• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians: Is the Republican party God's party?

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
Not trying to be judgmental, but some republicans call themselves Christians, stand up for what they call values but ignore the hungry- which Jesus told us specifically to take care of. And the widows, orphans, etc, as well. They have the message of Jesus all twisted, it seems sometimes. I don't really like to judge people, but that is the way it seems for some people out there.
 

fenrisx

Member
I can't count all the Christians I've met (mostly Evangelical) who list the moral issues like gay marriage and abortion as main reasons they vote for the Republican party. The Republican party has basically portrayed itself as God's party though they've tried to be subtle about it. Jerry Falwell, may he rest in peace, openly campaigned for Christians to keep voting for Republicans in the hopes that Republican presidents and Senates would nominate and approve canidates for the Supreme Court who would support the Christian positions on these two very divisive issues. Is voting for Republican the way for laws in harmony with our God's position to be put in place?


Like it or not, Jesus and God are above and outside American political partisanism. The fact some fundies dont get that shows their inherent limitations.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Let me put the question this way: Is the Republican party really the lesser of two evils hence sort of making it God's party?
Does the God you believe in settle for "less evil"?

As far as I know God han't registered yet. He would need to establish residence first.
He'd have to be naturalized as well. AFAIK, he wasn't even born in the US.

Not trying to be judgmental, but some republicans call themselves Christians, stand up for what they call values but ignore the hungry- which Jesus told us specifically to take care of. And the widows, orphans, etc, as well. They have the message of Jesus all twisted, it seems sometimes. I don't really like to judge people, but that is the way it seems for some people out there.
I think that I could reconcile a right-wing, small government position with Gospel values... but only if it's done in the spirit of "keep the government out of my business, because I'm busy helping the poor and needy, and I can do it better than they can." I don't see much of this in the modern-day Republican party.

But I don't think I'd ever be able to reconcile the Republican attitude toward war with the teachings of Jesus. IMO, "the party of Jesus" would be completely pacifist.
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
Does the God you believe in settle for "less evil"?


.

It's a broken world, God knows that. What's the other option? Not vote? I don't think so though I know Christians that refuse to vote because they consider all the options available are evil. I think Christians should think of voting as damage control. When you think the best you can do is minimize damage through your vote I think it makes your decision clearer.
 

idea

Question Everything
scriptures that support small government, everyone supporting them self etc. etc.

(Old Testament | Proverbs 6:6 - 8)
6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:
7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler,
8 Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest
.


The big difference between what is taught by the Democrats, and what is taught by the Bible - is the Bible teaches everyone to give of their own free will and choice - rather than forcing people to give.

(New Testament | Matthew 10:8) freely ye have received, freely give.

It's not charity if it is forcefully taken...
 

work in progress

Well-Known Member
scriptures that support small government, everyone supporting them self etc. etc.

(Old Testament | Proverbs 6:6 - 8)
6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:
7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler,
8 Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest
.


The big difference between what is taught by the Democrats, and what is taught by the Bible - is the Bible teaches everyone to give of their own free will and choice - rather than forcing people to give.

(New Testament | Matthew 10:8) freely ye have received, freely give.

It's not charity if it is forcefully taken...
If you want to cherrypick, you can justify anything from picking out the right bible verses! First, we have to start with the fact that the Bible is a collection of 66 books, not one book! And many of those books are in complete contradiction with others....we even have to make note of the fact that several books, like Genesis, Job, Isaiah, show clear textual evidence of having more than one authors.

Now, let's go to that commie book called Acts of the Apostles, where maybe you can explain for me the free market capitalism of those early disciples and explain how it's charity and not forceful expropriation of wealth, when God, or an angel or some other supernatural enforcer whacks a rich couple for trying to secretly hold back some of their loot from the community:
ACTS Chapter 4:
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.
33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
Now, how many rightwing Christians would yell "communism" if the same policies were advocated today? Continuing....


36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.


ACTS Chapter 5

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,​
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

No doubt the rest were filled with great fear! Trying to hold out some of your money from the disciples, and God sends an angel to put a hit out on you! Do these verses ever get taught in rightwing churches that glorify the rich, and scorn the poor?
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I can't count all the Christians I've met (mostly Evangelical) who list the moral issues like gay marriage and abortion as main reasons they vote for the Republican party. The Republican party has basically portrayed itself as God's party though they've tried to be subtle about it. Jerry Falwell, may he rest in peace, openly campaigned for Christians to keep voting for Republicans in the hopes that Republican presidents and Senates would nominate and approve canidates for the Supreme Court who would support the Christian positions on these two very divisive issues. Is voting for Republican the way for laws in harmony with our God's position to be put in place?


