Why I Am No Longer A Republican

[katherine2001]

Conservative beliefs about poverty and helping the poor certainly don't come from the Bible, at least the NT anyway. In fact, conservative beliefs about the poor are usually the total opposite of what Christ had to say about the poor. For that matter, Christ made it clear that you build treasures in heaven by giving away your earthly treasures. I wasn't aware that this is something that conservatives teach. They seem to think you should hold on to your earthly wealth.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Very glad to see that former Republicans here have seen the Light. Thank you for keeping an open mind.

I voted Republican in the 2012 election, because frankly, dogmatic strands of religion aren't good for people with anxiety. Even though I knew that there was pretty much no actual chance of Roe v. Wade being overturned by a Republican candidate, I still felt like I had to vote on that one issue or go to Hell.

Obviously, that was a mistake I'm never making again, and I felt disgusted by it even at the time.

 

[MachZer0]

Conservative beliefs about poverty and helping the poor certainly don't come from the Bible, at least the NT anyway. In fact, conservative beliefs about the poor are usually the total opposite of what Christ had to say about the poor. For that matter, Christ made it clear that you build treasures in heaven by giving away your earthly treasures. I wasn't aware that this is something that conservatives teach. They seem to think you should hold on to your earthly wealth.

Christ never said you could build treasures in Heaven by using the force of law to take money away from the person who earned it in order to give it to the person who didn't earn it

 

[MachZer0]

Actually, it is the opposite - Jesus was the world's # 1 Jewish liberal and the bible clearly proves it.

Jesus was a conservative. The Pharisees were the liberals of that day

 

[ObamaChristian]

Christ never said you could build treasures in Heaven by using the force of law to take money away from the person who earned it in order to give it to the person who didn't earn it

True, Jesus didn't use the force of law to take money from the rich.
He used the threat of hell on the rich in telling them to give the poor. Such a huge difference!

When did Jesus care at all about who earned what?

His motto was if anything, you didn't earn it, but I'll give it to you anyways.
Did Jesus make the poor earn the blessings he gave them?

What, did Jesus walk around saying, your lazy, you didn't earn this bread so I'm gonna let you starve?

I thought he told the rich to give to the poor, leave their possessions.
I thought Jesus told Rich people they were doomed to hell unless they gave to the poor.

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

Now Jesus didn't make the rich give to the poor, but he pretty much said, if you don't you are NOT going to heaven (at least the odds are IMPROBABLE). So I can understand the government throwing people in jail for not giving to the poor, if Jesus plans to throw them in hell for not giving to the poor.

 

[Viren]

Conservative beliefs about poverty and helping the poor certainly don't come from the Bible, at least the NT anyway. In fact, conservative beliefs about the poor are usually the total opposite of what Christ had to say about the poor. For that matter, Christ made it clear that you build treasures in heaven by giving away your earthly treasures. I wasn't aware that this is something that conservatives teach. They seem to think you should hold on to your earthly wealth.

They believe that is a personal decision and not a government thing. Why should one be so against the government giving to the the poor though? It seems like it shouldn't matter. If the Romans wanted to help the poor would Jesus have preached against it?

 

[ObamaChristian]

They believe that is a personal decision and not a government thing. Why should one be so against the government giving to the the poor though? It seems like it shouldn't matter. If the Romans wanted to help the poor would Jesus have preached against it?

I agree, that it's a personal decision. But what often times, they don't realize, is that if you make the wrong personal decision on this matter, Jesus has time and time again stated you are not going to heaven.

Throughout the New Testament, I can only think of one class of people that Jesus seemed to show legitimate disgust towards, and that is the rich. It seems there is almost no greater sin than being rich.

The only time Jesus has arguably might have used force was when he supposedly threw out the money changers from the temple, which were essentially just free market capitalists. He called them thieves.

The story of the Rich man and Lazarus, if anything adds to the fact that Jesus plans to send rich people to hell. Jesus himself has even stated that it is nearly impossible for rich people to enter heaven; "Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." -Jesus, Luke 18:25.

I mean, that line basically is Jesus saying, Rich people will not go to heaven!

I don't understand how these conservative christians can advocate free market principles and be Christians. The far right's obsession with abortion and homosexuality (which Jesus never spoke of), viewing it as greater sins than being rich, never fails to amaze me.

I don't know how rich people who are Christians ignore this stuff.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

They believe that is a personal decision and not a government thing. Why should one be so against the government giving to the the poor though? It seems like it shouldn't matter. If the Romans wanted to help the poor would Jesus have preached against it?

Why do people act morally superior for removing the option to not act morally superior?

If one removes the option of acting immorally by government force, then, by necessity, one cannot be said to have acted morally. If you say, "Give me money or I will send men to kill you," [which is the essence of government] then you cannot assert any claim to moral superiority.

Where did Jesus say, "Take from your neighbor, and then give to your other neighbor?"

 

[ObamaChristian]

Why do people act morally superior for removing the option to not act morally superior?

If one removes the option of acting immorally by government force, then, by necessity, one cannot be said to have acted morally. If you say, "Give me money or I will send men to kill you," [which is the essence of government] then you cannot assert any claim to moral superiority.

Where did Jesus say, "Take from your neighbor, and then give to your other neighbor?"

