Political Crossfire Forums

[Darth Tiberius]

cap'n queasy wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

It is quite easy to see that Y'shua sees the actions of all people as equally appalling.

But you know what? He loves us anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

No. If he could see the political sturctures and actions going on today the conservative movement would be the most abhorant to him.

[Gilbert1908]

Darth Tiberius wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

It is quite easy to see that Y'shua sees the actions of all people as equally appalling.

But you know what? He loves us anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

No. If he could see the political sturctures and actions going on today the conservative movement would be the most abhorant to him.

One thing we can be fairly sure of is that Jesus Christ did not care about political institutions but each individual human soul.

While there may be some God in politics there is no politics in God.

[Darth Tiberius]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

It is quite easy to see that Y'shua sees the actions of all people as equally appalling.

But you know what? He loves us anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

No. If he could see the political sturctures and actions going on today the conservative movement would be the most abhorant to him.

One thing we can be fairly sure of is that Jesus Christ did not care about political institutions but each individual human soul.

While there may be some God in politics there is no politics in God.

Well the world will only start to be a bit better when there is no god in politics. God belongs in a church or in peoples' beliefs. Not in a government to rule all which includes Christians and non-Christians.

And Jesus would tell his opinions if asked in those days about the Romans.

[Hyde]

Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

It is quite easy to see that Y'shua sees the actions of all people as equally appalling.

But you know what? He loves us anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

No. If he could see the political sturctures and actions going on today the conservative movement would be the most abhorant to him.

One thing we can be fairly sure of is that Jesus Christ did not care about political institutions but each individual human soul.

While there may be some God in politics there is no politics in God.

Well the world will only start to be a bit better when there is no god in politics. God belongs in a church or in peoples' beliefs. Not in a government to rule all which includes Christians and non-Christians.

And Jesus would tell his opinions if asked in those days about the Romans.

God in politics is fine.........when everyone agrees on one religion.

[Gilbert1908]

Hyde wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

It is quite easy to see that Y'shua sees the actions of all people as equally appalling.

But you know what? He loves us anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

No. If he could see the political sturctures and actions going on today the conservative movement would be the most abhorant to him.

One thing we can be fairly sure of is that Jesus Christ did not care about political institutions but each individual human soul.

While there may be some God in politics there is no politics in God.

Well the world will only start to be a bit better when there is no god in politics. God belongs in a church or in peoples' beliefs. Not in a government to rule all which includes Christians and non-Christians.

And Jesus would tell his opinions if asked in those days about the Romans.

God in politics is fine.........when everyone agrees on one religion.

God will be in politics as long as there are people who believe in God. So the trick is letting each person, including the individual leaders, representatives etc. believe and say what ever they feel but NOT imposing ANY restrictions on speach or religion.

THe first amendment to the US constitution is as simple as it is profound.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So while the President, every Senator and Congressperson can kneel and pray 5 times daily, or go to confession between votes or make campaign speeches quoting the bible, they can not make any law that establishes any religion or prohibits the free exercise of it either, even their OWN.

[Hyde]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Hyde wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

It is quite easy to see that Y'shua sees the actions of all people as equally appalling.

But you know what? He loves us anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

No. If he could see the political sturctures and actions going on today the conservative movement would be the most abhorant to him.

One thing we can be fairly sure of is that Jesus Christ did not care about political institutions but each individual human soul.

While there may be some God in politics there is no politics in God.

Well the world will only start to be a bit better when there is no god in politics. God belongs in a church or in peoples' beliefs. Not in a government to rule all which includes Christians and non-Christians.

And Jesus would tell his opinions if asked in those days about the Romans.

God in politics is fine.........when everyone agrees on one religion.

God will be in politics as long as there are people who believe in God. So the trick is letting each person, including the individual leaders, representatives etc. believe and say what ever they feel but NOT imposing ANY restrictions on speach or religion.

