Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[JCShutout]

Again, this is not the thread for this discussion.

That said, Jesus taught a personal faith and personal action within a community of faith. You go out and help the poor, don't just leave it to the government. Matthew 25.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the government shouldn't do good things. Far from it. Rather, for Jesus it was the personal acts of faith that matter, not the institutional ones.

Jesus was for both. Sin can, and is present in social structures as well as in the individual heart. When individuals combine their efforts to get more done, 99% of the time you need some form of gevernment/hierarchy to facilitate over it.

I individually can't get person A the medical care they need, but a local government initiative could. Sinful social structures are evil too.

[Freed Roger]

[quote="Fat Strat That said, Jesus taught a personal faith and personal action within a community of faith. You go out and help the poor, don't just leave it to the government. Matthew 25.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the government shouldn't do good things. Far from it. Rather, for Jesus it was the personal acts of faith that matter, not the institutional ones.[/quote]

Oh yes, the personal responsibility mantra. I couldn't agree more - thus Iraq, not the US Govt, should be personally responsible for their well-being. Any kind US citizens that want to help with this endeavor - then pay their own way over there and get at it.

[Cole Burns]

Because if there’s a poor child out there, that’s my child. If there’s a senior that’s having trouble, that’s my grandparent. If there’s a guy who’s lost his job, that’s my brother. If there’s a woman out there without healthcare, that’s my sister. Those are the values that built this country. Those are the values we are fighting for."[/i]

++ infinity. I'll risk a joeybomb: Its stuff like this (more democratic ideal than republican) that makes me confused why Christians stereotypically vote republican and why liberals tend to stereotypically shy away from Christianity. I mean, this is the Gospel. Do unto others... as you do to the least of these... love your neighbor as yourself (etc etc)...

I've noticed this irony.

I don't remember my Bible too well, but wouldn't you say Jesus was (or is if you prefer) a liberal? i.e. loaves and fishes. don't cast the first stone. the lepers. whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers? etc etc etc

if the evangelical GOPers gets control over everything - maybe they can edit out the New Testament.

Again, this is not the thread for this discussion.

That said, Jesus taught a personal faith and personal action within a community of faith. You go out and help the poor, don't just leave it to the government. Matthew 25.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the government shouldn't do good things. Far from it. Rather, for Jesus it was the personal acts of faith that matter, not the institutional ones.

Aw man, just when I think I'm out...

Okay, I agree with Fat on helping the poor. I think you do need to look at it in social context, though. The Roman gov't was in no position to start handing out aid. The US is the richest country in the world, and is in position to do so. It needs to be a balanced approach that isn't full of fraud or manipulation, etc. etc. etc. But, in Jesus' day he was a little more laisez faire about politics generally given the political environment of his day. That said, Jesus would be an independant. Just look at how he treated the Pharisees and the Saducees, the Dems and Reps of his day.

As for the loaves and fishes (can't let this one drop), what's really interesting about that story, and is often overlooked, is that the crowd tried to find Jesus the next day to get some more bread and fish. What did Jesus do? He said "no."

[Popeye_Card]

As for the loaves and fishes (can't let this one drop), what's really interesting about that story, and is often overlooked, is that the crowd tried to find Jesus the next day to get some more bread and fish. What did Jesus do? He said "no."

Ah, that's the old "give a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish" thing. That's what the government programs are for!

On a serious note, Obama hasn't really said anything about handouts to the poor, though his tax structure would certainly benefit them more. He has said many things about improving the education system, paying teachers more, making college more affordable, etc. Things much more along the lines of helping out, rather than handing out.

[JCShutout]

As for the loaves and fishes (can't let this one drop), what's really interesting about that story, and is often overlooked, is that the crowd tried to find Jesus the next day to get some more bread and fish. What did Jesus do? He said "no."

Ah, that's the old "give a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish" thing. That's what the government programs are for!

On a serious note, Obama hasn't really said anything about handouts to the poor, though his tax structure would certainly benefit them more. He has said many things about improving the education system, paying teachers more, making college more affordable, etc. Things much more along the lines of helping out, rather than handing out.

++. What I was starting to type. Programs to up education and other empowerment tools to ensure people have a more equal opportunity.