Well, Jesus did tell rich people to give to the poor or burn in hell.
True, Jesus didn't take their money, he just plans to throw them in hell if they don't give it (think the rich man and Larazus).

Government doesn't take your money either! Government just throws you in jail if you don't give it. Jesus just throws you in hell if you don't give it.

 

[Viren]

Why do people act morally superior for removing the option to not act morally superior?

If one removes the option of acting immorally by government force, then, by necessity, one cannot be said to have acted morally. If you say, "Give me money or I will send men to kill you," [which is the essence of government] then you cannot assert any claim to moral superiority.

Where did Jesus say, "Take from your neighbor, and then give to your other neighbor?"

Honestly, I don't think Jesus would care especially if the money was going to help the poor. Let them take, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile.

 

[Viren]

I agree, that it's a personal decision. But what often times, they don't realize, is that if you make the wrong personal decision on this matter, Jesus has time and time again stated you are not going to heaven.

Throughout the New Testament, I can only think of one class of people that Jesus seemed to show legitimate disgust towards, and that is the rich. It seems there is almost no greater sin than being rich.

The only time Jesus has arguably might have used force was when he supposedly threw out the money changers from the temple, which were essentially just free market capitalists. He called them thieves.

The story of the Rich man and Lazarus, if anything adds to the fact that Jesus plans to send rich people to hell. Jesus himself has even stated that it is nearly impossible for rich people to enter heaven; "Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." -Jesus, Luke 18:25.

I mean, that line basically is Jesus saying, Rich people will not go to heaven!

I don't understand how these conservative christians can advocate free market principles and be Christians. The far right's obsession with abortion and homosexuality (which Jesus never spoke of), viewing it as greater sins than being rich, never fails to amaze me.

I don't know how rich people who are Christians ignore this stuff.

It's because our society at the present time is constantly sending the message that being rich is good and being poor is bad. I was so surprised when I read the Bible that it doesn't say this at all! I think our society right now is similar to what it was like in Jesus's time. It is very materialistic.

 

[MachZer0]

Honestly, I don't think Jesus would care especially if the money was going to help the poor. Let them take, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile.

If someone robbed you on the street and gave the money to the poor do you think Jesus would care?

 

[Viren]

If someone robbed you on the street and gave the money to the poor do you think Jesus would care?

No, he said if someone takes your cloak don't stop him from taking your tunic.

 

[ObamaChristian]

If someone robbed you on the street and gave the money to the poor do you think Jesus would care?

I highly doubt Jesus would consider welfare programs to be robbing the rich.
Just because you characterize welfare problems as stealing doesn't make it so.

It's like saying Jesus is stealing because he made rich people go to hell for not giving to the poor, pretty sure Lazarus was thrown in hell for not giving to the poor. The government can throw you in jail, not much of a difference.

 

[MachZer0]

I highly doubt Jesus would consider welfare programs to be robbing the rich.
Just because you characterize welfare problems as stealing doesn't make it so.

It's like saying Jesus is stealing because he made rich people go to hell for not giving to the poor, pretty sure Lazarus was thrown in hell for not giving to the poor. The government can throw you in jail, not much of a difference.

And yet Jesus never advocated for forcibly taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to a person who didn't earn it

 

[ObamaChristian]

If someone robbed you on the street and gave the money to the poor do you think Jesus would care?

You have to think of it like this.
Being rich is literally a sin. It is a sin just to be rich.

I think Jesus called the money changers (wall street bankers) thieves. What were they doing? Nothing but business transactions. Well he called that stealing, and threw them out.

 

[MachZer0]

No, he said if someone takes your cloak don't stop him from taking your tunic.

Do you think that was a reference to robbery?

 

[ObamaChristian]

And yet Jesus never advocated for forcibly taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to a person who didn't earn it

Pretty sure he did. I'd say threatens of hell is essentially forcing you.
If you believe in hell, you better believe Jesus is forcing you to give away your money.

I'd say threats of hell from God himself, is much more forcing than someone physically taking it.

Let's paint a physical picture so you can understand the forcing part better.

Jesus says; Give away your money or you will end up in hell.

You are like: Nah Jesus is letting me choose whether to do it or not. So I don't have to if I don't want to.

After you are dead. Jesus has angels forcibly drag you to hell for being a rich man.

See how the forcing analogy works better now?

 

[Viren]

And yet Jesus never advocated for forcibly taking money from the person who earned it and giving it to a person who didn't earn it

Jesus, said to pay your taxes. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. He also never advocated being against the government giving to the poor.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I highly doubt Jesus would consider welfare programs to be robbing the rich.
Just because you characterize welfare problems as stealing doesn't make it so.

Well, just because you characterize them in the opposite manner doesn't make them "so" either.

And why do you "highly doubt" Jesus would consider welfare programs to be robbing the rich? Aren't the rich taxed - i.e. isn't money taken from them against their will to be spent on programs they don't support - a form of robbery?

If I took money from you, calling it a "tax," to spend on programs you neither believe in nor on what you want your money spent, how is that not robbing you? Just because I labeled it a "tax?"

It's like saying Jesus is stealing because he made rich people go to hell for not giving to the poor, pretty sure Lazarus was thrown in hell for not giving to the poor. The government can throw you in jail, not much of a difference.

Actually, it's not like saying that at all. Very, very poor attempt at an analogy.