the Biblical Basis for Socialism Is Undeniable, my friends

[Andylusion]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

First, off you are not helping the poor. You never see a Democrat demand to raise taxes on themselves. Are you saying that you voted for a Democrat that promised to raise YOUR taxes? Of course not. Democrats only promise to make OTHER PEOPLE pay for the programs you want, not you.

Because you are selfish, and greedy. You want other people to pay for it. Not you. Haven't seen a Democrat yet on this forum, or anywhere, that said 'yeah I'm middle class, and I demand Democrats raise taxes on the middle class to help the poor'. Never happened.

Further, the number of people that move out of poverty, while on government assistance, is barely quantifiable, it is so low. Those programs that you demand others pay for, don't even help.

And the reason is pretty clear for those who have worked with such people, as I have.

People on government assistance, and are not working, tend to not move up the income ladder, because..... they are not working.

Number one, top factor in you moving out of poverty, is working. I know a lady that worked at Walmart for 4 years. She used the Walmart tuition reimbursement program to get a degree, and now she works as a civil engineer.

If she had sat at home on Welfare, and government assistance, she never would have qualified for the tuition reimbursement, nor gotten a better job.

When employers look for someone to promote, they look at work history, and If you have only been with the company for 6 months, and before that were on government assistance, you are not getting promoted.

They have researched this dozens of times, and found the same pattern. This happened with Bush and the Democrats in 2008, pushing the 99-weeks of unemployment comp. People who came off unemployment compensation after 99 weeks, found they couldn't get jobs earning the same wages they had before, even though they had years and years of experience.

And the reason is pretty clear. Yeah they had years of experience before, but for the last 3 years they were unemployed. Why they going to start someone off with a high wage, that spent the last 3 years being a couch potato?

Have you ever hired someone who hasn't worked a job in several years? I have. They suck. Terrible employees.

Your number one income factor in moving up in society, is getting your butt to work. Every month you waste not working, is a month longer you will have to spend working your way up, once you start working. And if you go back on government assistance, you start all over at the bottom of the ladder.

This is why people have been on welfare and food stamps, sometimes their entire lives. They never move out of poverty.

That's your idea of help?

Let me tell you about Lutheran Ministries here in Columbus Ohio. People are given free meals, clothing, a place to stay. But it doesn't just end there. They are giving job training. Education. Job placement. Work-study programs. Job placement. Housing assistance. Help them find a place to live, once they have a job. More than half of the people that go through their program, end up productive members of society, and start providing for themselves.

Now some refuse. And we kick those people out. Because why should we waste the money and charity of others on people who can work, but refuse to improve their lives? Better to those people moved out, and replaced with people we can help.

At this point, millions of people have been through the program. Democrats, and their social programs, don't even have a fraction of that kind of track record. Their programs harm people. Our programs, Christian Republican programs, help people.

Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Ridiculous. Just ridiculous. My church has people from Iran, people from Mexico, people from Korea, from Japan, and so on.

I guess none of those people realized they were oppressed. Funny how that happens.

By the way, if that were even remotely true, then it is rather amazing how many millions of people come to this country every single year, so that they can be oppressed. Such a dumb comment from ignorant lying people.

 

[Andylusion]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

Conservatives have used Christianity to oppose freeing the slaves, letting women vote, gays getting married, and anything to do with trans people. So yes, Conservatives only invoke Christianity in order to oppress minorities.

And no, Republicans oppose every policy to help the poor. You would call Jesus a dirty brown Socialist if he lived today.

Really? Conservatives like Billy Graham? He supported slavery? Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, whose father was president of a theological seminary?

Without Conservative Christianity, slavery would still be the law of the land today. Only the most ignorant would deny that. I don't know who taught you such ignorant stupidity, but you need to ask for your money back, because they robbed you. Go read about conservative Christian William Wilberforce.

Educate yourself.

Yes, gays can't get married. That's Biblical. But that isn't oppression.

Sorry, but it isn't. I realize you likely will never agree to the facts, but sorry, you are wrong. The idea that Jews being slaughtered in Germany, Slaves being stripped naked, packed into ship, and dragged around the world, and made to work in horrible conditions, that being gassed by Assad in Syria.....

For you to even attempt to suggest that those examples of real oppression is even remotely comparable to a couple of Gays that are denied a Pizza catered wedding, or wedding cake....... really? Really? In Syria they found bits of what was left of their 5 year old daughter.... and you are denied a wedding cake by one single Christian run bakery..... both of those are "oppression" in your world?

Assad dropped a shrapnel barrel bomb on a pre-school in Syria.... that is oppression.
Me refusing to bake you a cake, because I have a religious view that says I should not be part of a gay wedding.... that is not oppression. If you think that is, then you are woefully ignorant of what oppression is.

Being gay is a sin. If you don't want to be a Christian, that's fine. Don't come to our church. Free country, you can do what you want.

But you don't get to demand I provide services for your gay stuff. If anything, that is oppression against me. You are the one oppressing, not me. I'm not making demands on you, am I? No. You are making demands on me. Well, tough. Not happening.

