Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Just A Thought I Wanted To Share


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
52 replies to this topic

#46 cantrell

cantrell

    secular progressive bogeyman

  • Joined: 16-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,447
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

Posted 18 April 2012 - 10:13 PM

so pstall what is the true christian stance on things like welfare, foreign policy, and civil rights? i want to know if i've been attacking the real christians or the fake christians when i see them promote their "fug the poor, instigate wars, and ban those filthy gays from receiving equal rights" platform

#47 Captroop

Captroop

    Pronounced, "Cat Poop"

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,106
  • Reputation: 1,769
HUDDLER

Posted 18 April 2012 - 10:35 PM

I think Christianity lost it's way as the religion of the poor long before the Republican Party got to it.

What do you think Jesus would have to say about this? He would have wanted a palace, right?

Posted Image

#48 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,718
  • Reputation: 3,076
HUDDLER

Posted 18 April 2012 - 10:57 PM

so pstall what is the true christian stance on things like welfare, foreign policy, and civil rights? i want to know if i've been attacking the real christians or the fake christians when i see them promote their "fug the poor, instigate wars, and ban those filthy gays from receiving equal rights" platform


i have to answer this? think about it. real ones do a great job in helping the poor, while at the same time trying to teach them to fish. foreign policy is not a real issue. should we be in the places we are at? meh. there are some strategic reasons and some selfish.
Do you really mean giving money to Israel? Or Palenstine? Or the Vatican?

What do you think the odds the fake christians are better at getting on tv and making the real ones look bad as opposed to the other way around?

#49 Chimera

Chimera

    Not Bant

  • Joined: 11-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,977
  • Reputation: 2,853
HUDDLER

Posted 19 April 2012 - 12:21 AM

It just kinda popped in my head, and I didnt know where to post it, so I will put it in it's own thread.

Christians and Republicans. Why do these two groups have such an unholy alliance?



The most important message that Jesus taught was sharing with your neighbor, and helping the poor. He also taught us that we should not use violence, but instead turn the other cheek.

So how did Christians get suckered in almost exclusively with the party that is against helping the poor, and with the party that always wants to increase military spending to make weapons of warfare?


Without even reading the replies yet, I'm gonna ask you something. Is the government the only entity than can help the poor? Is the only "help" available required to come from the government via what's taken out of your paycheck? Check out the incumbent president and the rethuglican front runner. One of them donated 10 times the other's income to charity. Food for thought.

As far as military spending, that is politicians lining their own pockets, regardless of party. And remember the left's mantra of targeting military spending started with Regan. Its not like its something that has been going on for generations.


Just goes to show that religion is just a form of control. The Republicans pander to the religious-right with conservative views like anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage in order to win votes that help the most evil people in the world that run the world banks.


What candidates/politicians/incumbents are "anti-abortion"? By anti-abortion, I assume you're talking about politicians who have attempted to outlaw the practice. Who are you using for an example?
Everyone panders to gay marriage, whether for or against. Obama is against it, but he won't take an official stance because he is pandering for votes.

#50 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,579
  • Reputation: 2,122
HUDDLER

Posted 19 April 2012 - 01:42 AM

civil rights movement.


kidding (mostly,) the white Christian right first mobilized as a bloc for Reagan.


Actually you are right, it was the civil rights movement that cost the Democratic Party the virtual lock they had on the south since the end of the War for Southern Independence. Dixiecrats were pissed at Johnson and Kennedy for breaking down apartheid in the south. Nixon and his advisor's created the "Southern Strategy" to attract disaffected democrats that prior to civil rights would have never considered voting for the party of Lincoln.

Ralph Reed and the Moral Majority just took the Republican strategy to the next level (Evangelicals) when Reagan came along.

As the "Greatest Generation" started to fade (last dyed-in-the-wool southern demos) and the "Baby Boomers" rose to prominance the reversal of fortune was completed and today the Southern Republican party attracts individuals that would have traditionally been associated with the Dixicrats.

Trying to attract more minorities to the party, RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in 2005.

#51 cantrell

cantrell

    secular progressive bogeyman

  • Joined: 16-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,447
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:25 AM

i have to answer this? think about it. real ones do a great job in helping the poor, while at the same time trying to teach them to fish. foreign policy is not a real issue. should we be in the places we are at? meh. there are some strategic reasons and some selfish.
Do you really mean giving money to Israel? Or Palenstine? Or the Vatican?

What do you think the odds the fake christians are better at getting on tv and making the real ones look bad as opposed to the other way around?


great job helping the poor while at the same time teaching them how to fish? so you support a strong social safety net? or are you going to split hairs there too?

foreign policy isn't an issue? then maybe voters should check their fuging religious beliefs at the door before going out to vote for the next dipshit who thinks that we have any business fighting a war against iran or propping up countries who commit war crimes on a daily basis

What do you think the odds the fake christians are better at getting on tv and making the real ones look bad as opposed to the other way around?


who are voting for these fake christians? maybe the real christians should stop voting for fake christians to represent them. or........maybe we can just skip this no true scotsman bullshit and understand that christianity is interpreted differently by pretty much everyone. the only christians i'm concerned with are the ones that are being voted into office to represent their constituents as they continue to deny equal rights to homosexuals, swear their undying allegiance to israel, tell foreign dignitaries that god has instructed them to invade the middle east, and generally do everything they can to funnel more and more money into their own, and the 1%'s, pockets.

#52 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • Joined: 09-November 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,579
  • Reputation: 2,122
HUDDLER

Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:25 AM

I'm convinced most voters don't spend as much time researching the issues as they do pulling a lever in the voting booth.

Wrap yourself in Old Glory, carry the Holy Bible, and you are a shoe-in against anyone that doesn't wear religion on their sleeve.

Ronald Reagan (gun control/raised taxes/compromised) and George Bush Sr.(raised taxes/compromised) would never cut it in today's Republican Party. Both would be considered RINOs.

#53 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,023
  • Reputation: 441
HUDDLER

Posted 19 April 2012 - 08:59 AM

Actually you are right, it was the civil rights movement that cost the Democratic Party the virtual lock they had on the south since the end of the War for Southern Independence. Dixiecrats were pissed at Johnson and Kennedy for breaking down apartheid in the south. Nixon and his advisor's created the "Southern Strategy" to attract disaffected democrats that prior to civil rights would have never considered voting for the party of Lincoln.

Ralph Reed and the Moral Majority just took the Republican strategy to the next level (Evangelicals) when Reagan came along.

As the "Greatest Generation" started to fade (last dyed-in-the-wool southern demos) and the "Baby Boomers" rose to prominance the reversal of fortune was completed and today the Southern Republican party attracts individuals that would have traditionally been associated with the Dixicrats.

Trying to attract more minorities to the party, RNC Chairman, Ken Mehlman apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in 2005.


yea, that was more the cause of the situation. Plus, that was an argument that I didn't feel like having.

high-five though.