I understand why you don't feel there's a "viable" third party, but what about my other suggestion, changing the party rather than letting it change you? Why are Republicans content to let these immoralities remain? You have yourself admitted to these imperfections, but all I see here is another attempt to defend them rather than a person committed to fixing them.
Number 5:20-22 describe what a couple is to do if they think that the wife has possibly cheated. She drinks a potion made by the priest, and that potion causes her "thighs to rot" in Numbers 5:27 if she has indeed "done trespass against her husband". Do you understand what this old-timey language is describing? She becomes infertile, and if she's carrying a child (the obvious reason that this is done) then that child becomes aborted. Come on, this is really lazy on your part. You didn't even tell me what you thought the passage meant, but instead were just dismissive of it.
While it's true that fertile cells are potential adults, so are unfertilized cells (for example, egg cells lost in a period). But I'm sure you don't feel that a period is "a human death". The place that you draw the line is arbitrary. The question about killing an adult who doesn't feel pain is a good one, and I'd say that the answer is probably "yes" if his or her death doesn't cause someone else pain (remember, abortions are done by parents who don't want the child). You said nothing about miscarriage... did you not read that or simply skip over it because you couldn't argue against it? If you place this value on fertilized cells (and you do), isn't a miscarriage a human death? Is this not carried out or at least allowed to happen by God to this innocent "human life"? God is, by your definition, the most prolific abortionist of all. Please don't ignore this a second time.
Why do you assert that "a rich man is not the one who has the most"? That's literally the definition of rich. I agree with you that the opposite of love of money is contentment, but that's what defines "love of money" as greed. The Republican party clearly supports the "job creators" who weren't satisfied with enough to live on but rather took risks to becomes wealthier than their peers. I understand the logical uses of capitalism, but the bible doesn't support this system, as I've pointed out several times already.
Where do you get your cultural ideas about "turning the other cheek"? This elaboration didn't come from the bible, yet you seem to trust it as if it had. My own understanding came from context -- Matthew 5:44 goes on to say "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you". The reason for "turning the other cheek" isn't judicial economy but rather to "take the high road" over seeking vengeance. This idea also makes sense of "giving to those who ask or borrow" in Matthew 5:42. What does this verse have to do with legal issues? Nothing. It's simply putting others before yourself, acting out of love rather than selfishness, which self-defense doesn't do.
This is not the time or place for discussions about what makes something "unbiased" or credible, but if you felt that Wikipedia was not a trustworthy source, why didn't you look up The Southern Strategy in something that was? It sounds like you just want a reason to dismiss this topic without addressing it, and you're doing that by attacking the source of the argument (ad hominem). Are you going to look this up, or does this topic make you so uncomfortable that you simply won't address it?
You cited several passages about "grace", which is a good way to get to its meaning, but you didn't draw any conclusions from them. Are you arguing that this grace is simply non-inclusive of things that the bible didn't specifically mention? That's an argument of evidence of absence from an absence of evidence. To this specific point, showing grace towards "your neighbor", or simply "people in need", Jesus made this point clear in the parable of the Good Samaritan (which I cited in my original post because it was so relevant). As I've already said, the victim didn't do anything to deserve special treatment, but was treated kindly because the Samaritan was showing the love that Jesus commanded (and as 1 Corinthians 13:5 clarifies, part of love is putting others ahead of yourself). We also see commands to feed the poor in places like Luke 14:13 If the government is "based on the bible" or at least supposed to be, why would any Republican Christian resist making charity a duty of the government? This isn't a Christian ideal, but only a Republican one.
If you don't understand the poor, then please take it from an expert. When people win millions in the lottery but end up in debt, that's not because "throwing money at a problem isn't the solution". Those are examples of people who don't love money. I also don't love money, and would probably end up the same way. If I had money, I'd spend it on the things I want, because that's all that money is good for... it's just a middleman. I wouldn't bother to try to acquire more money with it, or hold onto it for status, though I would like to save some of it as a buffer against future poverty. But do you grasp how much money you save by being wealthy? Taking on debt costs money. Being late for payments costs money. It's a bad cycle. Simply giving a person food only helps them eat another day, but giving them enough money to buy it in bulk, for example, or to buy food that they'll actually eat all of is much better. It's cheaper to cook food, and not having a home means eating out a lot.
You claim that "Republicans give more to charity", but I'm specifically discussing government-endorsed charity. If Republicans are "pro charity" as you believe they are, then why do they fight government charity? I've seen you give several reasons for why you prefer it to come from your pocket, but you understand that many wealthy people simply wouldn't give if they didn't have to, right? They're not all like you. As has been demonstrated so often in the past, programs that depend on public support are so much poorer than government programs for the obvious reason that enforcing donations will get more of them. Are you ignorant of the many claims made by Republicans to demonize the poor? Welfare has become a dirty word, and the receivers of it are "evil", which is very contradictory to how the bible paints the poor.
I hadn't read both accounts for sometime and thought that I had missed something or forgotten something. Jesus is circumcised on the eight day. After 40 days they go to Jerusalem for the purification ceremony. Bethlehem to Jerusalem was about a 6 mile walk.