 

[Andylusion]

Socialism is not government welfare or community volunteer welfare programs.
Socialism is when government confiscates private companies, private property, and entire industries...in essence government runs the economy. This is what happened in Cuba and Venezuela. Like when Maduro says go seize that General Motors plant, yes boss. Chavez had a TV show where he would walk around with his minions and say expropriate this, and that.

LOLOL.. No one is going to confiscate or nationalize US companies. You are scaring yourself based on an hysterical lie.

They have openly said that's what they want to do. Are you just completely ignorant of what your own side has openly said?



"And guess what this liberal will be about! This liberal will be about socializing...... will be about... basically... taking over, and the government running all of your companies." Maxine Waters Democrat, proud liberal and socialist.

Bernie Sanders said as much as well.

Bernie Sanders in the 1970s urged nationalization of most major industries | CNN Politics

Bernie Sanders advocated for the nationalization of most major industries, including energy companies, factories, and banks, when he was a leading member of a self-described "radical political party" in the 1970s, a CNN KFile review of his record reveals.

www.cnn.com

“I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries,” Sanders said in one interview with the Burlington Free Press in 1976.

Need something more recent?

“Give them the Amtrak treatment”: Growing calls for widespread nationalization

We’ve been tracking how elected officials, organizers, activists, and policymakers have brought the potential of broad public ownership to combat the unfolding social, economic, and ecological crises into the center of the conversation.

thenextsystem.org

Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in the United States, calls for nationalization of various industries—from the airlines and Big Pharma to the energy grid, hospitals, and entire supply chains—have erupted from even the unlikeliest proponents.​

​

We’ve been tracking how, in just the last few weeks, elected officials, organizers, activists, and policymakers have brought the potential of broad public ownership to combat the unfolding social, economic, and ecological crises into the center of the conversation.​

I don't know what rock you have been living under, but this is widely known.

 

[Andylusion]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

 

[there4eyeM]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

"A", you state your case lucidly and well. Your arguments need to be heard, but hearing doesn't seem to go on very much in current American political dialog. It is almost all shouting and cliché exchange.
We share many similar thoughts and observations, though not all. "Left" and "right" in our culture don't function as meaningful terms anymore, thanks to distortion form all sides. The entire dictionary is nearly obsolete. My positions are mine and what labels people place on them are of no interest to me. "What works?" is what is important to me. This goes with the willingness to try something and the flexibility to change if the results are not what are desired. Overall, attaching to an "ism" looks to be much too limiting and often leads to dreadful excesses. "Eclecticism" is about the only one I could class as acceptable.
The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions, but that is not the "Communism" we saw in the 20th century and certainly no endorsement of it. In a basic manner, families are communal, in that those who can (the parents) work and those who need help (the children) receive help until they, too, can contribute. That's fine. Parenting should be a lifting up process ('raising' children). Society can take a lesson from that and help 'raise' the lesser enabled to a point at least closer to self sufficiency. Calling that "Socialism" is a great way to sabotage what could be progress. At the same time, simple "aid" that only keeps the dependent dependent serves malevolent interests, not human ones.
There is too much fascination with formulaic, simplistic, one-size-fits-all, doctrinarian, polarized approaches. This duality is illusion and will not take us to the best destination, and may easily bring us to the end.

 

[Andylusion]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

"A", you state your case lucidly and well. Your arguments need to be heard, but hearing doesn't seem to go on very much in current American political dialog. It is almost all shouting and cliché exchange.
We share many similar thoughts and observations, though not all. "Left" and "right" in our culture don't function as meaningful terms anymore, thanks to distortion form all sides. The entire dictionary is nearly obsolete. My positions are mine and what labels people place on them are of no interest to me. "What works?" is what is important to me. This goes with the willingness to try something and the flexibility to change if the results are not what are desired. Overall, attaching to an "ism" looks to be much too limiting and often leads to dreadful excesses. "Eclecticism" is about the only one I could class as acceptable.
The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions, but that is not the "Communism" we saw in the 20th century and certainly no endorsement of it. In a basic manner, families are communal, in that those who can (the parents) work and those who need help (the children) receive help until they, too, can contribute. That's fine. Parenting should be a lifting up process ('raising' children). Society can take a lesson from that and help 'raise' the lesser enabled to a point at least closer to self sufficiency. Calling that "Socialism" is a great way to sabotage what could be progress. At the same time, simple "aid" that only keeps the dependent dependent serves malevolent interests, not human ones.
There is too much fascination with formulaic, simplistic, one-size-fits-all, doctrinarian, polarized approaches. This duality is illusion and will not take us to the best destination, and may easily bring us to the end.

The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions

Even that claim itself, is very suspect. One community of one early church, was communistic.

And that example, didn't last very long.

The book of Acts says a lot of things that happened, not necessarily that those were how things were supposed to be.

Yes in Acts 4:32, the believers in Jerusalem shared all things in common.

But that didn't last. That's why later on, they were asking for gifts of support for the Believers in Jerusalem. Why would they need support, if they shared all things in common? Because socialist systems eventually run out of other people's money.

This is what eventually led the Apostles to tell the believers that if you don't work, you don't eat.