No.

There is NO political party that perfectly aligns itself with Christianity, though many politicians try to draw parallels and use the name of Christ to bolster their own credibility.

They'll answer for that one day - that's my opinion anyway.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Not trying to be judgmental, but some republicans call themselves Christians, stand up for what they call values but ignore the hungry- which Jesus told us specifically to take care of. And the widows, orphans, etc, as well. They have the message of Jesus all twisted, it seems sometimes. I don't really like to judge people, but that is the way it seems for some people out there.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Republicans do give more to charity than Democrats.

Arthur C. Brooks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who Really Cares
Brooks's first foray into the limelight was in 2006 with Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism. Originating in his research on philanthropy and drawing on survey data, he articulates a charity gap between the 75 percent of Americans who donate to charitable causes and the rest who do not. Brooks argues that there are three cultural values that best predict charitable giving: religious participation, political views, and family structure. Ninety-one percent of people who identify themselves as religious are likely to give to charity, writes Brooks, as opposed to 66 percent of people who do not. The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes. Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more. Finally, people who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity. One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals.
Brooks adopts what he calls a "polemic" tone when offering recommendations, urging that philanthropic giving not be crowded out by government programs and that giving must be cultivated in families and communities. He admits being surprised by his conclusion: "These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago. I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."


I'm just sayin'.
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
Let's rephrase the question: Would God choose the Republican party as the lesser of two evils and therefore the more worthy of the two parties to receive a Christian's vote?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Let's rephrase the question: Would God choose the Republican party as the lesser of two evils and therefore the more worthy of the two parties to receive a Christian's vote?



I believe God's concern is with the individual not a political party.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I think the bible explicitly teaches against being "lukewarm" in our faith and life. Therefore, I think the question about whether or not God sees the Republican party as the lesser of the evils and therefore more "worthy" of a Christian's vote is...well, ridiculous.

We have to vote our conscience. And frankly, I'm finding voting harder and harder to do with a clear conscience.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Let's rephrase the question: Would God choose the Republican party as the lesser of two evils and therefore the more worthy of the two parties to receive a Christian's vote?

I can see how a Christian could be so out of touch with reality that they would choose the Republican party as the lesser of "two evils."

But I really don't think that God would choose something that she knew was evil.

On another note, there's more than two parties. It would be the lesser of five evils or some such thing, assuming that all other parties are evil.
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
I can see how a Christian could be so out of touch with reality that they would choose the Republican party as the lesser of "two evils."

But I really don't think that God would choose something that she knew was evil.

On another note, there's more than two parties. It would be the lesser of five evils or some such thing, assuming that all other parties are evil.

The nature of our political system means only two parties have a chance. Voting for a canidate from the Green or Libertarian party is just avoiding the situation.

edit: Yes it is possible to influence elections through voting for third parties meaning that you take votes from either a Republican or a Democrat but I don't think that's what you had in mind. It's just a form of indirectly voting for one of the two major parties IMO.
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
Let me put the question this way: Is the Republican party really the lesser of two evils hence sort of making it God's party?

I suppose it depends whether you think Jesus' agenda consisted mainly of delivering aid, comfort and social influence to the poor, sick and alienated or whether it consisted mainly of punishing and alienating idlers, deviants, rebels and other non-conformists for their disobedience.

My old Christian church leaned toward the former. Republican Christians seem to lean toward the latter.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Republicans do give more to charity than Democrats.

Arthur C. Brooks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who Really Cares
Brooks's first foray into the limelight was in 2006 with Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism. Originating in his research on philanthropy and drawing on survey data, he articulates a charity gap between the 75 percent of Americans who donate to charitable causes and the rest who do not. Brooks argues that there are three cultural values that best predict charitable giving: religious participation, political views, and family structure. Ninety-one percent of people who identify themselves as religious are likely to give to charity, writes Brooks, as opposed to 66 percent of people who do not. The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes. Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more. Finally, people who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity. One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals.
Brooks adopts what he calls a "polemic" tone when offering recommendations, urging that philanthropic giving not be crowded out by government programs and that giving must be cultivated in families and communities. He admits being surprised by his conclusion: "These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago. I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."


I'm just sayin'.

Brooks includes tithing in his calculations.

'Nuff said.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Conservatives give more to charity than liberals. I know liberals hate that fact, but it is a fact.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Not all democrats are liberals and not all republicans are conservative, though. :eek:

True, but most liberals do not identify with the Republican party and most conservatives do not identify with the Democratic party.

Then you have the cool kids - the independents and the libertarians! :D We refuse to be constrained.
 
Top