THe first amendment to the US constitution is as simple as it is profound.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So while the President, every Senator and Congressperson can kneel and pray 5 times daily, or go to confession between votes or make campaign speeches quoting the bible, they can not make any law that establishes any religion or prohibits the free exercise of it either, even their OWN.

thats what i was talking about :wink: laws of religion becoming laws of a country.

[Gilbert1908]

Hyde wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Hyde wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

It is quite easy to see that Y'shua sees the actions of all people as equally appalling.

But you know what? He loves us anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

No. If he could see the political sturctures and actions going on today the conservative movement would be the most abhorant to him.

One thing we can be fairly sure of is that Jesus Christ did not care about political institutions but each individual human soul.

While there may be some God in politics there is no politics in God.

Well the world will only start to be a bit better when there is no god in politics. God belongs in a church or in peoples' beliefs. Not in a government to rule all which includes Christians and non-Christians.

And Jesus would tell his opinions if asked in those days about the Romans.

God in politics is fine.........when everyone agrees on one religion.

God will be in politics as long as there are people who believe in God. So the trick is letting each person, including the individual leaders, representatives etc. believe and say what ever they feel but NOT imposing ANY restrictions on speach or religion.

THe first amendment to the US constitution is as simple as it is profound.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So while the President, every Senator and Congressperson can kneel and pray 5 times daily, or go to confession between votes or make campaign speeches quoting the bible, they can not make any law that establishes any religion or prohibits the free exercise of it either, even their OWN.

thats what i was talking about :wink: laws of religion becoming laws of a country.

Liquor stores are still closed on Sundays here in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts based on laws honoring the Christian sabbath that date back 1780s. Now I think they are silly and should be chnaged, but here they are and guess what they are LEGAL because no where does it say why the stores must be closed just that the State in its licensing function requires them to be closed. Except, and this is my favorite, for the 4 weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas!!!

So as long as the legislature does NOT establish a religion or prohibit the practice thereof they could make a law taken right of the bible as long as it was constitutional.

[Darth Tiberius]

Hyde wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

It is quite easy to see that Y'shua sees the actions of all people as equally appalling.

But you know what? He loves us anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

No. If he could see the political sturctures and actions going on today the conservative movement would be the most abhorant to him.

One thing we can be fairly sure of is that Jesus Christ did not care about political institutions but each individual human soul.

While there may be some God in politics there is no politics in God.

Well the world will only start to be a bit better when there is no god in politics. God belongs in a church or in peoples' beliefs. Not in a government to rule all which includes Christians and non-Christians.

And Jesus would tell his opinions if asked in those days about the Romans.

God in politics is fine.........when everyone agrees on one religion.

I'm just analysing what Jesus would probably say. Ignoring God.

[Nathyn]

LetsGetReal wrote: I would say a lot of that refers to the fact that the wealthy have a tougher time giving credit for what they achieved to God. And since a fundamental belief In christianity is that everything we have is given to us by God, to refuse giving him credit would be dastardly. Wealth back then was not usually achieved by just means, I would actually probably state it was achieved by cheating, lying, and stealing. All things condemned by the bible. For the other end of the spectrum the poor rely on God more because they need to, I would explain it but I'm sure you get it. I'm a classically liberal/objectivist/christian and I truly want to make a great deal of money but along with that I will be giving a ton of it away. I feel that some people are blessed with the abilities to achieve great wealth, but in return should give back to the community, and credit God for their achievements. Nathyn if he was a true socialist he would just take not ask. I'm not forced to give my tithes but I surely try to do so. People believe he is a socialist just based off the fact that he espouses a lifestyle of selflessness. I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist. I truly don't think he would force people to give money to the poor like our government does in an unconstitutional way, but thats another subject :wink:.
You can't be an Objectivist Christian or be an Objectivist who supports altruism. Rand considered altruism to be evil, which is why she hated Jesus most of all, considering him the personification of evil for his altruistic act of self-sacrifice. Throughout her life, she was an Atheist, attempting to convert all of her associates to Atheism, and hated Christianity.

psholtz wrote: I would say most of his *important* followers were quite wealthy and well-to-do..