Because naturally in any socialist system, you end up having people refusing to work. It's unavoidable. And also just as naturally, you end up with people pointing fingers to find someone to blame for why their socialist system isn't working.

I'm convinced, but freely admit this is opinion, that the reason why Paul had to write letters defending himself, saying that he never had taken advantage of the people in those communal systems, is because when it all fell apart, they started saying Paul had taken advantage of the situation.

I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have ministered to my own needs and those of my companions.​

Acts 20:33

Why did Paul need to defend himself? I'm guessing because when the communal system went broke, people started finding someone to blame.

This is just like every socialist system in the world, where Hugo Chavez is saying the reason there is no rice, or bread, is because the evil Capitalists in American magically made rice farmers in Venezuela, decide not to farm.

So the facts stated in the Bible, actually show that socialism doesn't work, even in the example of the Early Church.

 

[surada]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

"A", you state your case lucidly and well. Your arguments need to be heard, but hearing doesn't seem to go on very much in current American political dialog. It is almost all shouting and cliché exchange.
We share many similar thoughts and observations, though not all. "Left" and "right" in our culture don't function as meaningful terms anymore, thanks to distortion form all sides. The entire dictionary is nearly obsolete. My positions are mine and what labels people place on them are of no interest to me. "What works?" is what is important to me. This goes with the willingness to try something and the flexibility to change if the results are not what are desired. Overall, attaching to an "ism" looks to be much too limiting and often leads to dreadful excesses. "Eclecticism" is about the only one I could class as acceptable.
The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions, but that is not the "Communism" we saw in the 20th century and certainly no endorsement of it. In a basic manner, families are communal, in that those who can (the parents) work and those who need help (the children) receive help until they, too, can contribute. That's fine. Parenting should be a lifting up process ('raising' children). Society can take a lesson from that and help 'raise' the lesser enabled to a point at least closer to self sufficiency. Calling that "Socialism" is a great way to sabotage what could be progress. At the same time, simple "aid" that only keeps the dependent dependent serves malevolent interests, not human ones.
There is too much fascination with formulaic, simplistic, one-size-fits-all, doctrinarian, polarized approaches. This duality is illusion and will not take us to the best destination, and may easily bring us to the end.

The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions

Even that claim itself, is very suspect. One community of one early church, was communistic.

And that example, didn't last very long.

The book of Acts says a lot of things that happened, not necessarily that those were how things were supposed to be.

Yes in Acts 4:32, the believers in Jerusalem shared all things in common.

But that didn't last. That's why later on, they were asking for gifts of support for the Believers in Jerusalem. Why would they need support, if they shared all things in common? Because socialist systems eventually run out of other people's money.

This is what eventually led the Apostles to tell the believers that if you don't work, you don't eat.

Because naturally in any socialist system, you end up having people refusing to work. It's unavoidable. And also just as naturally, you end up with people pointing fingers to find someone to blame for why their socialist system isn't working.

I'm convinced, but freely admit this is opinion, that the reason why Paul had to write letters defending himself, saying that he never had taken advantage of the people in those communal systems, is because when it all fell apart, they started saying Paul had taken advantage of the situation.

I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have ministered to my own needs and those of my companions.​

Acts 20:33

Why did Paul need to defend himself? I'm guessing because when the communal system went broke, people started finding someone to blame.

This is just like every socialist system in the world, where Hugo Chavez is saying the reason there is no rice, or bread, is because the evil Capitalists in American magically made rice farmers in Venezuela, decide not to farm.

So the facts stated in the Bible, actually show that socialism doesn't work, even in the example of the Early Church.

Acts 4:32, the believers in Jerusalem shared all things in common.

KJV

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Who would have ever thought that focused on Communism.. I certainly never did.. nor did any Sunday School teacher I ever had.

People binding together for the common good doesn't seem like socialism to me.. Think common defense or barn raising.. There must be other examples of people living in society or community.

 

[surada]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

"A", you state your case lucidly and well. Your arguments need to be heard, but hearing doesn't seem to go on very much in current American political dialog. It is almost all shouting and cliché exchange.
We share many similar thoughts and observations, though not all. "Left" and "right" in our culture don't function as meaningful terms anymore, thanks to distortion form all sides. The entire dictionary is nearly obsolete. My positions are mine and what labels people place on them are of no interest to me. "What works?" is what is important to me. This goes with the willingness to try something and the flexibility to change if the results are not what are desired. Overall, attaching to an "ism" looks to be much too limiting and often leads to dreadful excesses. "Eclecticism" is about the only one I could class as acceptable.
The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions, but that is not the "Communism" we saw in the 20th century and certainly no endorsement of it. In a basic manner, families are communal, in that those who can (the parents) work and those who need help (the children) receive help until they, too, can contribute. That's fine. Parenting should be a lifting up process ('raising' children). Society can take a lesson from that and help 'raise' the lesser enabled to a point at least closer to self sufficiency.

Calling that "Socialism" is a great way to sabotage what could be progress. At the same time, simple "aid" that only keeps the dependent dependent serves malevolent interests, not human ones.
There is too much fascination with formulaic, simplistic, one-size-fits-all, doctrinarian, polarized approaches. This duality is illusion and will not take us to the best destination, and may easily bring us to the end.

