The Bible And Conservative Politics?

[RickD]

jcgood wrote:
Where is the love?

That's a good question. I don't see the love here in this lecture:

jcgood wrote:
I implore people that are complaining, negative, and slanderous in their assessments of this new law to reconsider using idle words.

Unless you are elected to power by a corrupt, inapt, system of U.S. government...you have nothing but useless opinion to offer. Even then; you are one vote in a sea of disunity.

Our God is sovereign over all principality, and power....and ultimately nothing prevents His Will from being done.
All partisan bickering and complaining is idle and vain. This is the law; be thankful for what we have, pray for our enemies (many government leaders), love your neighbor as yourself, and stop complaining.

Complaining is Not a fruit of the Holy Spirit. It comes from a lack of trust in God's sovereign Will.

The whole context of the politics of health care is perverted by man's foolish attempts to assign a monetary value for this potentially life-saving service. Did our Lord Jesus or the good samaritan ask for money for healings and good works?

The U.S. military is 100% government funded and operated....and most people do not have a problem with that. Or should we fund the military the same way as health care?Then only the wealthy will be adequately defended.

Even Solomon, the wisest of his time, said outside of fearing God and keeping His commandments....all is Vanity. Any questions?

Nor do I see the love here:

jcgood wrote:
Gasp!....I don't even know how to respond to such an incoherent statement. Did "less" or "more" have meaning 3 1/2 millenia ago?.....you might want to edit that one, Pete.

Your reply is only coming from your very narrow perspective, it is suspicious and accusatory in it's tone and disgraceful. You don't know how to disagree in a helpful way. If you respond with just your opinions...why should I bother to even read your response?

Everyone has a bias...but some have specks and some have logs. If we can remove your log, then maybe you will be able to help us.

Your posts were not helpful to answering my questions. Other people can read your replies and read your heavily biased comments and labels...and
you don't even know me! You seem to be more interested in "being right"...then helping. Adios...amigo....Peace/Out.

jcgood,

Your initial posts set the tone. You got back a little of what you dished out, and now you're upset. Maybe you can try a less lecturing, holier than thou tone on your next post.

[jcgood]

1over137:
Thank you for insight into the "tone" issues here. I agree with you. It is possible to disagree with a person peacefully
and considerately...and without prejudice. As Christians; we are commanded to love one another. We should write to one another
as if we are writing to God.

"If we can't love the people who we can see; how can we love God who we cannot see".
I sincerely thank you again.

[jcgood]

jcgood,
Your initial posts set the tone. You got back a little of what you dished out, and now you're upset. Maybe you can try a less lecturing, holier than thou tone on your next post.

It is false that I am upset.
Look at your post. Look at it! All you did was quote a whole excerpt and write "I don't see the love here" ...as if I can see what you are seeing.

I read and re-read my posts and edit them. God's love includes sharply correcting a brother's conversational behavior...but; with humility. Only God is Holy.

If the assessments I made are true....the brother can re-think his behavior....if my assessments are false...then the Lord will deal with me. When will we all trust His
judgement...in His time?
We dont need to wine about an alleged "unloving"....The Lord is Our Shepherd. We are called to be peace makers and love our enemies.

You need to lovingly explain in detail...WHY...you are assessing them "unloving". I don't find them un-loving at all. And where is my "upset" words? This is another patently false statement....your own projection.

Jesus was sharp when He needed to be sharp and gentle when He needed to be. We all should be sharp against hypocrisy. My " tone" is clearly not static; if you read
my other posts.
Are you willing for your posts to go through the same scrutiny? Can I find something..."unloving". We shall see.

We may have a schism here....aka... agree that we disagree. Peace/Out.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I like you, jcgood. I like you. It is good to have polarizers/polemicists here because it injects a little life into the Forum.

Welcome!

FL

[1over137]

I like you, jcgood. I like you. It is good to have polarizers/polemicists here because it injects a little life into the Forum.

Welcome!

FL

Like this forum was dead or what

---

jc: you're welcome. And do not listen to FL

[jcgood]

1over137:
Thank you for the warm welcome. I am learning quickly about which posters to ignore. My original post is serious. I am using a sharper tone there
because I am opposing the hypocrisy that I have experienced in partisan, conservative, unbalanced, and unfair ...."Christian media".

Our Jesus was very firm when He opposed the hypocrisy of His Day....and He's the One we Follow.

Forums can die a tragic death; when people write replies through their own bias ( a beam of wood in their eye) and label people spuriously
that they have never met.

I hope we can quench the "desire to be right" and be more loving and considerate. We need to write to others as if we are writing to God; who is the only Perfect Judge who knows our hearts.
Peace and kind regards....

[1over137]

I believe you are still to learn more about posters here. It just takes time sometimes.

(And do not ignore FL please, he has a special part in our hearts )

[PeteSinCA]

My original post is serious. I am using a sharper tone there ...

