theocracy

Michigan Republican Tim Walberg was a Christian minister before winning election to Congress in 2010 — and he hasn’t entirely changed jobs.

In a rare Tuesday-night committee meeting at which House Republicans advanced a bill curtailing reproductive rights, Walberg took the even rarer step of lecturing his colleagues on Scripture.

“It is clearly taught by Jesus the Christ himself,” Walberg preached to members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, “for those of us who believe in him — and I understand and I accept the fact that there are those who don’t — but he said render unto Caesar what’s Caesar’s and God what’s God’s, and I think that’s an important consideration for us on this committee tonight.”

Claiming Jesus in a political dispute is inflammatory, particularly when you accuse your opponents, as Walberg did, of “a continued attack on religion.” The appeal to theocracy Tuesday night was even more incendiary because it was used to justify a bid to strike down a new District of Columbia law protecting women from workplace discrimination if they receive fertility treatments, use birth control or have abortions.

more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...82e898-e920-11e4-aae1-d642717d8afa_story.html




http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...59c722-e877-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html

 

Did you not know that Paul said that there are no longer any unclean foods? Since you are such the Bible expert, would you even be able to find it?

Cultural laws and ceremonial laws in the OT are no longer binding---but moral laws still are.

 

render unto caesar what is caesers

its not as if the romans were shy wall flowers
i suppose jesus could have focused his message on leading a revolt against oppressive government

and actually the jews did have just such a revolt in ad70
the third jewish revolt
it was not particularly christian
and did not work out well

imo the right wing is trying to sanctify a political/economic ideology that has nothing what ever to do with jesus or his teaching. it is their own version of the emperors new clothes. everyone needs to swoon in reverent admiration of the pretense

 

paul is a self appointed leader who never knew christ and made stuff up as expedient

i see little indication that jesus was concerned to alter jewish culture or ceremony
on the moral level
he said stuff like turn the other cheek, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, judge not, heal the sick, feed the poor, etc i really do not see how the moral teaching of jesus corresponds even remotely to the conservative agenda...

 

Complety wrong and perhaps also accusing me of believing fully what I posted not as my position but as an analysis of the position many Christian Republicans hold.
Since no Christian Republicans have tried to correct me you may conclude I decribed their positions just about right.
Of course Communism, Socialism, and the governments of the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and Revolutionary France are all different things. It would take a long time to explain the nuances so I used the colloquial elementary school desriptions.
To the other fellow, I called Pelosi a socialist, not a Communist.
It doesn't really matter what a hanful of politicians believe because our country is supposed to be based on compromise.
The theocracy Democratic loudmouths say Christian Republicans want is not a realistic hope and almost everyone knows that.
Since neither socialism nor theocracy is possible the most radical people willing to run get lots of votes and in some places win (thanks to gerrymandering).
as long as real compromise happens, both extremist sides can complain about not getting what they said they wanted. That keeps them in Congress for life.
Extremist Presidents are dangerous, and since the Democrats have nominated extremists 4 times in a row, winning or almost winning against 2 moderates and 2 extremists (3 persons each, 4 lections) it seems the best hope for REpublicans is another extremist. You can't vote against him as long as Christians feel safe with no one less passionate.

 

Dear Phil: Two suggestions I have, which I propose for Constitutional conferences,
to PREVENT the need to elect and bully by EXTREME leaders of either party:
A. Divide health care by party, so both groups can exercise their political beliefs freely without threatening or imposing on each other
* prolife divided in funding/support from prochoice
* right to life divided from right to health care mandated through one central system
* free market through a set network that supports this, divided from a fixed system of govt exchanges that is managed centrally
The best part of this is there are no deadlines for trying to prove what works.
Both parties can take their time to work it out according to their member base that SUPPORTS that system and WANTS it to work.
So it will naturally take the most effective form, by removing pressure from obstructionism and objections who want to develop the other way.