Joseph of Aramethea was certainly a very powerful businessman.. St. Peter owned large fishing operations on the Sea of Galilee and was very wealthy.. The sons of Zebedee came from a similar, very well-to-do fishing background. Matthew the tax collector? Immoral perhaps, but I'm sure he was quite well to do as well. St. Paul was extremely erudite and well educated, and certainly came from one of the upper classes of that culture in that time.

Christianity has nothing to do w/ socialism. As has already been pointed out, there's nothing in the Gospels that says "turn over all your wealth and property to the State, so that corrupt technocrats can redistribute wealth and make it more 'equal'".. In fact, under socialism, Christianity is impossible to practice, since Christianity calls on us to voluntarily share our property and wealth w/ those less fortunate. Under socialism, an individual owns no property... everything already belongs to the State, so you don't own anything that you could possibly share w/ anyone..
A Socialist would say that true Socialism is voluntary. Read the original post.

[LetsGetReal]

Nathyn wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say a lot of that refers to the fact that the wealthy have a tougher time giving credit for what they achieved to God. And since a fundamental belief In christianity is that everything we have is given to us by God, to refuse giving him credit would be dastardly. Wealth back then was not usually achieved by just means, I would actually probably state it was achieved by cheating, lying, and stealing. All things condemned by the bible. For the other end of the spectrum the poor rely on God more because they need to, I would explain it but I'm sure you get it. I'm a classically liberal/objectivist/christian and I truly want to make a great deal of money but along with that I will be giving a ton of it away. I feel that some people are blessed with the abilities to achieve great wealth, but in return should give back to the community, and credit God for their achievements. Nathyn if he was a true socialist he would just take not ask. I'm not forced to give my tithes but I surely try to do so. People believe he is a socialist just based off the fact that he espouses a lifestyle of selflessness. I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist. I truly don't think he would force people to give money to the poor like our government does in an unconstitutional way, but thats another subject :wink:.
You can't be an Objectivist Christian or be an Objectivist who supports altruism. Rand considered altruism to be evil, which is why she hated Jesus most of all, considering him the personification of evil for his altruistic act of self-sacrifice. Throughout her life, she was an Atheist, attempting to convert all of her associates to Atheism, and hated Christianity.

psholtz wrote: I would say most of his *important* followers were quite wealthy and well-to-do..

Joseph of Aramethea was certainly a very powerful businessman.. St. Peter owned large fishing operations on the Sea of Galilee and was very wealthy.. The sons of Zebedee came from a similar, very well-to-do fishing background. Matthew the tax collector? Immoral perhaps, but I'm sure he was quite well to do as well. St. Paul was extremely erudite and well educated, and certainly came from one of the upper classes of that culture in that time.

Christianity has nothing to do w/ socialism. As has already been pointed out, there's nothing in the Gospels that says "turn over all your wealth and property to the State, so that corrupt technocrats can redistribute wealth and make it more 'equal'".. In fact, under socialism, Christianity is impossible to practice, since Christianity calls on us to voluntarily share our property and wealth w/ those less fortunate. Under socialism, an individual owns no property... everything already belongs to the State, so you don't own anything that you could possibly share w/ anyone..
A Socialist would say that true Socialism is voluntary. Read the original post. Did you notice how I said I was all three, I take the best of all of them to more properly explain my views. I'm not a Randite but a Classically Liberal/Objectivist/Christian.

[Æ]

psholtz wrote: airo wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: airo wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: I would say he is being "socially responsible" not a socialist.

Often times, those two are inseparable. There's a reason why ideals like communism and socialism are so popular with those born into poverty. I would say yes if you were talking in a political sense but I was speaking in terms of serving society individually. Socially responsible to me means, giving back to the community you live in, and supporting things that you believe with such means as money, time, advice, etc.... I would love to take this to a political debate but we are in a religous forum talking about whether jesus was a socialist, not the view points the poor have on the government they wish they could live in.
And you wouldn't call Jesus, and a large amount of his followers, poor?