... when people write replies through their own bias ( a beam of wood in their eye) and label people spuriously

Sounds like: 1.) You admit in one sentence what you then deny two sentences later (and what you initially admit is precisely the perception on which I based the tone of my responses); 2.) You need to look at yourself in the mirror before accusing others.

... because I am opposing the hypocrisy that I have experienced in partisan, conservative, unbalanced, and unfair ...."Christian media".

The irony in this is palpable, but how about ceasing your focus on forum members and yourself and proceeding to specify what you believe to be the hypocrisies of "Christian media". If you do, keep in mind the meaning of "Hypocrisy":

: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel

[jcgood]

10ver137:
Yes, I understand. I was hoping for a higher maturity level here. But, as a sinner I can relate to things from my past. We, all hopefully grow in the Grace of Him
who loves us.
I still have not found an answer to the questions in my original post.

If someone can try to kindly help me understand the connection between the Christian faith...and limited government, starve-the-beast taxation and
anti-collectivism?

Is a local Church run like a business?....No; practically it is a collective that needs money from the community of attendees and members.
I understand offerings are voluntary....but the principle of sharing wealth is not evil..., and not socialism....as many falsely claim.

Acts 2: 44 - 47
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Actually; Acts 2 is simply, voluntary collectivism done by Christian converts in the love of Christ and His brethren.

Any ideology that picks and chooses where and when to apply socialism where it is convenient...is losing it's credibilty. It is not logical to accept public schools, roads, military, libraries, police, fire and rescue, etc. but not apply same, appropriate approaches to other policies; ie health insurance.

I am not an adherent of socialism. "Actually...regulated, private schools are in many ways better than public. But private mass transit has been a debacle.

In Conclusion: Conservative politics is like a parallel universe to me. Remember who the real enemy is. Keep looking to Jesus Christ...the only Truth.

And the fact of history...is there has never been a successful, stable libertarian government ever. The closest I can think of is Somalia ...or Mexico.

What do you think?

[JackHectorman]

`
.. lol .. I just finished lovingly reading this very interesting thread. Pete, I thought you lovingly made many interesting points. Btw, I am full of love .. /grin .. I love the Lord, I love America, I love my wife, I love my children, I love my grandchildren, I love Christmas, I love the Internet, I love the United States Military, I even love Megyn Kelly [platonically] .. /big grin ..

Merry Christmas to everybody and ... /hugs all around .. lol ..

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

`

[JackHectorman]

`
The New Testament strongly endorses and reaffirms "Thou shalt not steal" which, compellingly, carries with it the correct assumption of privately owned money and property.

This strongly supported New Testament doctrine of privately owned money and property means that the person that owns the money and property should be the person that gets to decide how this money and property is used and who it is given to, and not other persons who are in government ~~ that is to say there are no doctrines within Christianity that teach that its God's will that the government become the Nanny State that it has presently become in the West. Does Romans 13:1-7 teach that God has given the government the right to take whatever money and property they decide to take from the individual? The obvious answer is no.

Romans 13:1-7 is the great New Testament passage on Christendom's relationship to human governments and there is nothing in Romans 13:1-7 or anywhere else in the New Testament that supports the interpretation that its God's will for the government to rise to the level of the Nanny State that it has risen to in America and Europe. The question can be asked point blank: Does Romans 13:1-7 and other similar New Testament passages void privately owned property? The obvious answer is no.

The Nanny State has, de facto, replaced God's ordained Family Unit in many large swaths of America. The Nanny State has become, de facto, both the "Father" and the "Husband" to millions of women and their children, and with no end in sight as the welfare state grows yearly. This Nanny State reality has zero justification in Romans 13:1-7 and zero justification anywhere in the entire New Testament.

Many of us within Christendom resent the above reality because it does serious harm to the God ordained American Family, which we view as what ought to be the basic building block of society.

Merry Christmas.

♫ ♫ ♪ ♪

[jlay]

10ver137:
If someone can try to kindly help me understand the connection between the Christian faith...and limited government, starve-the-beast taxation and
anti-collectivism?

Is a local Church run like a business?....No; practically it is a collective that needs money from the community of attendees and members.
I understand offerings are voluntary....but the principle of sharing wealth is not evil..., and not socialism....as many falsely claim.

Acts 2: 44 - 47
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Actually; Acts 2 is simply, voluntary collectivism done by Christian converts in the love of Christ and His brethren.

Any ideology that picks and chooses where and when to apply socialism where it is convenient...is losing it's credibilty. It is not logical to accept public schools, roads, military, libraries, police, fire and rescue, etc. but not apply same, appropriate approaches to other policies; ie health insurance.

I am not a adherent of socialism. "Actually...regulated, private schools are in many ways better than public. But private mass transit has been a debacle.

In Conclusion: Conservative politics is like a parallel universe to me. Remember who the real enemy is. Keep looking to Jesus Christ...the only Truth.

And the fact of history...is there has never been a successful, stable libertarian government ever. The closest I can think of is Somalia ...or Mexico.