Good post..

Families are communal and depend on each other.. extended families live that social contract.. Conflating that with socialism seems like a stretch to me. Would you imagine that a small church congregation would help each other without being called communists??

 

[surada]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

Trump set up concern about his relationship with Putin because of the obsequious letters Trump wrote Putin in the 1980s and because he chose Putin over all US intelligence agencies in Helsinki.

Kavanaugh was accused by his female classmates.

 

[badbob85037]

As i began to read Marx and Engels, it reminded me of the biblical messages i grew up with

By then, I had spent several years realizing that things were not right in our society. And now I saw there were other ways to organize an economy that reward people for their work and enable them to sustain themselves. Capitalism was doing that for some, but it was leaving a whole bunch of other people to suffer and die. And I learned that these class issues could not be divorced from race and gender

I think you should read the book again.

 

[surada]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

Conservatives have used Christianity to oppose freeing the slaves, letting women vote, gays getting married, and anything to do with trans people. So yes, Conservatives only invoke Christianity in order to oppress minorities.

And no, Republicans oppose every policy to help the poor. You would call Jesus a dirty brown Socialist if he lived today.

Really? Conservatives like Billy Graham? He supported slavery? Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, whose father was president of a theological seminary?

Without Conservative Christianity, slavery would still be the law of the land today. Only the most ignorant would deny that. I don't know who taught you such ignorant stupidity, but you need to ask for your money back, because they robbed you. Go read about conservative Christian William Wilberforce.

Educate yourself.

Yes, gays can't get married. That's Biblical. But that isn't oppression.

Sorry, but it isn't. I realize you likely will never agree to the facts, but sorry, you are wrong. The idea that Jews being slaughtered in Germany, Slaves being stripped naked, packed into ship, and dragged around the world, and made to work in horrible conditions, that being gassed by Assad in Syria.....

For you to even attempt to suggest that those examples of real oppression is even remotely comparable to a couple of Gays that are denied a Pizza catered wedding, or wedding cake....... really? Really? In Syria they found bits of what was left of their 5 year old daughter.... and you are denied a wedding cake by one single Christian run bakery..... both of those are "oppression" in your world?

Assad dropped a shrapnel barrel bomb on a pre-school in Syria.... that is oppression.
Me refusing to bake you a cake, because I have a religious view that says I should not be part of a gay wedding.... that is not oppression. If you think that is, then you are woefully ignorant of what oppression is.

Being gay is a sin. If you don't want to be a Christian, that's fine. Don't come to our church. Free country, you can do what you want.

But you don't get to demand I provide services for your gay stuff. If anything, that is oppression against me. You are the one oppressing, not me. I'm not making demands on you, am I? No. You are making demands on me. Well, tough. Not happening.

You think the Abolitionists were Conservatives? What a novel idea. Most Christians accepted that black people were the inferior descendants of Ham and destined for slavery.

Abolitionist Movement - Definition & Famous Abolitionists ...

Abolitionist Movement - Definition & Famous Abolitionists | HISTORY

The abolitionist movement was the effort to end slavery, led by famous abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and John Brown.

www.history.com

Nov 29, 2019 · The abolitionist movement was the effort to end slavery, led by famous abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and John Brown.

 

[Andylusion]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

Trump set up concern about his relationship with Putin because of the obsequious letters Trump wrote Putin in the 1980s and because he chose Putin over all US intelligence agencies in Helsinki.

Kavanaugh was accused by his female classmates.

Which was clearly all lies. There was no evidence of Trump being a puppet of Putin, regardless of letters in the 1980s, nor was there any evidence of Kavanough, regardless of accusations.

And the Democrats admitted this, when similar accusations were made against Biden, and they all dismissed them because there wasn't evidence.

Bottom line is, they lied and slandered people for the last 10 years, even before Trump was in office.

Can't complain about others, when you yourself (or in this case your group) is doing exactly what you claim others are doing.

 

[surada]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

Trump set up concern about his relationship with Putin because of the obsequious letters Trump wrote Putin in the 1980s and because he chose Putin over all US intelligence agencies in Helsinki.

Kavanaugh was accused by his female classmates.

Which was clearly all lies. There was no evidence of Trump being a puppet of Putin, regardless of letters in the 1980s, nor was there any evidence of Kavanough, regardless of accusations.

And the Democrats admitted this, when similar accusations were made against Biden, and they all dismissed them because there wasn't evidence.

Bottom line is, they lied and slandered people for the last 10 years, even before Trump was in office.

Can't complain about others, when you yourself (or in this case your group) is doing exactly what you claim others are doing.

I admit that politics is dirty, but persistent vicious lies and undermining elections seems extreme to me. Trump is so obviously impressed with Putin and seeking Putin's approval and friendship that I don't see how you can possibly deny that.

 

[Andylusion]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

Conservatives have used Christianity to oppose freeing the slaves, letting women vote, gays getting married, and anything to do with trans people. So yes, Conservatives only invoke Christianity in order to oppress minorities.

And no, Republicans oppose every policy to help the poor. You would call Jesus a dirty brown Socialist if he lived today.

