Are Republican tea party Conservatives True Christians?

reply to post by inforeal


Wait, how do Sarah and Michelle treat the poor? Michelle and her husband have been foster parents for numerous kids.

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by inforeal

 

To be fair, you must include all capitalists, period. You cannot endorse personal property over public welfare and claim to be Christ-like. No matter what justifications a person can come up with, Jesus would not approve of capitalism.

Socialism is division of private property, Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. Different properties altogether.

Since this thread started with the incorrect assumption that republicans are Tea Party or conservatives are republican or christians are conservative or Tea Party. . . . .

The only christian thing to do is to let this thread die the death it deserves.

Amen.

“For every man shall bear his own burden.”
Galatians 6:5

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

Originally posted by Jezus
Philanthropy is cool.

However, it does not excuse politics that allow corporations to take advantage of people,

It does not excuse politics that disenfranchise the most vulnerable.

I would assert that BOTH parties (and I'm talking about the politicians here) contribute to the disenfranchisement of the most vulnerable. I could give many examples from both parties.

I believe that the average American, of EITHER political persuasion, do not want to see corporations take advantage of anyone.

It gets down to a difference of opinion of what is "taking advantage".

Of course they may not consciously recognize the political policies they support lead to the empowerment of corporations over the masses; but this doesn't change the result of their votes.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by inforeal

 

To be fair, you must include all capitalists, period. You cannot endorse personal property over public welfare and claim to be Christ-like. No matter what justifications a person can come up with, Jesus would not approve of capitalism.

Socialism is division of private property, Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. Different properties altogether.

You illustrate a common problem with western thinking. You assume that the only alternative to capitalism is socialism.

Feeding of the Multitudes and Israel in the Wilderness
But scholars also recognize that the story of Jesus’ miracle seems to evoke Exodus traditions, in particular, the episode of God feeding the Israelites in the wilderness with the manna and quail. In his recent monograph, Peter-Ben Smit, explains “. . . the intertextual connections of the feedings and the Exodus traditions are so strong that they should be assumed to be of significance. A narration of a miraculous abundance of bread in a lonely place in the context of a prophetic movement is hard not to associate with the Exodus.” [1] Indeed, the allusion to the manna story in the account of the feeding of the multitudes is widely recognized.[2]

www.freerepublic.com...

But then I wonder if the OP is Christian himself, or just slamming T Party in any way he can conceive of. As generalities go, liberals by far tend to be atheist or agnostic at best, some Buddhist. Some may be genuine humanitarians.

But Jesus said follow me and I will make thee fishers of men.

Then there is Psalms ( and nothing in here about giving away your pie so others can have more, or forced redistribution of wealth)

The Lord is my shepherd,I shall not want;
He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters;
He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for His name's sake.
Even though I walk through the valley
of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil;
for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life;
and I shall dwell in the house of the
Lord forever.
Psalm 23

King James Bible And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing 1 Corinthians 13:3

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by inforeal

 

To be fair, you must include all capitalists, period. You cannot endorse personal property over public welfare and claim to be Christ-like. No matter what justifications a person can come up with, Jesus would not approve of capitalism.

Socialism is division of private property, Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes. Different properties altogether.

You illustrate a common problem with western thinking. You assume that the only alternative to capitalism is socialism.

I never said that and I never assumed it. I only know what the current admin and his cronies are up to.

KJV Matthew 25:14-3014) For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
(15) And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
(16) Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
(17) And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
(18) But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
(19) After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
(20) And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
(21) His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
(22) He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
(23) His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
(24) Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
(25) And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
(26) His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
(27) Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
(28) Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
(29) For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
(30) And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KJV Luke 19:11-27
(11) And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
(12) He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
(13) And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
(14) But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
(15) And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
(16) Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
(17) And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
(18) And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
(19) And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
(20) And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
(21) For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
(22) And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
(23) Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
(24) And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
(25) (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
(26) For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
(27) But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
Bleeding Heart Tightwads

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics Mark Twain?

So...studies show the "Conservatives contribute more to charity than "Liberals"?

How do they define "Conservatives" and "Liberals"? Self defining? Did they lump the moderate or independents in with conservatives?

Other strong possibilities....

Conservatives are more gullible to religious calls for contributions, tele-evangalists etc.
Conservatives give to their Church and while they declare that charitable giving, where that money goes is not clear as there is rampant corruption and fraud in that type of giving. Pastors living large on their congregations money. At best most of the contributions that actually find their way to the genuinely "needy" only do so if the recipient has "Found Jesus"

Other possibility, given conservatives disdain for taxes, it might be possible that conservatives are much more likely to lie on their tax returns or during a survey than Liberals with regards to how much they contributed to "Charity".

Lots of unexplored explanations for these cherry picked stats.



Edit to add from your source...

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes

.

reply to post by inforeal


WOW! So many false generalizations in one title? That has to be a record?

All Tea Partiers are not Republicans. All Tea Party and Republicans are not Christians. "True Christians" are very rare and hard to define, because anyone that accepts Christ as their savior can call themself a Christian, but then again, most Christians are very tolerant of other religions, and Christ says, "No one gets to the Father, but through me." Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to be a moderate, or a tolerant Christian if everyone else is doomed to hell?

My $.02.

I am a Tea Partier, and a Conservative, and a Mason, but not a Christian, and only a sometime-Republican.

When I say "Conservative," I believe that includes a lot of controversial views like Pro-Choice, Pro-Legalization, Pro-Prostitution, Pro-Environment, and overall limiting the size and scope of the Federal Government. Being conservative means being pro-self-responsibility and anti-big government.

I think your title and your OP are entirely bunk!

ETA:
I once had a Christian preacher (whom I love to debate Socratic style) on the hot seat about whether he was willing to condemn all non-Christians to hell. I asked him in a variety of ways, "Is Christ infallible?" "Would Christ lie?" and such. Then I point out that Christ says no one is getting to the father but through him. Then I ask the preacher if he thinks all Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists are going to hell. He says no. Then I ask him how he can justify not believing Christ's word. He says those people all have their own God, but Christ is still his God, and those people will never meet his God...?????? So then I ask him if he believes in multiple Gods and he says no.

So, how can all those other religions have their own Gods, if there are no other Gods, and how can all those other people not be going to a Christian hell? The preacher ran out of time, and had other visits to make. He still stops by once in awhile, and we still debate, but he never has any answers? I just don't get it.