What do you think?

Yep, there are a lot of right wing fundies who want to claim that the US is a Christian nation, and all this and that. I used to be a card carrying member. That said, I have just as mush disdain for the left wing today that wants the government to solve every problem and literally control every aspect of life. There is simply nothing, and I mean nothing, in the new testament to indicate that beleivers are to try and justify one form of secular government over another, and then claim it is 'Christian.'
Sorry to disagree, but socialism is evil. It forces citizens to redistribute the wealth. And has proven to do a piss poor job of doing so. Your example doesn't hold water. It makes the assumption that just because the military best serves the general welfare, then the government is also the best at managing charity.
So for you to cherry pick Acts 2 for your own political motives makes you no better than the right wing fundies you abhor.

[RickD]

jcgood wrote:
If someone can try to kindly help me understand the connection between the Christian faith...and limited government, starve-the-beast taxation and
anti-collectivism?

There is no direct connection. The believer in a free country, has the freedom to want limited government.
"starve-the-beast taxation"? anti-collectivism? Could you define before I give my opinion?

Is a local Church run like a business?....No; practically it is a collective that needs money from the community of attendees and members.
I understand offerings are voluntary....but the principle of sharing wealth is not evil..., and not socialism....as many falsely claim.

jcgood,

Sharing one's wealth is good, not evil. Forcing one to share one's wealth could be considered evil. Forcing one to purchase a product that one has no desire to purchase, is flat out wrong.

Socialism
1.
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

You have your head in the sand if you can't see this country is heading towards socialism.

Acts 2: 44 - 47
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.
46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Actually; Acts 2 is simply, voluntary collectivism done by Christian converts in the love of Christ and His brethren.

Equating believers that gave other believers what they needed to preach the gospel, with Americans being forced to share their earnings with others, is really taking the biblical text out of context.

Americans are the most giving people in the world. Whenever there's a disaster in another country, Americans are the most generous towards those affected by disasters. The difference is that Americans are willingly giving their money. You are advocating that the government should take our money without our consent.

Any ideology that picks and chooses where and when to apply socialism where it is convenient...is losing it's credibilty. It is not logical to accept public schools, roads, military, libraries, police, fire and rescue, etc. but not apply same, appropriate approaches to other policies; ie health insurance.

Without going into a whole other topic, forcing people to purchase insurance, like Obamacare does, is not the same as paying taxes for necessary services. If you want to discuss Obamacare, please start a new thread.

[SkepticalSkeeter]

I've spent quite a bit of time volunteering at a local Christian charity and I've definitely noticed that most of the other volunteers are devout Christians and staunchly conservative Republicans. It's baffling to me that people who are so kind and generous about using their time and resources to help the poor simultaneously vote for politicians that promise to cut food stamps and end unemployment benefits while cutting taxes on billionaires.

You have your head in the sand if you can't see this country is heading towards socialism.

I hear this whenever I get stuck in a waiting room with a television tuned to Fox News, and it's possibly the most ridiculous claim in modern American politics.

The US is dominated by gigantic, multinational corporations. When they make huge profits they keep the money and distribute most of it to their officers and shareholders. When they screw up and break the economy they get tax money to bail them out and they distribute most of it to their officers and share holders. This happens regardless of which party is in power. The Supreme Court ruled that money is speech and opened the door for the rich to pretty much buy the government (anonymously). In the meantime, wages here have been stagnant since the 1970's, the minimum wage isn't a living wage, the cost of higher education has massively increased, most of our unions have been profoundly weakened or broken, most of our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas, social safety net programs have been deeply cut, public education is in trouble, and the top 1% of Americans pulled in 19% of the nation's income this year (and the top 10% earned 48%). Crony capitalism is running wild, and there's not a thing we can do about it. You're going to need a pretty strong argument to convince me that we're heading toward socialism...

Wait, what? The Affordable Care Act says that you have to either get health insurance or pay a small fine? I stand corrected. We are now living in the United Soviet Socialist States of America.

[jcgood]

The New Testament strongly endorses and reaffirms "Thou shalt not steal" which, compellingly, carries with it the correct assumption of privately owned money and property.

Actually; The whole Bible affirms that God owns everything...and we are stewards and God is the only Perfect Judge who has the last Word. If anyone steals; they are stealing from God. There are so many scriptures that I can quote....you should look them up yourself...you may re-think your position.
Do you not know what Lord means?

Actually; Your "going off" on some anti-liberal propaganda....is wasting energy. Don't add to the contention here. I have only asserted that I see no connection at all
with a right-wing agenda, liberalphobia, and the Commandments of Christ.

Your labels do not even exist in reality. There is no such thing as a "Nanny State"...just like there is no "Santa Claus"...Either way it has nothing to do with this thread.

Definitions are limited and do not portray reality. Am I a sinner or Am I a Christian?....actually; I am both at the same time. Wikipedia isn't reality.