Really? Conservatives like Billy Graham? He supported slavery? Harriet Beecher Stowe who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, whose father was president of a theological seminary?

Without Conservative Christianity, slavery would still be the law of the land today. Only the most ignorant would deny that. I don't know who taught you such ignorant stupidity, but you need to ask for your money back, because they robbed you. Go read about conservative Christian William Wilberforce.

Educate yourself.

Yes, gays can't get married. That's Biblical. But that isn't oppression.

Sorry, but it isn't. I realize you likely will never agree to the facts, but sorry, you are wrong. The idea that Jews being slaughtered in Germany, Slaves being stripped naked, packed into ship, and dragged around the world, and made to work in horrible conditions, that being gassed by Assad in Syria.....

For you to even attempt to suggest that those examples of real oppression is even remotely comparable to a couple of Gays that are denied a Pizza catered wedding, or wedding cake....... really? Really? In Syria they found bits of what was left of their 5 year old daughter.... and you are denied a wedding cake by one single Christian run bakery..... both of those are "oppression" in your world?

Assad dropped a shrapnel barrel bomb on a pre-school in Syria.... that is oppression.
Me refusing to bake you a cake, because I have a religious view that says I should not be part of a gay wedding.... that is not oppression. If you think that is, then you are woefully ignorant of what oppression is.

Being gay is a sin. If you don't want to be a Christian, that's fine. Don't come to our church. Free country, you can do what you want.

But you don't get to demand I provide services for your gay stuff. If anything, that is oppression against me. You are the one oppressing, not me. I'm not making demands on you, am I? No. You are making demands on me. Well, tough. Not happening.

You think the Abolitionists were Conservatives? What a novel idea. Most Christians accepted that black people were the inferior descendants of Ham and destined for slavery.

Abolitionist Movement - Definition & Famous Abolitionists ...

Abolitionist Movement - Definition & Famous Abolitionists | HISTORY

The abolitionist movement was the effort to end slavery, led by famous abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and John Brown.

www.history.com

Nov 29, 2019 · The abolitionist movement was the effort to end slavery, led by famous abolitionists like Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and John Brown.

Yes, they were Conservative Christians. Harriet Tubman was a Methodist. Methodists to this day, are one of the more conservative Christian sects in the US. Frederick Douglass was also a Methodist, and was famous for teaching his fellow slaves how to read the New Testament.

Around the world, most all the anti-slavery movement was based on Christian doctrine and values, unlike Islam which still has slavery even to this very day.

If you doubt that, then you are just not looking at the facts. Take for example, one of the most famouse Christian Christmas songs of all time:

O, Holy Night:

O, holy night
The stars are brightly shining
It is the night
Of the dear Savior's birth
Long lay the world
In sin and error pining
Till He appeared
And the soul felt its worth
A thrill of hope
The weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks
A new and glorious morn
Fall on your knees
Oh, hear the angel voices
O, night divine
The night when Christ was born
Truly He taught
Us to love one another
His law is love
And His gospel is peace
Chains, He shall break
For the slave is our brother
And in His name
All oppression shall cease
Sweet hymns of joy
In grateful raise we
With all our hearts
We praise His holy name
Christ is the Lord
And we shall ever praise Him
His power and glory
Ever more proclaim
O, night divine
The night when Christ was born
Fall on your knees
O, hear the angel voices
O, night divine
The night when Christ was born

A song written by a Christian minister, that was song throughout the abolitionist movement.

You can keep denying historical truth, but that the facts really don't care about your opinion. Without Christianity, slavery would still be the standard to this day.

 

[Andylusion]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

Trump set up concern about his relationship with Putin because of the obsequious letters Trump wrote Putin in the 1980s and because he chose Putin over all US intelligence agencies in Helsinki.

Kavanaugh was accused by his female classmates.

Which was clearly all lies. There was no evidence of Trump being a puppet of Putin, regardless of letters in the 1980s, nor was there any evidence of Kavanough, regardless of accusations.

And the Democrats admitted this, when similar accusations were made against Biden, and they all dismissed them because there wasn't evidence.

Bottom line is, they lied and slandered people for the last 10 years, even before Trump was in office.

Can't complain about others, when you yourself (or in this case your group) is doing exactly what you claim others are doing.

I admit that politics is dirty, but persistent vicious lies and undermining elections seems extreme to me. Trump is so obviously impressed with Putin and seeking Putin's approval and friendship that I don't see how you can possibly deny that.

You mean like how the sanctions levied against Russia were tougher than those by Obama? And unlike Obama and Biden, aid to support Ukraine against Russian insurgents wasn't based on whether or not they stopped investigating a company Biden's son was getting millions from?

If Trump was doing everything in his power, to get Putin's approval, he certainly had an economically destructive way of doing that.

Obama tells Russia he will have ‘more flexibility’ after election

In a conversation picked up by live microphones, President Obama privately asked for “space” to deal with missile defense.

thehill.com

​

"Yeah. I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you,” Medvedev said.​

​

"This is my last election,” Obama said. “After my election, I have more flexibility."​

​

"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev, who will hand the Russian presidency over to Vladimir Putin in May.​

It's funny how when Obama openly says he'll be able to have flexibility in pushing our European allies to give Russia space.... that this is somehow NOT seeking approval from Russia. And what did we get from giving Russia space? They confiscated crimea, and engaged in open war with Ukraine.