[Freed Roger]

Because if there’s a poor child out there, that’s my child. If there’s a senior that’s having trouble, that’s my grandparent. If there’s a guy who’s lost his job, that’s my brother. If there’s a woman out there without healthcare, that’s my sister. Those are the values that built this country. Those are the values we are fighting for."[/i]

++ infinity. I'll risk a joeybomb: Its stuff like this (more democratic ideal than republican) that makes me confused why Christians stereotypically vote republican and why liberals tend to stereotypically shy away from Christianity. I mean, this is the Gospel. Do unto others... as you do to the least of these... love your neighbor as yourself (etc etc)...

I've noticed this irony.

I don't remember my Bible too well, but wouldn't you say Jesus was (or is if you prefer) a liberal? i.e. loaves and fishes. don't cast the first stone. the lepers. whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers? etc etc etc

if the evangelical GOPers gets control over everything - maybe they can edit out the New Testament.

Again, this is not the thread for this discussion.

That said, Jesus taught a personal faith and personal action within a community of faith. You go out and help the poor, don't just leave it to the government. Matthew 25.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the government shouldn't do good things. Far from it. Rather, for Jesus it was the personal acts of faith that matter, not the institutional ones.

Aw man, just when I think I'm out...

Okay, I agree with Fat on helping the poor. I think you do need to look at it in social context, though. The Roman gov't was in no position to start handing out aid. The US is the richest country in the world, and is in position to do so. It needs to be a balanced approach that isn't full of fraud or manipulation, etc. etc. etc. But, in Jesus' day he was a little more laisez faire about politics generally given the political environment of his day. That said, Jesus would be an independant. Just look at how he treated the Pharisees and the Saducees, the Dems and Reps of his day.

As for the loaves and fishes (can't let this one drop), what's really interesting about that story, and is often overlooked, is that the crowd tried to find Jesus the next day to get some more bread and fish. What did Jesus do? He said "no."

Excellent points by all. Yes, I agree, Jesus was a neither a dem or republican. But keep in mind these party affiliations are is different than liberal or conservative (or a mix). And just because you are liberal - it doesn't mean you endorse bad or useless government. that imagery is creation of GOP marketing.

A couple of good examples of Jesus conservative leanings were given. Two could go back and forth trading Bible examples of His liberal leanings all day long . But that is beside the point. The point was - GOP tend to invoke their Christian values into politics, but this is hypocritical, because they pick and choose which values to invoke.


I still contend Jesus leans left.

[Cole Burns]

As for the loaves and fishes (can't let this one drop), what's really interesting about that story, and is often overlooked, is that the crowd tried to find Jesus the next day to get some more bread and fish. What did Jesus do? He said "no."

Ah, that's the old "give a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish" thing. That's what the government programs are for!

No, it was actually about Jesus pointing to his divinity. The crowd wasn't trusting in Jesus as God, they were just trusting in him to fill their stomachs. There was a famine at the time, there was no way for them to learn to fish. Jesus was trying to teach them that there were more improtant things than food and that they missed the point of his miracle.

Politically, the point is you can't use this miracle to say Jesus was for social programs. There were no social programs in his day so it's a moot point. We have to look elsewhere, in his teaching, to find his response to something like that. The best scripture to use is Jesus saying, "When you do this (clothe, feed, visit) to the least of them, you do it to me." His point here is that the debate should be over, we help the poor and needy wihtout reservation, but we have to lead the front as Christians, not expect the gov't to do it even if they do.

I don't trhow my religious beliefs around on this forum, but I make no bones about being a Christian. I think most Christians need to be seen before they are heard. I would never advocate my view on gov't welfare if I weren't doing something in a personal way about it first. I'm not going to detail my social work here (FatStrat and I have both been talking lately about what we're doing in this area), that would be boasting. But I've done my part, not just giving money, to help those in need.

I'm pretty neutral on gov't welfare, but I think the church could/should do more (and in some cases are doing more - pat on the back - ). Those of you who may fall into the socialist camp, that it's the gov't responsibility to help the poor, ask yourself this: Am I doing all that I can do personally to help those in need? If yes, then argue away. If not, get busy working before you start talking.

[JCShutout]

I get your point, but I think it's misguided. Yes, there's jobs being created overseas, but they're moving there because they can pay people less there to do the same thing. That's just taking advantage of people, and further exploiting them.