B. separating the President position into External (for foreign affairs, finance global security international issues outside the US borders)
and Internal (for border issues and interstate commerce and issues on a federal level that are domestic and within the US territorial bounds)
separating the Vice President position into External (for issues affecting States that ARE on a federal level by the Constitution and do require federal govt to manage reforms and operations) and Internal (for issues that affect the federal level but belong and need to be shifted back to States, people or parties to manage on a local level due to conflicts that cannot be agreed up nationally).

If we SPECIFY that it is the Internal President who succeeds to the Presidency (and leave the VP internal and external SEPARATE where this dual office is NOT in the line of succession) then we can return to the original set up where the second place ticket wins VP and this does NOT cause a conflict with the Presidency which can also be split into a dual position for what is currently the Pres/VP. IE let the winning ticket serve as Internal/External President, splitting the duties between two partner officeholders, and let the second place ticket serve as Internal/External VP. I think the VP position would be more busy working through the Senate and all states to reform the federal govt by shifting as much as possible back to the States to manage more transparently with direct accountability to the citizens affected per state.

This also opens up an office for TRAINING leaders BEFORE running for president. It is easier to fix issues and correct reforms on Domestic and internal policies between states BEFORE taking charge of international affairs and global economy and security that can't afford a learning curve.

This will potentially stop the infighting between parties trying to grab both positions at the top.

And by separating conflicting beliefs affecting national policy by PARTY, then we can stop that infighting as well.
Use the Party system to organize the systems for people who believe in prolife or prochoice, right to life and free market
or right to choice and govt mandates, gun rights vs gun control, voting rights vs voter ID, gay marriage vs traditional marriage.

All these can be separated by party, and use the party system to TRAIN future leaders how to manage govt
by setting up their own INTERNAL adminstrations within their own parties to serve their own members on issues they believe in
but can't impose by govt because these beliefs are not shared by all other citizens who can organize their own beliefs by party as well.

So each party can become an independent network to train its own members how to manage their own administration
on policies not everyone agrees on. And have separate school systems to divide over religious issues, separate prisons
for those who don't want to fund the death penalty or don't want to manage life sentences and restitution and rehab for mentally ill inmates
housed for life, separate health care and benefits for gay marriage and prochoice supporters, while leaving alone the free market and traditional marriage system that can remain as is.

If we can even propose a pilot study or program to see if this works, I'd like to ask leaders of all parties to consult through Constitutional conferences, online and through forums on each topic to find ways to separate the policies, funding and administration where people can have what they want to pay for, but without forcing all other people and parties to pay for that if they disagree religiously.

We have to start recognizing political beliefs as separated from govt as religions are supposed to be managed separately and not imposed.

Or else we create these extreme defenses and bullying back and forth, forcing people of conflicting beliefs to defend them from imposition by the other, abusing federal govt to do so. This is unconstitutional. All beliefs and creeds should be equally free to exercise without fear of discrimination by govt.

Those are my suggestions.

 

Where were you in 1787?

 

Find it? I'm very familiar with Romans 14:14, which is probably what you're misinterpreting...
Let's take a look at this verse accurately translated and presented in its context:

So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way.
I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing defiled of itself; but to him who considers anything to be defiled, to him it is defiled.

Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. Do not pull down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense.

It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.
- Romans 14:12 to 23 ​

The above passage correctly translates defiled in verse 14 from koinos. The "defiled" food consists of clean food which has been handled with "defiled" hands or has been offered to idols. The following quote of the Authorised Version is taken, exactly as it appears here, from the Online Bible, including the editor's comment in brackets. The editor thus admits that 'unclean' should not have been used. This example shows how an incorrect translation can twist the meaning of Scripture. This AV translation makes it appear that Paul is saying there is no longer anything that is really unclean.

"14: I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. {unclean: Gr. common}"​

So we see that Romans 14 is talking about defiled food rather than flesh taken from an animal that God has allegedly declared to be unclean (as in Leviticus).

Who decided that? And who decided whether laws pertaining to homosexuality (for example) are "moral laws" rather than "cultural" ones?

- - - Updated - - -

While fearmongering about Sharia law... Demonstrating the typical conservative hypocrisy.