But when Trump levies massive sanctions against Russia that completely wreck their economy, that's seeking approval?

Again, you seem to have opinions that do not even attempt to consider the facts.

 

[surada]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

Trump set up concern about his relationship with Putin because of the obsequious letters Trump wrote Putin in the 1980s and because he chose Putin over all US intelligence agencies in Helsinki.

Kavanaugh was accused by his female classmates.

Which was clearly all lies. There was no evidence of Trump being a puppet of Putin, regardless of letters in the 1980s, nor was there any evidence of Kavanough, regardless of accusations.

And the Democrats admitted this, when similar accusations were made against Biden, and they all dismissed them because there wasn't evidence.

Bottom line is, they lied and slandered people for the last 10 years, even before Trump was in office.

Can't complain about others, when you yourself (or in this case your group) is doing exactly what you claim others are doing.

I admit that politics is dirty, but persistent vicious lies and undermining elections seems extreme to me. Trump is so obviously impressed with Putin and seeking Putin's approval and friendship that I don't see how you can possibly deny that.

You mean like how the sanctions levied against Russia were tougher than those by Obama? And unlike Obama and Biden, aid to support Ukraine against Russian insurgents wasn't based on whether or not they stopped investigating a company Biden's son was getting millions from?

If Trump was doing everything in his power, to get Putin's approval, he certainly had an economically destructive way of doing that.

Obama tells Russia he will have ‘more flexibility’ after election

In a conversation picked up by live microphones, President Obama privately asked for “space” to deal with missile defense.

thehill.com

​

"Yeah. I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you,” Medvedev said.​

​

"This is my last election,” Obama said. “After my election, I have more flexibility."​

​

"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev, who will hand the Russian presidency over to Vladimir Putin in May.​

It's funny how when Obama openly says he'll be able to have flexibility in pushing our European allies to give Russia space.... that this is somehow NOT seeking approval from Russia. And what did we get from giving Russia space? They confiscated crimea, and engaged in open war with Ukraine.

But when Trump levies massive sanctions against Russia that completely wreck their economy, that's seeking approval?

Again, you seem to have opinions that do not even attempt to consider the facts.

Our relationship with Russia went South AFTER Obama was elected. Remember Putin's charm offensive back when Bush was in office? Bush liked Putin at first. Same thing happened with Obama. Trump didn't hurt Russia's economy.. Russia's hacking has continued unabated. Remember when Obama threw 30 Russians out of the country and shut down their compounds? Trump's siding with Putin over US intelligence in Helsinki was outrageous..

Watch this.. I think it will help you understand Putin.

Putin's Way | Watch S2015 E5 | FRONTLINE | PBS | Official Site

Putin's Way | FRONTLINE

Watch FRONTLINE's documentary investigating Vladimir Putin's rise and accusations of criminality and corruption that have surrounded his reign in Russia.

www.pbs.org

Vladimir Putin has called income inequality "absolutely unacceptable," but in Russia just 111 people control nearly 20 percent of all wealth. ... Educational DVDs of Putin's Way are available from ...

 

[Andylusion]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

Trump set up concern about his relationship with Putin because of the obsequious letters Trump wrote Putin in the 1980s and because he chose Putin over all US intelligence agencies in Helsinki.

Kavanaugh was accused by his female classmates.

Which was clearly all lies. There was no evidence of Trump being a puppet of Putin, regardless of letters in the 1980s, nor was there any evidence of Kavanough, regardless of accusations.

And the Democrats admitted this, when similar accusations were made against Biden, and they all dismissed them because there wasn't evidence.

Bottom line is, they lied and slandered people for the last 10 years, even before Trump was in office.

Can't complain about others, when you yourself (or in this case your group) is doing exactly what you claim others are doing.

I admit that politics is dirty, but persistent vicious lies and undermining elections seems extreme to me. Trump is so obviously impressed with Putin and seeking Putin's approval and friendship that I don't see how you can possibly deny that.

You mean like how the sanctions levied against Russia were tougher than those by Obama? And unlike Obama and Biden, aid to support Ukraine against Russian insurgents wasn't based on whether or not they stopped investigating a company Biden's son was getting millions from?

If Trump was doing everything in his power, to get Putin's approval, he certainly had an economically destructive way of doing that.

Obama tells Russia he will have ‘more flexibility’ after election

In a conversation picked up by live microphones, President Obama privately asked for “space” to deal with missile defense.

thehill.com

​

"Yeah. I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you,” Medvedev said.​

​

"This is my last election,” Obama said. “After my election, I have more flexibility."​

​

"I will transmit this information to Vladimir," said Medvedev, who will hand the Russian presidency over to Vladimir Putin in May.​

It's funny how when Obama openly says he'll be able to have flexibility in pushing our European allies to give Russia space.... that this is somehow NOT seeking approval from Russia. And what did we get from giving Russia space? They confiscated crimea, and engaged in open war with Ukraine.

But when Trump levies massive sanctions against Russia that completely wreck their economy, that's seeking approval?