Yes, businesses are outsourcing these jobs to foreign countries because they can pay the workers a lower wage for the same work. That's taking advantage of the global marketplace.

As far as "exploiting" those workers, one would have to know more than the simple fact that they make less than an American worker would make to do the same work. Things like cost of living and whatnot.

I'm not saying "go sweatshops!" or anything like that, but if foreign workers are making more than they would otherwise to do these jobs, and the businesses are paying less than it would cost to pay a domestic worker for the equivalent work, then both sides benefit.

/Devil's Advocate

I don't think so. The UN and even the worldbank does a lot of studies on what a family of four would need to survive (basic necessities which exclude travel expense, clothing expense, healthcare or education expenses). In many of these nations (or atleast the latin american ones I've looked at), the vast majority of the population still don't make enough (or barely do) to even cover that.

Also take into account that if we own the companies that employ most of the people in a nation, the profits don't go into that nation, they go to us.

I don't think anyone's saying globalization solves these problems, but there's no doubt that a family of four making more money due to an "outsourced" job is a good thing for them and that increased wages benefit those people to some extent.

Sure, and the GNP is higher, but then why is the distribution of wealth so much worse in many of these countries in the last 30 years? I just don't think its nearly enough. If we're going to own the means to production, then we need to pay them a wage that is similar to what we would pay here, standard of living wise. If that doesn't save us money... then heck, maybe we should just have more factories here.

I think they should own the factories. You know, competition is a good thing, and all that...

[AJ]

I hope the dems throw Liebermans ass out of the senate caucus after the next election (assuming they have enough for a comfortable majority)

Judas anyone?

Who turned on who?

Seems like it was the dems in Delaware left him high and dry in his re-election bid. It's not like Joe's views have morphed dramatically over the years. The party has moved away from him, imo. Oh well, he took his revenge, though, that's for sure in the general. He's still voting pretty solidly democratic.

I don't think that's right. It really was just all about the Iraq War and still is. Lieberman was and is a staunch supporter of the war. It was based on that that his Connecticut (not Del.) democratic supporters didn't vote for him in the primary (which in my view was perfectly understandable) and then he decided to run as an independent and won.

The dems still let him keep his leadership positions and seniority even though he still wasn't a dem, that is everything in the Senate.

[JCShutout]

Politically, the point is you can't use this miracle to say Jesus was for social programs. There were no social programs in his day so it's a moot point. We have to look elsewhere, in his teaching, to find his response to something like that. The best scripture to use is Jesus saying, "When you do this (clothe, feed, visit) to the least of them, you do it to me." His point here is that the debate should be over, we help the poor and needy wihtout reservation, but we have to lead the front as Christians, not expect the gov't to do it even if they do.

I won't get into the loaves and fishes because I personally haven't researched that section as much, but whoa, there were TONS of social programs through the temple. Read like 70% of the laws dude. Tons of money, donations, food which went to the poor. Rules to ensure people didn't get screwed over on borrowing, etc. Rules to make sure the poor weren't overworked or taken advantage of. Rules to lift people from debt every 7 years. Jesus supported these and even condemned those who used their religious and economic power to suppress. Jesus even directly challanged social structures by talking and associating with women, non-Jews and lepers, treating them as equals, and thus criticizing the system that considered them otherwise.

How we interpret the importance of those is where we're at now.

The real differences here though, are that I'm a liberation theologian christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology), fat is not, even though his church is pretty socially concious (based on that facebook thing you sent about your church). The only (major) difference between us IMO (let me know if I'm wrong) is that I think the poor are a/the primary part of God's message, and Fat thinks its a secondary effect of the faith. I'm not concerned with getting into heaven as much as bringing the kindom to earth. Not that there isn't a concern for the here and now with fat's group, it just isn't as primary. (let me know if that's off)

I really have the upmost respect for Fat, because he and his group DOES incorporate both sides of the spectrum. I'd take it further to the left than him, but I respect their efforts and easily consider him an ally. If that makes sense.

Sorry, that was rushed because I NEED to get back to work.

EDIT (because as soon as I go back to work, everything stalls): I meant to type this in another post but must have taken it out. I don't think "liberal" or "conservative" should be used to define Jesus. I think you can support local grass-roots and smaller-government initiatives (more typical republican) to deal with a lot of these issues too. it just seems like at this time, both R and D = lots of red tape, so the small government point was moot.