Some of His followers were quite wealthy.

Yes, they were. But i would say the majority of them, or at least the majority that we know from history, and from what the Bible has told us, were of the lower class.
I would say most of his *important* followers were quite wealthy and well-to-do..

Joseph of Aramethea was certainly a very powerful businessman.. St. Peter owned large fishing operations on the Sea of Galilee and was very wealthy.. The sons of Zebedee came from a similar, very well-to-do fishing background. Matthew the tax collector? Immoral perhaps, but I'm sure he was quite well to do as well. St. Paul was extremely erudite and well educated, and certainly came from one of the upper classes of that culture in that time.

Christianity has nothing to do w/ socialism. As has already been pointed out, there's nothing in the Gospels that says "turn over all your wealth and property to the State, so that corrupt technocrats can redistribute wealth and make it more 'equal'".. In fact, under socialism, Christianity is impossible to practice, since Christianity calls on us to voluntarily share our property and wealth w/ those less fortunate. Under socialism, an individual owns no property... everything already belongs to the State, so you don't own anything that you could possibly share w/ anyone..
Good point.

It always amazes me how people try to pin Jesus to a political philosophy. He had a philosophy, but he wasn't interested in politics.

[psholtz]

Nathyn wrote: psholtz wrote: I would say most of his *important* followers were quite wealthy and well-to-do..

Joseph of Aramethea was certainly a very powerful businessman.. St. Peter owned large fishing operations on the Sea of Galilee and was very wealthy.. The sons of Zebedee came from a similar, very well-to-do fishing background. Matthew the tax collector? Immoral perhaps, but I'm sure he was quite well to do as well. St. Paul was extremely erudite and well educated, and certainly came from one of the upper classes of that culture in that time.

Christianity has nothing to do w/ socialism. As has already been pointed out, there's nothing in the Gospels that says "turn over all your wealth and property to the State, so that corrupt technocrats can redistribute wealth and make it more 'equal'".. In fact, under socialism, Christianity is impossible to practice, since Christianity calls on us to voluntarily share our property and wealth w/ those less fortunate. Under socialism, an individual owns no property... everything already belongs to the State, so you don't own anything that you could possibly share w/ anyone..
A Socialist would say that true Socialism is voluntary. Read the original post.
That's untrue.

Socialism, by definition, is never voluntary.

[eynon]

Nathyn wrote: A Socialist would say that true Socialism is voluntary. Read the original post.

then a Socialist is full of s**t, if socialism is voluntary why the hell would the state have to impose it?

[eynon]

Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

It is quite easy to see that Y'shua sees the actions of all people as equally appalling.

But you know what? He loves us anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

No. If he could see the political sturctures and actions going on today the conservative movement would be the most abhorant to him.

One thing we can be fairly sure of is that Jesus Christ did not care about political institutions but each individual human soul.

While there may be some God in politics there is no politics in God.

Well the world will only start to be a bit better when there is no god in politics. God belongs in a church or in peoples' beliefs. Not in a government to rule all which includes Christians and non-Christians.

And Jesus would tell his opinions if asked in those days about the Romans.

sure did, he told people to pay their taxes to them and complimented at least one Roman officer on his faith.

Jesus cared for people's souls, not their politics.....

[Gus]

Jesus' beliefs were incompatible with any political persuasion. He taught total submission and passiveness with respect to the treatment of others. Political systems that are in accordance with that are all apolitical--that is, they hold no real stance on a government forcing its influence on others. Jesus' teachings were purely individualistic--you tend your own business and let others tend theirs (whatever theirs may be). Jesus was apolitical.