Again, you seem to have opinions that do not even attempt to consider the facts.

Our relationship with Russia went South AFTER Obama was elected. Remember Putin's charm offensive back when Bush was in office? Bush liked Putin at first. Same thing happened with Obama. Trump didn't hurt Russia's economy.. Russia's hacking has continued unabated. Remember when Obama threw 30 Russians out of the country and shut down their compounds? Trump's siding with Putin over US intelligence in Helsinki was outrageous..

Watch this.. I think it will help you understand Putin.

Putin's Way | Watch S2015 E5 | FRONTLINE | PBS | Official Site

Putin's Way | FRONTLINE

Watch FRONTLINE's documentary investigating Vladimir Putin's rise and accusations of criminality and corruption that have surrounded his reign in Russia.

www.pbs.org

View attachment 445150
Vladimir Putin has called income inequality "absolutely unacceptable," but in Russia just 111 people control nearly 20 percent of all wealth. ... Educational DVDs of Putin's Way are available from ...

Mitt Romney in the 2012 election, was asked what the biggest geo-political threat to the US was, and said openly it was Russia. For that answer, he was openly mocked by the left-wing, and Obama directly saying the 1980s called, and want their foreign policy back.

The reason the Syrian civil war is going on now, even after using chemical weapons on their own people, is specifically because Obama openly and intentionally backed off, to allow Russian direct support of Assad in Syria.

Syria crisis: Obama welcomes Russia's chemical weapons proposal

Russia's suggestion for Syria to place weapons under international control made after apparent stumble by John Kerry

www.theguardian.com

Obama welcomed Russian involvement in Syria. Brilliant move.

People knew back then, that it was Russia, that's why Romney said Russia was the biggest threat. Yes, Bush thought Putin could be an ally, because the end of the 1990s saw Russian socialism implode and cease to exist. Everyone had hoped the Russians would see their error, and move forward to a better non-violent, non-expanionist future.

Everyone wanted to believe that the cold war was over, Soviets were gone, peace in our time like Chamberlain.

Bush gave Putin the benefit of the doubt, and had warm relationship. But it quickly turned out that Putin was power hungry, and that Russia wanted to return to the "days of glory under Soviet power", rather than an ally.

Obama bumbled around so badly, that one person said it was like watching two people playing against each other, one playing Checkers, and the other playing Chess. Putin made Obama look incompetent, even while everyone sang his praises.

Regardless, the fact is Trump was far more harsh against Russia than Obama, by a very wide margin. Nothing else you might complain about, changes that fact.

 

[BreezeWood]

Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?

That's not what Socialism is. Stop watching Fox.

Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.

.

Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.

.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success at least socialism has the correct objective irregardless how it is accomplished where full employment is antithetical to capitalism - the harbinger for christianity.

Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

Which again is why every single socialist system eventually results in force and violence. This is why Stalin had his gulags, Mao had his communes, North Korea has their forced labor, and so on.

Yes, any economic system can achieve full employment using violence and ruthless force.

To that end, yes full employment is antithetical to capitalism where people are free to make their own choices, and thus, they can choose to live on the streets, or choose to live on welfare if you are dumb enough to give that to them, or live on their own saved income as I am doing right now.

Full employment is a garbage goal. Freedom should be the goal, and Capitalism and Christianity both are completely in line with people being free to choose their own life.

.

doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success

Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

.
an extract, derived from the classical criteria for full employment -
.
Thus the problem of full employment is one of maintaining adequate effective demand. “When effective demand is deficient,” writes Keynes, “there is underemployment of labour in the sense that there are men unemployed who would be willing to work at less than existing real wage.
.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment - the snippet above is an example of the many deviousness's of capitalism in regards for those that do seek employment.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries as a means of suppression for the personal gain of a few in the many facets of economic models and like yours have been endorsed by christianity throughout the centuries -

as devious as the quote in the christian bible.

the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end.

.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries ...

the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end

.
the run-away christian ...
.

.
nothing new there. the economist is keynes.

 

[Andylusion]

Where did Jesus or other biblical figures preach to redistribute wealth through the force of government?

That's not what Socialism is. Stop watching Fox.

Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.

.

Then tell us us exactly what socialism is.

.
doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success at least socialism has the correct objective irregardless how it is accomplished where full employment is antithetical to capitalism - the harbinger for christianity.

Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

Which again is why every single socialist system eventually results in force and violence. This is why Stalin had his gulags, Mao had his communes, North Korea has their forced labor, and so on.

Yes, any economic system can achieve full employment using violence and ruthless force.

To that end, yes full employment is antithetical to capitalism where people are free to make their own choices, and thus, they can choose to live on the streets, or choose to live on welfare if you are dumb enough to give that to them, or live on their own saved income as I am doing right now.

Full employment is a garbage goal. Freedom should be the goal, and Capitalism and Christianity both are completely in line with people being free to choose their own life.

.

doesn't matter, classical economics is determined by the economic model that attains full employment as the single criteria for success

Full employment should never be the objective, because that requires force. You can't force people to get a job, if they refuse to do so.