[Nathyn]

Gus wrote: Jesus' beliefs were incompatible with any political persuasion. He taught total submission and passiveness with respect to the treatment of others. Political systems that are in accordance with that are all apolitical--that is, they hold no real stance on a government forcing its influence on others. Jesus' teachings were purely individualistic--you tend your own business and let others tend theirs (whatever theirs may be). Jesus was apolitical.
Leo Tolstoy's Christian Anarchism seems relatively right in line with Christianity, in my opinion, based upon the same scripture mentioned in this thread.

[Gus]

Nathyn wrote: Gus wrote: Jesus' beliefs were incompatible with any political persuasion. He taught total submission and passiveness with respect to the treatment of others. Political systems that are in accordance with that are all apolitical--that is, they hold no real stance on a government forcing its influence on others. Jesus' teachings were purely individualistic--you tend your own business and let others tend theirs (whatever theirs may be). Jesus was apolitical.
Leo Tolstoy's Christian Anarchism seems relatively right in line with Christianity, in my opinion, based upon the same scripture mentioned in this thread.
Probably, but I hesitate to even give it a title...Jesus just had no opinion on politics and no desire to pursue it. I think it's very safe to say that he was no socialist, though.

[LetsGetReal]

[quote="Gus"] Nathyn wrote: Gus wrote: Jesus' beliefs were incompatible with any political persuasion. He taught total submission and passiveness with respect to the treatment of others. Political systems that are in accordance with that are all apolitical--that is, they hold no real stance on a government forcing its influence on others. Jesus' teachings were purely individualistic--you tend your own business and let others tend theirs (whatever theirs may be). Jesus was apolitical.
Leo Tolstoy's Christian Anarchism seems relatively right in line with Christianity, in my opinion, based upon the same scripture mentioned in this thread. If lets say you believe in the divinity of Jesus, wouldn't you believe that if he wanted to establish a government he would have? He wanted to save our souls through the faith that each Christian must possess. Those Christians you speak of with your link :roll: give True Christianity a bad name. There is two things God wants us to do more then anything else. Spread the word and treat each other as you would treat yourself. Does that state he wants to establish a government? He governs all :wink:. Your jaded perception of Christianity and of its teachings only shows more with every post you make here. Soon people will know your true goal and discard your posts, like they would the plague.

[Nathyn]

Gus wrote: Nathyn wrote: Gus wrote: Jesus' beliefs were incompatible with any political persuasion. He taught total submission and passiveness with respect to the treatment of others. Political systems that are in accordance with that are all apolitical--that is, they hold no real stance on a government forcing its influence on others. Jesus' teachings were purely individualistic--you tend your own business and let others tend theirs (whatever theirs may be). Jesus was apolitical.
Leo Tolstoy's Christian Anarchism seems relatively right in line with Christianity, in my opinion, based upon the same scripture mentioned in this thread.
Probably, but I hesitate to even give it a title...Jesus just had no opinion on politics and no desire to pursue it. I think it's very safe to say that he was no socialist, though.
In summary: He told people he didn't want to be king, that they should work hard, pay their taxes and obey their governments except with regard to moral and spiritual matters, until eventually all governments would be abolished in favor of some form of utopia.

[Darth Tiberius]

Eynon81 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Darth Tiberius wrote: It's obvious though if you read the bible that Jeus would be very appalled at what the Republicans do and believe.

It is quite easy to see that Y'shua sees the actions of all people as equally appalling.

But you know what? He loves us anyway.

I think you are missing the point.

No. If he could see the political sturctures and actions going on today the conservative movement would be the most abhorant to him.

One thing we can be fairly sure of is that Jesus Christ did not care about political institutions but each individual human soul.

While there may be some God in politics there is no politics in God.

Well the world will only start to be a bit better when there is no god in politics. God belongs in a church or in peoples' beliefs. Not in a government to rule all which includes Christians and non-Christians.

And Jesus would tell his opinions if asked in those days about the Romans.

sure did, he told people to pay their taxes to them and complimented at least one Roman officer on his faith.

Jesus cared for people's souls, not their politics.....

Yes he did but still had opinions on politics I bet.