.
an extract, derived from the classical criteria for full employment -
.
Thus the problem of full employment is one of maintaining adequate effective demand. “When effective demand is deficient,” writes Keynes, “there is underemployment of labour in the sense that there are men unemployed who would be willing to work at less than existing real wage.
.
the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment - the snippet above is an example of the many deviousness's of capitalism in regards for those that do seek employment.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries as a means of suppression for the personal gain of a few in the many facets of economic models and like yours have been endorsed by christianity throughout the centuries -

as devious as the quote in the christian bible.

the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end.

.

yours is a mindless argument used for centuries ...

the success of any economic model is gauged by the resultant accomplishment of full employment

No, it's not. Key claim is false, thus entire argument is false. The end

.
the run-away christian ...
.
View attachment 445377
.
nothing new there. the economist is keynes.

Again, the key claim in your argument was false. So the entire argument was false. If pointing out the truth, is running away in your world, then I'm glad to be counted as someone running away to the truth.

 

[Andylusion]

I do find it funny that Republican Christianity is so different from Biblical Christianity, that you guys have to condemn the pope. If Jesus was alive today, you'd hate that brown Socialist.

You should get a load of how different and whacked-out liberal "Christianity" is.

Liberal Christianity? You mean because they don't follow Hal Lindsey or believe in the Rapture?

No, that's the wackiness of mainstream and evangelical Christianity.

Liberal Christianity is voodoo Christianity; it incorporates Eastern spiritual practices. It teaches God as male and female and co-creator alongside humankind. It advocates for big government and disruptions in family cohesion. With their noses in the air, they accuse traditional Christians of moral superiority.

Most bizarre, I think, is that they deny the deity of Christ, which should make them not any kind of Christian. But then, as with everything else, they like to change definitions.

But so-called Liberal Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Conservatives only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

On the contrary, so-called Republican Christianity is more similar to Biblical Christianity when it comes to their view of the poor.
Liberals only care about Christianity when it comes to oppressing certain groups of people.

That's not true, because they scream and yell when we oppress no one. Samaritan's purse setup a free clinic in NYC, that was open to everyone, and they tried to have it closed.

As for Republicans and Christianity, yes both care about the poor in the same way, which is good and moral.

I know it's not true. I just did what PrincessAwesome did.

You miss nuance.

But what I did was actually true, whereas you were lying.
Liberals care about helping the poor, Conservatives say that helping the poor is "big government."
Conservatives only invoke Christianity when it comes to oppressing minorities.

Isn't it odd to you that a political party would invoke Christianity and then viciously lie and slander their opponent?

Viciously lie and slander? Like saying Trump was a Puppet of Putin, or Bret Kavanough was a rapist, or that Maga Hat people attacked Jussie Smollett in Chicago at 1 AM, at 14º below zero?

Pointing out that left-wingers are in fact liars, is not lies and slander.... it's fact.

"A", you state your case lucidly and well. Your arguments need to be heard, but hearing doesn't seem to go on very much in current American political dialog. It is almost all shouting and cliché exchange.
We share many similar thoughts and observations, though not all. "Left" and "right" in our culture don't function as meaningful terms anymore, thanks to distortion form all sides. The entire dictionary is nearly obsolete. My positions are mine and what labels people place on them are of no interest to me. "What works?" is what is important to me. This goes with the willingness to try something and the flexibility to change if the results are not what are desired. Overall, attaching to an "ism" looks to be much too limiting and often leads to dreadful excesses. "Eclecticism" is about the only one I could class as acceptable.
The early Christian communities were communistic by today's definitions, but that is not the "Communism" we saw in the 20th century and certainly no endorsement of it. In a basic manner, families are communal, in that those who can (the parents) work and those who need help (the children) receive help until they, too, can contribute. That's fine. Parenting should be a lifting up process ('raising' children). Society can take a lesson from that and help 'raise' the lesser enabled to a point at least closer to self sufficiency.

Calling that "Socialism" is a great way to sabotage what could be progress. At the same time, simple "aid" that only keeps the dependent dependent serves malevolent interests, not human ones.
There is too much fascination with formulaic, simplistic, one-size-fits-all, doctrinarian, polarized approaches. This duality is illusion and will not take us to the best destination, and may easily bring us to the end.

Good post..

Families are communal and depend on each other.. extended families live that social contract.. Conflating that with socialism seems like a stretch to me. Would you imagine that a small church congregation would help each other without being called communists??

There is nothing wrong with any of that, because it's not social control. Families helping each other, is not socialism. There is no social control, or controlling the means of production and distribution.

For example, the head of the family, still has one hundred percent ownership of his wealth and property. He choose to share that wealth with his family, or the community.

But he is not required to, or forced to.

If the father came home, and decided to not share his pay check, there is nothing anyone could do about it.

Socialism involves forcing people to give up control of their own wealth, property, and income. That's one of the key problems with claiming the Bible supports the concept of socialism, is that not one person was forced to share anything with anyone. And there were most certainly people who did not share with everyone, and we know that because Jesus himself was buried in the tomb of a rich man.

Under socialism the rich man would have his wealth confiscated from him, and distributed to those who had not earned it, and there would be no wealthy man's tomb for Jesus to be buried in.